[EL] CLC Head in the Sand
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Mar 27 12:56:21 PDT 2013
I'm going to have to dig out my WIN button from President Ford that I
got when I was a kid ("Whip Inflation Now")
Different times...
On 3/27/13 12:54 PM, Jonathan Singer wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <tel:614.236.6317>/
>
> /http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] on behalf
> of Ray La Raja [laraja at polsci.umass.edu
> <mailto:laraja at polsci.umass.edu>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:08 AM
> *To:* Paul Ryan
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 alink
>>> <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 <tel:%28202%29%20736-2200%20ext.%20214>
>>> Mobile Ph. (202) 262-7315 <tel:%28202%29%20262-7315>
>>> Fax (202) 736-2222 <tel:%28202%29%20736-2222>
>>> 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 afan 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>[mailto:law-
>>> <mailto:law->election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> <mailto:election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>]*On Behalf
>>> Of*JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
>>> *Sent:*Tuesday, March 26, 2013 11:48 AM
>>> *To:*rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>;
>>> law-election at uci.edu <mailto: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 onMarch 25, 2013 1:06 pm
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48718>byRick 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
>>> itsGrowth & 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 Partyeach 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 <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>writes:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Same-sex marriage: Court on the couch"
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48742>
>>>
>>> Posted onMarch 26, 2013 8:05 am
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48742>byRick Hasen
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> I have writtenthis 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 membersin 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 ofNate 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 inSupreme 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 onMarch 26, 2013 7:31 am
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48739>byRick 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 incampaign finance
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>|Comments Off
>>>
>>>
>>> "McDonnell signs bill requiring photo ID for voting"
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48736>
>>>
>>> Posted onMarch 26, 2013 7:27 am
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48736>byRick 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 inelection 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 onMarch 26, 2013 7:23 am
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48733>byRick 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 inlegislation 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 onMarch 25, 2013 4:50 pm
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48730>byRick 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 senta 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 incampaign finance
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>|Comments Off
>>>
>>>
>>> "'Battleground Texas' Still Many Years Away"
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48727>
>>>
>>> Posted onMarch 25, 2013 4:44 pm
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48727>byRick 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 inpolitical 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 onMarch 25, 2013 1:10 pm
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48723>byRick 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 incampaign 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 onMarch 25, 2013 1:09 pm
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48721>byRick 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 inelection 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 onMarch 25, 2013 1:06 pm
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48718>byRick 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
>>> itsGrowth & 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
>>> Partyeach 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 incampaign 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 onMarch 25, 2013 1:05 pm
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48716>byRick 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 inredistricting
>>> <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 onMarch 25, 2013 1:04 pm
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48714>byRick 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 Fridaygranted
>>> <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 infelon 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 onMarch 25, 2013 1:02 pm
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48712>byRick 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 incampaign 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 onMarch 25, 2013 1:00 pm
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48710>byRick Hasen
>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>
>>> Gregory Craig has writtenthis 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 inSupreme 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 <tel:949.824.3072> - office
>>> 949.824.0495 <tel:949.824.0495> - fax
>>> rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>>> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
>>> http://electionlawblog.org <http://electionlawblog.org/>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130327/47fccf6b/attachment.html>
View list directory