[EL] CLC Head in the Sand
Jonathan Singer
jonathanhsinger at gmail.com
Wed Mar 27 12:54:04 PDT 2013
Since there was little to no inflation in the 1970s, obviously the drafters
of the 1970s reform (and the Supreme Court that largely upheld the law)
didn't make the judgment that a biennial inflation adjustment was needed,
and instead only inadvertently omitted such an adjustment.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:
> Exactly. I've noted many times that to a very substantial extent, the
> soft money "problem" of the 1990s early 2000s was really a hard money
> problem - in 1974, if someone gave $20,000 to the party it was all "hard
> money," but in 2000, if someone gave the party $70,000 (a little less than
> that original $20K adjusted for inflation) people screamed about $50,000 in
> "soft money."
>
> It's also worth pointing out that while BCRA only adjusted for for far
> less than inflation for individual contributions to candidates and
> parties (and whether or not CLC took a position, most reform organizations
> opposed any increase and had to be dragged to that partial increase kicking
> and screaming as the only way to get the votes), it did not increase other
> limits at all, including contribution limits from individuals to PACs, and
> from PACs to candidates and parties. Had those numbers been adjusted for
> inflation, individuals could contribute (and I'll round here) $23,500 to
> PACs (rather than the current $5000), and PACs could contribute that same
> amount to candidates (rather than the current $5000). PACs, limited since
> 1974 to contributing $15,000 to parties, could contribute $70,600 to
> parties.
>
> BCRA also imposed limits on giving to state parties for the first time.
>
> The fact is, we are operating under hard dollar limits that are
> substantially lower than those originally approved passed in 1974, and
> considered by the Buckley court at that time.
>
> *Bradley A. Smith*
>
> *Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault*
>
> * Professor of Law*
>
> *Capital University Law School*
>
> *303 E. Broad St.*
>
> *Columbus, OH 43215*
>
> *614.236.6317*
>
> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx*
> ------------------------------
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Ray La Raja [
> laraja at polsci.umass.edu]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:08 AM
> *To:* Paul Ryan
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] CLC Head in the Sand
>
> One more note about contribution limits. If BCRA had adjusted the
> individual limit of $1000 to simply reflect inflation since 1974, that
> limit would now be $4,700 per election in 2012. "Raising" the
> contribution limit to $2000 under BCRA actually reflects a much tighter
> limit than what reformers settled on in 1974.
>
> Similarly, for individual contributions to parties. A $20,000 limit in
> 1974 would now be equivalent to $94,000 (or $188,000 per cycle). That's
> much lower than the BCRA "increase" to just $25,000 for parties (which is
> the equivalent of setting an individual limit on party contributions of
> $5,300 in 1974 instead of $20,000).
> Ray
>
> On Mar 27, 2013, at 8:40 AM, Ray La Raja <laraja at polsci.umass.edu> wrote:
>
> Paul,
> Regarding the data on party money, my understanding from the Center for
> Responsive Politics is that the figures you referred to in your original
> post inflate party fundraising significantly because they don't exclude the
> transfers between party committees. When these are backed out party
> financing has declined in presidential cycles (though not precipitously)
> from a high of $1.8 billion in 2004 to just under $1.6 billion in 2012
> (adjusted for 2012 dollars). The percentage decline has been deeper in
> midterm elections going from a high of $1.5 billion in 2002 to $1.2 billion
> in 2010. The latter is especially surprising since it was a year in which
> control over Congress was in play. Party fundraising was also down in 2006
> when Democrats took over compared to 2002. Non-party fundraising has gone
> up throughout this period, although I don't have the numbers in front of me.
> Ray
>
> Ray La Raja
> Associate Professor
> Department of Political Science
> University of Massachusetts, Amherst
> http://polsci.umass.edu/profiles/la-raja_ray/home
>
> On Mar 26, 2013, at 6:11 PM, Paul Ryan <PRyan at campaignlegalcenter.org>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Jim. I have a few thoughts and questions in response.
>
> First, what’s the basis for your assertion that the CLC “opposed raising
> the contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000 for candidates in
> McCain-Feingold”? The McCain-Feingold law was enacted in March 2002. The
> CLC wasn’t incorporated until January 2002 and took a few months to get up
> and running. As far as I know, the CLC didn’t do any advocacy work with
> respect to the McCain-Feingold law and didn’t oppose the contribution limit
> increase. On the contrary, once CLC was up and running, it served as part
> of the legal team representing the law’s principal Congressional sponsors
> (McCain, Feingold, Shays, Meehan, Snowe, Jeffords) as defendant-intervenors
> in *McConnell v. FEC*,* *defending the law in its entirety—including the
> increased contribution limit. For example, here’s a link<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/attachments/BCRA_MCCAIN_FEINGOLD/McConnell_v_FEC_District_Court/341.pdf>
> to the section of our district court brief defending the increased
> contribution limit (beginning on p. 208). Is there some CLC history that
> I’m unaware of?
>
> Second, regarding national party fundraising, I relied on data reported
> by the parties to the FEC for the piece I wrote for the CLC blog. You
> dismiss the fact that parties have continually raised more and more money
> post-McCain-Feingold, asserting that these data don’t matter because even
> though “national political parties ‘raised more money,’ they had less money
> to spend on politics.” I’m open to this possibility; will you point me to
> the data you’re relying on for your analysis? You lament the cost of
> prospect mail, other direct mail and telemarketing—old-school forms of
> fundraising—while the RNC’s report describes “direct mail prospecting” as
> “low cost.” What does your data show about the use of even less expensive
> Internet-based fundraising techniques? Does your data show differences in
> fundraising strategies and costs between parties? Is Internet-based
> fundraising on the rise? How does the RNC’s plan to “significantly work to
> grow its digital fundraising efforts” impact your analysis?
>
> Third, I’m happy to read your acknowledgement that “relative influence”
> matters when it comes to money in politics. For years I’ve thought you
> objected to any public interest in a level campaign finance playing field,
> but in your email today you explain that what matters is “the total
> spending in each [election] and the national parties share.” You complain
> that the “national political parties are not keeping pace so their relative
> influence has declined.” Shouldn’t we also be concerned about the total
> spending in each election and the average person’s share, because the
> average person is not keeping pace with wealthy donors and the average
> person’s relative influence has declined? Of course, the average person
> can’t afford to make a contribution anywhere close to the current $32,400
> limit on contributions to national party committees, so it’s difficult to
> imagine how repealing the limit would increase the “relative influence” of
> the average person.
>
> Best,
>
> Paul Seamus Ryan
> Senior Counsel
> The Campaign Legal Center
> 215 E Street NE
> Washington, DC 20002
> Ph. (202) 736-2200 ext. 214
> Mobile Ph. (202) 262-7315
> Fax (202) 736-2222
> Website: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/
> Blog: http://www.clcblog.org/
> To sign up for the CLC Blog, visit:
> http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_forme&fid=1&Itemid=63
> Follow us on Twitter @CampaignLegal <http://bit.ly/j8Q1bg>
> Become a fan on Facebook <http://on.fb.me/jroDv2>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-
> election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *JBoppjr at aol.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 26, 2013 11:48 AM
> *To:* rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] CLC Head in the Sand
>
> Regarding the recent press release from the CLC, which should have be
> entitled "CLC Keeps its Head in the Sand, no matter what":
> “GOP Heading Back to the Future” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48718>
> Posted on March 25, 2013 1:06 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48718> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Paul Ryan<http://www.clcblog.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=513:gop-heading-back-to-the-future>
> of CLC:
>
> Last week the Republican National Committee published its Growth &
> Opportunity Project report <http://growthopp.gop.com/default.aspx> “provid[ing]
> an honest review of the 2012 election cycle and a path forward for the
> Republican Party to ensure success in winning more elections.” When it
> comes to campaign finance policy, the RNC apparently believes that the path
> forward is a journey back in time to the pre-McCain-Feingold era, claiming
> that “the free speech rights of political parties and federal candidates
> remain smothered by McCain-Feingold” and recommending that a variety of
> contribution limits applicable to political party committees and federal
> candidates be repealed or increased.
>
> Contrary to the RNC’s claim that the party’s free speech rights have been
> “smothered by McCain-Feingold,” the party raised more money during the 2012
> election cycle than ever before. According to the Center for Responsive
> Politics, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party each raised more
> than $1 billion during the 2012 cycle<http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.php?cmte=&cycle=2012>,
> shattering previous fundraising totals both pre- and post-McCain Feingold.
> With regard to fundraising, the parties seem to be doing just fine under
> existing limits.
>
> There are so many errors and so little time:
>
> (1) CLC compares apples and oranges. The cost of fundraising is much
> less for high dollar than low dollar fundraising. What is important is the
> net. Prospect mail generally does not pay for itself but it is expensive
> and runs up the total expenses by the group with no net money to spend.
> Raising money from small donors by direct mail and telemarketing is also
> expensive. So while national political parties "raised more money," they
> had less money to spend on politics.
>
> (2) The proper comparison is not with the national party spending from
> election cycle to election cycle but the total spending in each and the
> national parties share. Of course, this amount is skyrocketing, mainly as
> a result of Super PAC (see other CLC press releases). The national
> political parties are not keeping pace so their relative influence has
> declined. Same with candidates.
>
> (3) Of course, it would be worse if the CLC got its way. They opposed
> raising the contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000 for candidates in
> McCain-Feingold screaming that we would be awash in candidates selling
> their votes. Of course that has not happened, just like in states without
> any contribution limits at all. After all, you cannot even buy a Democrat
> Congressman for $2,500 these days. The anecdotal evidence is $99,000 in
> cold hard cash (Congressman Jefferson) to $140,000 (Duke Cunningham) to at
> least buy one.
>
> (4) Finally, CLC also says that large contributions to Super PACs are
> corrupting so in their universe there is corruption either way. But voters
> cannot vote against Super PACs but can vote against candidates or
> candidates of a particular political party. So at least if we raise
> candidate and political party contribution limits, if CLC is right, then
> voters can at least vote against them.
>
> Jim Bopp
>
> In a message dated 3/26/2013 11:06:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>
> “Same-sex marriage: Court on the couch”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48742>
> Posted on March 26, 2013 8:05 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48742> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I have written this piece<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/03/26/same-sex-marriage-court-on-the-couch/>
> for Reuters Opinion. It begins:
>
> Will Justice Anthony Kennedy’s support for a constitutional right to gay
> marriage doom the constitutionality of affirmative action and a key
> provision of the Voting Rights Act? To answer this question, legal
> scholars need to know less about constitutional law and more about human
> psychology.
>
> Consider last year, when Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, for
> example, surprisingly sided with the court’s four liberal members in
> upholding President Barack Obama’s healthcare law<http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Natl_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v_Sebelius_No_Nos_11393_1>
> against constitutional challenge. It was a stunning choice for the
> conservative jurist. The reaction of Nate Persily<http://www.law.columbia.edu/fac/Nathaniel_Persily>,
> a leading U.S. election law scholar, was: “There goes the Voting Rights
> Act.”
>
> At first, the connection between the two cases may seem tenuous. They
> don’t involve the same issues. The healthcare case was based on Congress’s
> power to regulate commerce and to tax. In *Shelby County v. Holder*<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/shelby-county-v-holder/?wpmp_switcher=desktop>,
> heard last month and expected to be decided in June, the court is
> considering whether Congress’s power to enforce equal rights, especially in
> voting, includes the power to continue federal oversight of elections in
> certain states that have a history of racial discrimination.
>
> But Persily’s observation seems correct, and it illustrates how Supreme
> Court watchers often use amateur psychoanalysis of the justices. For
> example, a chief justice, feeling constrained by public opinion or
> concerned about the court’s legacy, may give in on one case in order to
> gain more political capital to spend on another controversial case.
>
> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48742&title=%E2%80%9CSame-sex%20marriage%3A%20Court%20on%20the%20couch%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
> “Split Senate backs bill reining in ‘dark money’”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48739>
> Posted on March 26, 2013 7:31 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48739> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The latest<http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/state_government/legislature/article_62d85030-95c5-11e2-bd38-001a4bcf887a.html>
> from Montana.
> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48739&title=%E2%80%9CSplit%20Senate%20backs%20bill%20reining%20in%20%E2%80%98dark%20money%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> “McDonnell signs bill requiring photo ID for voting”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48736>
> Posted on March 26, 2013 7:27 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48736> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Richmond Times Dispatch: “<http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/latest-news/mcdonnell-signs-bill-requiring-photo-id-for-voting/article_03e9445c-9611-11e2-b05d-0019bb30f31a.html>Gov.
> Bob McDonnell has signed legislation requiring voters to present photo ID
> at the polls.”
>
> The law now requires approval from DOJ or a court under section 5 of the
> Voting Rights Act.
>
>
> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48736&title=%E2%80%9CMcDonnell%20signs%20bill%20requiring%20photo%20ID%20for%20voting%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
> The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
> , Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
> “Ex-lawmakers go to lobbying-related jobs”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48733>
> Posted on March 26, 2013 7:23 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48733> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> USA Today reports<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/03/25/former-lawmakers-lobbying-jobs/2011325/>
> .
> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48733&title=%E2%80%9CEx-lawmakers%20go%20to%20lobbying-related%20jobs%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in legislation and legislatures<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>
> , lobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28> | Comments Off
> “Public Citizen Applauds 70 Members of Congress Who Urge the SEC to
> Require Disclosure of Corporate Political Spending”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48730>
> Posted on March 25, 2013 4:50 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48730> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The following statement from Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen arrived via
> email:
>
> Public Citizen applauds the 70 members of the U.S. House of
> Representatives, led by Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Michael Capuano
> (D-Mass.), who sent a letter<http://www.citizen.org/documents/sec-corporate-political-disclosure-letter.pdf>
> to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) today urging it to
> follow through on its stated agenda and require disclosure of political
> spending by corporations.
>
> Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s *Citizens United v. Federal Election
> Commission* decision, corporations have been able to spend money freely
> on elections, and often do so by giving funds to “dark money” organizations
> not required to disclose the identities of their donors. But investors have
> a right to know how their money – a corporation’s profits –– is being
> spent. The trouble is, there is no requirement that companies share this
> information.
>
> The letter stated:
>
> “Some companies have taken the initiative to publicly disclose their
> political spending which illustrates not only the ease with which it can be
> accomplished but also the acceptance of many prominent and large
> corporations. Unfortunately, however, other companies have kept their
> shareholders in the dark and unaware that their money could be funding
> political activities, or even political attack ads. The rights of
> shareholders must be protected.”
>
> The SEC has received a record-breaking deluge of 490,000 comments urging
> disclosure of political spending. In addition, a Zogby International poll
> commissioned by the Center for Economic Development found that 77 percent
> of business leaders said that corporations should disclose all of their
> direct and indirect political expenditures. The SEC has taken the public
> and investor demand for greater disclosure into account and has begun to
> consider a rulemaking in response.
>
> These members of Congress have it right; the SEC can and should move this
> rule forward. It is critical both for democracy and the rights of the
> marketplace investor.
>
> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48730&title=%E2%80%9CPublic%20Citizen%20Applauds%2070%20Members%20of%20Congress%20Who%20Urge%20the%20SEC%20to%20Require%20Disclosure%20of%20Corporate%20Political%20Spending%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> “‘Battleground Texas’ Still Many Years Away”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48727>
> Posted on March 25, 2013 4:44 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48727> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> This item<http://www.fairvote.org/battleground-texas-still-many-years-away#.UVDhCxm9azs>
> appears at the FairVote blog.
> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48727&title=%E2%80%9C%E2%80%98Battleground%20Texas%E2%80%99%20Still%20Many%20Years%20Away%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in political parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, political
> polarization <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68> | Comments Off
> “3 things Beavers’ trial revealed about Illinois political cash”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48723>
> Posted on March 25, 2013 1:10 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48723> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> WBEZ reports<http://www.wbez.org/3-things-beavers-trial-revealed-about-illinois-political-cash-106264>
> .
> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48723&title=%E2%80%9C3%20things%20Beavers%E2%80%99%20trial%20revealed%20about%20Illinois%20political%20cash%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
> “Arkansas governor vetoes bill requiring voters to show photo
> identification at polls” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48721>
> Posted on March 25, 2013 1:09 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48721> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP reports<http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/9b7706356bfd46d5b3b166a668ad58ae/AR--Arkansas-Voter-ID>
> .
> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48721&title=%E2%80%9CArkansas%20governor%20vetoes%20bill%20requiring%20voters%20to%20show%20photo%20identification%20at%20polls%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
> The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
> | Comments Off
> “GOP Heading Back to the Future” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48718>
> Posted on March 25, 2013 1:06 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48718> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Paul Ryan<http://www.clcblog.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=513:gop-heading-back-to-the-future>
> of CLC:
>
> Last week the Republican National Committee published its Growth &
> Opportunity Project report <http://growthopp.gop.com/default.aspx> “provid[ing]
> an honest review of the 2012 election cycle and a path forward for the
> Republican Party to ensure success in winning more elections.” When it
> comes to campaign finance policy, the RNC apparently believes that the path
> forward is a journey back in time to the pre-McCain-Feingold era, claiming
> that “the free speech rights of political parties and federal candidates
> remain smothered by McCain-Feingold” and recommending that a variety of
> contribution limits applicable to political party committees and federal
> candidates be repealed or increased.
>
> Contrary to the RNC’s claim that the party’s free speech rights have been
> “smothered by McCain-Feingold,” the party raised more money during the 2012
> election cycle than ever before. According to the Center for Responsive
> Politics, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party each raised more
> than $1 billion during the 2012 cycle<http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.php?cmte=&cycle=2012>,
> shattering previous fundraising totals both pre- and post-McCain Feingold.
> With regard to fundraising, the parties seem to be doing just fine under
> existing limits.
>
> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48718&title=%E2%80%9CGOP%20Heading%20Back%20to%20the%20Future%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, political
> parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25> | Comments Off
> “Hiroshima Court Rules Election Invalid”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48716>
> Posted on March 25, 2013 1:05 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48716> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> WSJ<http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2013/03/25/hiroshima-court-rules-election-invalid/>:
> “In a landmark ruling Monday, a Hiroshima court ruled the results of the
> December lower-house election invalid in two districts due to the
> disproportionate weighting of votes in those districts.”
> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48716&title=%E2%80%9CHiroshima%20Court%20Rules%20Election%20Invalid%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> | Comments
> Off
> “Equal Protection Challenge to Virginia’s Felony Disenfranchisement
> Provision Survives Summary Judgment” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48714>
> Posted on March 25, 2013 1:04 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48714> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> State of Elections<http://electls.blogs.wm.edu/2013/03/25/equal-protection-challenge-to-virginias-felony-disenfranchisement-survives-summary-judgment/>:
> “The US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on Friday
> granted <http://electls.blogs.wm.edu/files/2013/03/El-Amin-Opinion-2.pdf> the
> State’s summary judgment motion on substantive and procedural due process
> challenges to Virginia’s voter reinstatement process for convicted felons,
> as well as an Eight Amendment challenge to the disenfranchisement of felons
> as cruel and unusual punishment. The court did, however, deny summary
> judgment on El-Amin’s Equal Protection challenge of lifetime felon
> disenfranchisement in Virginia.”
> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48714&title=%E2%80%9CEqual%20Protection%20Challenge%20to%20Virginia%E2%80%99s%20Felony%20Disenfranchisement%20Provision%20Survives%20Summary%20Judgment%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in felon voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=66> | Comments
> Off
> “What secret e-mails from Enron teach us about influencing politicians”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48712>
> Posted on March 25, 2013 1:02 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48712> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Interesting post<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/24/what-secret-e-mails-from-enron-teach-us-about-influencing-politicians/?hpid=z4>
> at WonkBlog by Dan Hopkins.
> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48712&title=%E2%80%9CWhat%20secret%20e-mails%20from%20Enron%20teach%20us%20about%20influencing%20politicians%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, legislation
> and legislatures <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>, lobbying<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
> | Comments Off
> “The Voting Rights Act should be left alone”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48710>
> Posted on March 25, 2013 1:00 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48710> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Gregory Craig has written this WaPo oped<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gregory-b-craig-the-voting-rights-act-should-be-left-alone/2013/03/22/ee5fc8a4-8bf2-11e2-9f54-f3fdd70acad2_story.html>
> .
> <image001.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D48710&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%20should%20be%20left%20alone%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 - office
> 949.824.0495 - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
--
Jonathan Singer
http://www.jonsing.com
Cell: (503) 705-2952
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130327/9214e130/attachment.html>
View list directory