[EL] Law-election Digest, Vol 25, Issue 3
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Fri May 3 14:45:14 PDT 2013
The link to subscribe is:
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
On 5/3/13 2:43 PM, Scott Swenson wrote:
> Can you add my colleague Hillary Price to these clips as of Monday?
>
> Hillary at rethinkmedia.org <mailto:Hillary at rethinkmedia.org>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Be the change you seek,
>
> Scott Blaine Swenson
> ReThink Media <http://www.rethinkmedia.org>
> Managing Director, Money in Politics/Courts Communications Collaborative
> scott at rethinkmedia.org <mailto:scott at rethinkmedia.org>
> 202-423-8130
> 1889 F Street NW, Second Floor
> Washington, DC 20006
> Twitter, Skype: SBSwenson
> LinkedIn and Facebook: Scott Blaine Swenson
> GChat: scott at rethinkmedia.org <mailto:scott at rethinkmedia.org>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 3:00 PM,
> <law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu>> wrote:
>
> Send Law-election mailing list submissions to
> law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> law-election-owner at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-owner at department-lists.uci.edu>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Law-election digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Push Polling (Trevor Potter)
> 2. Re: Push Polling (Mark Schmitt)
> 3. ELB News and Commentary 5/3/13 (Rick Hasen)
> 4. Re: Push polling (Jon Roland)
> 5. Re: Push polling (Michael P McDonald)
> 6. Re: Push polling (Smith, Brad)
> 7. Re: Push polling (Jon Roland)
> 8. Re: Push polling (Michael P McDonald)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 15:32:20 -0400
> From: Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com <mailto:tpotter at capdale.com>>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Push Polling
> To: "Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu
> <mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>>
> Cc: law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> Message-ID:
>
> <EB799F10F6345A4F8DAF271CEB30474D0479516C at CAP1ABMEX01.Capdale.com
> <mailto:EB799F10F6345A4F8DAF271CEB30474D0479516C at CAP1ABMEX01.Capdale.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> That is what I expected?
>
>
>
> From: Smith, Brad [mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu
> <mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 2:30 PM
> To: Trevor Potter
> Cc: David Adamany; law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: RE: [EL] Push Polling
>
>
>
> LOL.
>
>
>
> Bradley A. Smith
>
> Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
>
> Professor of Law
>
> Capital University Law School
>
> 303 East Broad Street
>
> Columbus, OH 43215
>
> (614) 236-6317 <tel:%28614%29%20236-6317>
>
> bsmith at law.capital.edu <mailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu>
>
> http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp
>
>
>
> From: Trevor Potter [mailto:tpotter at capdale.com
> <mailto:tpotter at capdale.com>]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 2:18 PM
> To: Smith, Brad
> Cc: David Adamany; law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Push Polling
>
>
>
> To keep that horse up and going, let me restate my question in
> thus thread. David amplified your statements, and you said his
> additions made the statements even more extreme. Why? What was
> incorrect about David's clarifying statements about the FEC?
>
> Trevor Potter
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On May 2, 2013, at 2:13 PM, "Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu
> <mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>> wrote:
>
> Beating a dead horse, let me try this again. What follows
> are a series of statements, put into push poll format, that are
> regularly made in the press:
>
>
>
> - What would you think of the FEC if I told you it
> "regularly/frequently deadlocks."
>
>
>
> - Would you be more inclined to support new restrictions
> on campaign finance and new disclosure rules if I told you that
> the political system was being swamped with dark money?
>
>
>
> - What would you think if I told you that the FEC can't
> function because all of the commissioners' terms have expired?
>
>
>
> - Would you be more likely to support SEC mandating
> disclosure of corporate trade association dues if I told you that
> shareholders wanted such information?
>
>
>
> - Do you support sham political advocacy?
>
>
>
> - Would you be more or less inclined to support more
> disclosure laws if I told you that the use of "shell" corporations
> to hide the sources of political funding was now a common tactic?
>
>
>
> These and similar statements, to me, are the ?push poll?
> that goes on every day in the press. All of these statements
> strike me as rather obviously biased. For example:
>
>
>
> - I doubt that most people would think that
> something under 20% of votes amounted to ?frequently? or even
> ?regularly.? You can argue that, of course, because those words do
> not have some fixed minimum, but under 20% is not what what the
> terms conjure up for most people. Rarely does the press actually
> cite numbers. Moreover, the very phrase ?deadlocks? suggests that
> no decision was made, when in fact in most cases it does amount to
> a decision not to go forward, which decides the issue. Note also
> that this same language was used even when the rate of ?deadlocks?
> was 1 to 3%, as it has been for most of the Commission?s history
> (see e.g. Fred Wertheimers ?No Bark/No Bite? from 2001, or Brooks
> Jackson?s ?Broken Promise? from the 1980s), when I think the use
> of ?regularly? or ?frequently? is pretty much inexcusable by any
> standard.
>
>
>
> - Saying the system is ?swamped with dark money?
> offers up a rather loaded description, particularly since context
> ($350 million ? a number often given ? is under 5% of spending ? a
> number almost never given) is typically omitted. $350 million, to
> the average viewer/reader, sounds like a lot. Less than five
> percent? Meh. My complaint is not with ?reformers? who use numbers
> that excite people to their argument, but with a press that
> typically adopts that lingo.
>
> - Suggesting that shareholders are demanding
> public release of trade association dues payments and much
> charitable giving, plus direct political spending, without any
> definition of what that means, is misleading. Of course some
> shareholders are demanding that, so the statement is literally
> true, as is the statement that ?Americans are demanding that
> campaign finance contribution limits be repealed.? Both are
> demonstrably misleading in light of how people actually vote when
> given a chane. But only the former statement is routinely repeated
> in the press, despite actual shareholder votes going consistently
> and overwhelmingly against such disclosure.
>
>
>
> - Suggesting, as Senator Whitehouse did in a
> recent hearing and certain ?reform? advocates have regularly
> suggested, that the use of ?shell corporations? is ?common,? when
> there is no evidence of that at all, unless one uses the rather
> tendentious argument that a handful of isolated incidences over
> three years ? literally a handful, countable on 5 fingers ? is
> ?common? amounts to a ?push poll? of stating bias as fact.
>
>
>
> - Referring to speech as ?sham? issue advocacy ?
> does this really need explanation?
>
>
>
> I think this is a pretty simple point, and I would think
> ?reform? advocates would be proud of how good a job they have done
> in setting the language of the debate. If you really want to
> contest this, be my guess, but do me a favor ? first have your
> research assistant do a Lexis/Westlaw search for use of the $350
> million figure; then have them do it for the 5 percent figure.
>
>
>
> Bradley A. Smith
>
> Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
>
> Professor of Law
>
> Capital University Law School
>
> 303 East Broad Street
>
> Columbus, OH 43215
>
> (614) 236-6317
>
> bsmith at law.capital.edu <mailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu>
>
> http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp
>
>
>
> From: David Adamany [mailto:adamany at temple.edu
> <mailto:adamany at temple.edu>]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 1:12 PM
> To: Smith, Brad; Trevor Potter
> Cc: law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: RE: [EL] Push Polling
>
>
>
> There's always a danger in attributing views to others.
> My comment was just that I would prefer a poll far less biased
> than Brad's. I have no comment about any other "push polls,"
> since I rarely read polls of any kind. Each semester i devote
> some time in my freshman political science class to commenting
> about the unreliability of most polls, so they aren't too easily
> misled. Given Brad's stated purpose, I won't use his an an
> example. David
>
>
>
> David Adamany
>
> Laura Carnell Professor of Law
>
> and Political Science, and
>
> Chancellor
>
> 1810 Liacouras Walk, Ste 330
>
> Temple University
>
> Philadelphia, PA 19122
>
> (215) 204-9278 <tel:%28215%29%20204-9278>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> From: Smith, Brad [BSmith at law.capital.edu
> <mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 1:00 PM
> To: Trevor Potter
> Cc: David Adamany; law-election at uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Push Polling
>
> My point was that most reporting amounts to a one-sided
> push poll. David, as I read him, thinks it should be more
> one-sided still.
>
>
>
> Brad
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On May 2, 2013, at 12:18 PM, "Trevor Potter"
> <tpotter at capdale.com <mailto:tpotter at capdale.com>> wrote:
>
> I?m not clear if Brad disputes any of the factual
> clarifications made by David?.(unlike the statements made in the
> SC push poll?)
>
>
>
> Trevor Potter
>
>
>
> From:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf
> Of David Adamany
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 5:59 PM
> To: law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: [EL] Push Polling
>
>
>
> Although I tend to see issues differently than
> Brad Smith, I attentively read his posts because he almost always
> presents a point of view quite different from mine and one that I
> want my students to know about. I'm not sure his proposed push
> poll is up to his usual standards, and I offer a rare proposal for
> revision of one of Brad's posts, which I have reprinted below:
>
>
>
> I'm thinking of doing my own push poll on money in
> politics. It will go something like this:
>
>
>
> - What would you think of the FEC if I told you it
> "regularly deadlocks" on many of the most important issues it
> faces. [in fact, even at current record levels, it deadlocks
> relatively infrequently, and most "deadlocks" actually decide the
> issue involved)].
>
>
>
> - Would you be more inclined to support new
> restrictions on campaign finance and new disclosure rules if I
> told you that the political system was being influenced by
> $350,000,000 of [swamped with] dark money? (In fact, "dark money"
> - no push nomenclature there - amounts to less than 5% of 2012
> spending in federal races).
>
>
>
> - What would you think if I told you that the FEC
> can't function because all of the commissioners' terms have
> expired and the commission regularly divides with three Democratic
> appointees voting on one side of issues and three Republican
> appointees voting on the other side.? (in fact, commissioners can
> remain and retain full powers after the expiration of their terms).
>
>
>
> - Would you be more likely to support SEC
> mandating disclosure of corporate trade association dues if I told
> you that a minority of shareholders strongly objected to using
> their share of corporate funds to support candidates they oppose
> or even detest? [shareholders wanted such information]? (in fact,
> in 12 shareholder votes this proxy season, disclosure is 0-12,
> with an average vote less than 20%.).
>
>
>
> - Do you support sham political advocacy?
>
>
>
> - Would you be more or less inclined to support
> more disclosure laws if I told you that the use of "shell"
> corporations who spend large amounts of money to influence
> elections and do not disclose the money they receive from wealthy
> individuals and from corporations who contribute to those
> corporations to conceal their identities? [to hide the sources
> of political funding was now a common tactic? (in fact, there is
> no evidence it is a common tactic)].
>
>
>
> With all due respect.
>
>
>
>
>
> David Adamany
>
> Laura Carnell Professor of Law
>
> and Political Science, and
>
> Chancellor
>
> 1810 Liacouras Walk, Ste 330
>
> Temple University
>
> Philadelphia, PA 19122
>
> (215) 204-9278
>
>
>
>
> <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - - -> To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by
> the IRS, we inform you that, unless specifically indicated
> otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication
> (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be
> used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
> tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii)
> promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any
> tax-related matter addressed herein. This message is for the use
> of the intended recipient only. It is from a law firm and may
> contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you
> are not the intended recipient any disclosure, copying, future
> distribution, or use of this communication is prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please advise us by
> return e-mail, or if you have received this communication by fax
> advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document. <-->
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -> To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we
> inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax
> advice contained in this communication (including any attachments)
> was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for
> the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the
> Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or
> recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed
> herein. This message is for the use of the intended recipient
> only. It is from a law firm and may contain information that is
> privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient
> any disclosure, copying, future distribution, or use of this
> communication is prohibited. If you have received this
> communication in error, please advise us by return e-mail, or if
> you have received this communication by fax advise us by telephone
> and delete/destroy the document. <-->
>
>
> <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
> To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,
> we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise,
> any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
> attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
> cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
> penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting,
> marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
> matter addressed herein.
>
> This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
> from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
> copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
> advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
> by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
> <-->
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130502/b4684cd9/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 00:53:32 +0000
> From: "Mark Schmitt" <schmitt.mark at gmail.com
> <mailto:schmitt.mark at gmail.com>>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Push Polling
> To: "law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>"
> <law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
> Message-ID: <em34c6a86e-c0e2-41e2-92ff-524e830e7a31 at rooseveltpc>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I'm sure there's little point in engaging, but one point should be
> clarified: A "push poll" is not a poll. A push poll is a way of
> insinuating a totally false statement into the electorate in the guise
> of a poll. The entity taking the poll has no interest in the
> results --
> the only point is to insert the lie into the bloodstream. And
> Trevor is
> of course quite familiar with this tactic, because it was most
> famously
> used against his candidate in 2000 in the same state.
>
> But what you've created, Brad, is a hypothetical real poll in
> which the
> statements are not totally false, but if they were used in a real poll
> about campaign finance, they might well be considered somewhat
> leading.
> I know a little bit about polling, and if someone did a poll with
> those
> questions, I wouldn't have confidence in the results -- although they
> might help identify effective messages. But so what? There's no actual
> poll that used those questions. So there's not really a point here. If
> there's some piece of journalism that you think presented the
> issues in
> a misleading way, you should identify it.
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Trevor Potter" <tpotter at capdale.com
> <mailto:tpotter at capdale.com>>
> To: "Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu
> <mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>>
> Cc: law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> Sent: 5/2/2013 3:32:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [EL] Push Polling
> >That is what I expected?
> >
> >
> >
> >From: Smith, Brad [mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu
> <mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>]
> >Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 2:30 PM
> >To: Trevor Potter
> >Cc: David Adamany; law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> >Subject: RE: [EL] Push Polling
> >
> >
> >
> >LOL.
> >
> >
> >
> >Bradley A. Smith
> >
> >Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
> >
> > Professor of Law
> >
> >Capital University Law School
> >
> >303 East Broad Street
> >
> >Columbus, OH 43215
> >
> >(614) 236-6317 <tel:%28614%29%20236-6317>
> >
> >bsmith at law.capital.edu <mailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu>
> >
> >http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp
> >
> >
> >
> >From: Trevor Potter [mailto:tpotter at capdale.com
> <mailto:tpotter at capdale.com>]
> >Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 2:18 PM
> >To: Smith, Brad
> >Cc: David Adamany; law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> >Subject: Re: [EL] Push Polling
> >
> >
> >
> >To keep that horse up and going, let me restate my question in thus
> >thread. David amplified your statements, and you said his additions
> >made the statements even more extreme. Why? What was incorrect about
> >David's clarifying statements about the FEC?
> >
> >Trevor Potter
> >
> >Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >
> >On May 2, 2013, at 2:13 PM, "Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu
> <mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Beating a dead horse, let me try this again. What follows are a
> series
> >>of statements, put into push poll format, that are regularly made in
> >>the press:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>- What would you think of the FEC if I told you it
> >>"regularly/frequently deadlocks."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>- Would you be more inclined to support new restrictions on campaign
> >>finance and new disclosure rules if I told you that the political
> >>system was being swamped with dark money?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>- What would you think if I told you that the FEC can't function
> >>because all of the commissioners' terms have expired?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>- Would you be more likely to support SEC mandating disclosure of
> >>corporate trade association dues if I told you that shareholders
> >>wanted such information?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>- Do you support sham political advocacy?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>- Would you be more or less inclined to support more disclosure laws
> >>if I told you that the use of "shell" corporations to hide the
> sources
> >>of political funding was now a common tactic?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>These and similar statements, to me, are the ?push poll? that
> goes on
> >>every day in the press. All of these statements strike me as rather
> >>obviously biased. For example:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>- I doubt that most people would think that something under
> >>20% of votes amounted to ?frequently? or even ?regularly.? You can
> >>argue that, of course, because those words do not have some fixed
> >>minimum, but under 20% is not what what the terms conjure up for
> most
> >>people. Rarely does the press actually cite numbers. Moreover, the
> >>very phrase ?deadlocks? suggests that no decision was made, when in
> >>fact in most cases it does amount to a decision not to go forward,
> >>which decides the issue. Note also that this same language was used
> >>even when the rate of ?deadlocks? was 1 to 3%, as it has been
> for most
> >>of the Commission?s history (see e.g. Fred Wertheimers ?No Bark/No
> >>Bite? from 2001, or Brooks Jackson?s ?Broken Promise? from the
> 1980s),
> >>when I think the use of ?regularly? or ?frequently? is pretty much
> >>inexcusable by any standard.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>- Saying the system is ?swamped with dark money? offers
> up a
> >>rather loaded description, particularly since context ($350
> million ?
> >>a number often given ? is under 5% of spending ? a number almost
> never
> >>given) is typically omitted. $350 million, to the average
> >>viewer/reader, sounds like a lot. Less than five percent? Meh. My
> >>complaint is not with ?reformers? who use numbers that excite people
> >>to their argument, but with a press that typically adopts that
> lingo.
> >>
> >>- Suggesting that shareholders are demanding public release
> >>of trade association dues payments and much charitable giving, plus
> >>direct political spending, without any definition of what that
> means,
> >>is misleading. Of course some shareholders are demanding that,
> so the
> >>statement is literally true, as is the statement that ?Americans are
> >>demanding that campaign finance contribution limits be
> repealed.? Both
> >>are demonstrably misleading in light of how people actually vote
> when
> >>given a chane. But only the former statement is routinely
> repeated in
> >>the press, despite actual shareholder votes going consistently and
> >>overwhelmingly against such disclosure.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>- Suggesting, as Senator Whitehouse did in a recent hearing
> >>and certain ?reform? advocates have regularly suggested, that
> the use
> >>of ?shell corporations? is ?common,? when there is no evidence
> of that
> >>at all, unless one uses the rather tendentious argument that a
> handful
> >>of isolated incidences over three years ? literally a handful,
> >>countable on 5 fingers ? is ?common? amounts to a ?push poll? of
> >>stating bias as fact.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>- Referring to speech as ?sham? issue advocacy ? does this
> >>really need explanation?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>I think this is a pretty simple point, and I would think ?reform?
> >>advocates would be proud of how good a job they have done in setting
> >>the language of the debate. If you really want to contest this,
> be my
> >>guess, but do me a favor ? first have your research assistant do a
> >>Lexis/Westlaw search for use of the $350 million figure; then have
> >>them do it for the 5 percent figure.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Bradley A. Smith
> >>
> >>Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
> >>
> >> Professor of Law
> >>
> >>Capital University Law School
> >>
> >>303 East Broad Street
> >>
> >>Columbus, OH 43215
> >>
> >>(614) 236-6317
> >>
> >>bsmith at law.capital.edu <mailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu>
> >>
> >>http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>From: David Adamany [mailto:adamany at temple.edu
> <mailto:adamany at temple.edu>]
> >>Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 1:12 PM
> >>To: Smith, Brad; Trevor Potter
> >>Cc:law-election at uci.edu <mailto:Cc%3Alaw-election at uci.edu>
> >>Subject: RE: [EL] Push Polling
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>There's always a danger in attributing views to others. My comment
> >>was just that I would prefer a poll far less biased than Brad's. I
> >>have no comment about any other "push polls," since I rarely read
> >>polls of any kind. Each semester i devote some time in my freshman
> >>political science class to commenting about the unreliability of
> most
> >>polls, so they aren't too easily misled. Given Brad's stated
> >>purpose, I won't use his an an example. David
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>David Adamany
> >>
> >>Laura Carnell Professor of Law
> >>
> >>and Political Science, and
> >>
> >>Chancellor
> >>
> >>1810 Liacouras Walk, Ste 330
> >>
> >>Temple University
> >>
> >>Philadelphia, PA 19122
> >>
> >>(215) 204-9278 <tel:%28215%29%20204-9278>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>From: Smith, Brad [BSmith at law.capital.edu
> <mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>]
> >>Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 1:00 PM
> >>To: Trevor Potter
> >>Cc: David Adamany; law-election at uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> >>Subject: Re: [EL] Push Polling
> >>
> >>My point was that most reporting amounts to a one-sided push poll.
> >>David, as I read him, thinks it should be more one-sided still.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Brad
> >>
> >>Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >>
> >>On May 2, 2013, at 12:18 PM, "Trevor Potter"
> <tpotter at capdale.com <mailto:tpotter at capdale.com>>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>I?m not clear if Brad disputes any of the factual
> clarifications made
> >>>by David?.(unlike the statements made in the SC push poll?)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Trevor Potter
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>From:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:From%3Alaw-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> >>>[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf Of
> >>>David Adamany
> >>>Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 5:59 PM
> >>>To:law-election at uci.edu <mailto:To%3Alaw-election at uci.edu>
> >>>Subject: [EL] Push Polling
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Although I tend to see issues differently than Brad Smith, I
> >>>attentively read his posts because he almost always presents a
> point
> >>>of view quite different from mine and one that I want my
> students to
> >>>know about. I'm not sure his proposed push poll is up to his usual
> >>>standards, and I offer a rare proposal for revision of one of
> Brad's
> >>>posts, which I have reprinted below:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I'm thinking of doing my own push poll on money in politics. It
> will
> >>>go something like this:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>- What would you think of the FEC if I told you it "regularly
> >>>deadlocks" on many of the most important issues it faces. [in
> fact,
> >>>even at current record levels, it deadlocks relatively
> infrequently,
> >>>and most "deadlocks" actually decide the issue involved)].
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>- Would you be more inclined to support new restrictions on
> campaign
> >>>finance and new disclosure rules if I told you that the political
> >>>system was being influenced by $350,000,000 of [swamped with] dark
> >>>money? (In fact, "dark money" - no push nomenclature there -
> amounts
> >>>to less than 5% of 2012 spending in federal races).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>- What would you think if I told you that the FEC can't function
> >>>because all of the commissioners' terms have expired and the
> >>>commission regularly divides with three Democratic appointees
> voting
> >>>on one side of issues and three Republican appointees voting on the
> >>>other side.? (in fact, commissioners can remain and retain full
> >>>powers after the expiration of their terms).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>- Would you be more likely to support SEC mandating disclosure of
> >>>corporate trade association dues if I told you that a minority of
> >>>shareholders strongly objected to using their share of corporate
> >>>funds to support candidates they oppose or even detest?
> >>>[shareholders wanted such information]? (in fact, in 12 shareholder
> >>>votes this proxy season, disclosure is 0-12, with an average vote
> >>>less than 20%.).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>- Do you support sham political advocacy?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>- Would you be more or less inclined to support more disclosure
> laws
> >>>if I told you that the use of "shell" corporations who spend large
> >>>amounts of money to influence elections and do not disclose the
> money
> >>>they receive from wealthy individuals and from corporations who
> >>>contribute to those corporations to conceal their identities? [to
> >>>hide the sources of political funding was now a common tactic? (in
> >>>fact, there is no evidence it is a common tactic)].
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>With all due respect.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>David Adamany
> >>>
> >>>Laura Carnell Professor of Law
> >>>
> >>>and Political Science, and
> >>>
> >>>Chancellor
> >>>
> >>>1810 Liacouras Walk, Ste 330
> >>>
> >>>Temple University
> >>>
> >>>Philadelphia, PA 19122
> >>>
> >>>(215) 204-9278
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>><- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
> >>>To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we
> inform
> >>>you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice
> >>>contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not
> >>>intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose
> >>>of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue
> >>>Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another
> party
> >>>any tax-related matter addressed herein. This message is for
> the use
> >>>of the intended recipient only. It is from a law firm and may
> contain
> >>>information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the
> >>>intended recipient any disclosure, copying, future distribution, or
> >>>use of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this
> >>>communication in error, please advise us by return e-mail, or
> if you
> >>>have received this communication by fax advise us by telephone and
> >>>delete/destroy the document. <-->
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>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
> >>>
> >
> ><- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -> To
> >ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you
> >that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice
> contained
> >in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or
> >written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
> avoiding
> >tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii)
> >promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any
> tax-related
> >matter addressed herein. This message is for the use of the intended
> >recipient only. It is from a law firm and may contain information
> that
> >is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient
> >any disclosure, copying, future distribution, or use of this
> >communication is prohibited. If you have received this
> communication in
> >error, please advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received
> this
> >communication by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the
> >document. <-->
> >
> >
> ><- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -> To
> >ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you
> >that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice
> contained
> >in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or
> >written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
> avoiding
> >tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii)
> >promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any
> tax-related
> >matter addressed herein. This message is for the use of the intended
> >recipient only. It is from a law firm and may contain information
> that
> >is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient
> >any disclosure, copying, future distribution, or use of this
> >communication is prohibited. If you have received this
> communication in
> >error, please advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received
> this
> >communication by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the
> >document. <-->
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130503/85b2e05e/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 07:34:45 -0700
> From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
> Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 5/3/13
> To: "law-election at UCI.edu" <law-election at UCI.edu>
> Message-ID: <5183CB05.1090205 at law.uci.edu
> <mailto:5183CB05.1090205 at law.uci.edu>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> <http://electionlawblog.org/>
>
>
> "House of Un-Representatives"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49873>
>
> Posted on May 3, 2013 7:33 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49873> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Timothy Egan Opinionator column
> <http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/house-of-un-representatives/?ref=politics>.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D49873&title=%E2%80%9CHouse%20of%20Un-Representatives%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in legislation and legislatures
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27> | Comments Off
>
>
> "Promoting Democracy While Preserving Federalism: The Electoral
> College, the National Popular Vote, and the Federal District
> Popular
> Vote Allocation Alternative" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49871>
>
> Posted on May 3, 2013 7:32 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49871> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Geoffrey Calderaro has posted this draft
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2247771>on SSRN.
> Here is the abstract:
>
> The winner-take-all method of allocating Electoral College
> votes has
> led to a bifurcated nation in which presidential candidates
> actively
> campaign in highly contested "swing states" and virtually ignore
> voters residing in the many non-competitive states, all to the
> detriment of American democracy. In order to remedy the current
> inequities that permeate American presidential elections, a change
> is needed in the winner-take-all allocation method of Electoral
> College votes. Many propose that we elect our presidents by a
> National Popular Vote. However, this method would be a step in the
> wrong direction.
>
> This Comment proposes that states adopt a Federal District Popular
> Vote (FDPV) allocation method, like that currently employed by
> Maine
> and Nebraska. There are three important advantages to the FDPV
> allocation method. First, the FDPV would compel candidates to
> actively campaign in dozens of competitive congressional districts
> located in otherwise non-competitive states, thus engaging
> millions
> of previously ignored Americans in the campaign. Second, voters
> supporting the minority party in each state would have an
> opportunity to award electoral votes to the candidate of their
> choice. Finally, the FDPV would stay true to the Framers'
> intent for
> Federalism.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D49871&title=%E2%80%9CPromoting%20Democracy%20While%20Preserving%20Federalism%3A%20The%20Electoral%20College%2C%20the%20National%20Popular%20Vote%2C%20and%20the%20Federal%20District%20Popular%20Vote%20Allocation%20Alternative%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in electoral college <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=44> |
> Comments Off
>
>
> "Beaumont voting rights case sparks heated debate in Washington
> court" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49868>
>
> Posted on May 3, 2013 7:26 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49868> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The Houston Chronicle reports.
> <http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/05/beaumont-voting-rights-case-sparks-heated-debate-in-washington-court/>
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D49868&title=%E2%80%9CBeaumont%20voting%20rights%20case%20sparks%20heated%20debate%20in%20Washington%20court%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> |
> Comments Off
>
>
> "How Colorado's Forthcoming Election Law Incentivizes The GOP"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49865>
>
> Posted on May 3, 2013 7:23 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49865> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Reid Wilson writes
> <http://www.nationaljournal.com/blogs/hotlineoncall/2013/05/how-colorado-s-forthcoming-election-law-incentivizes-the-gop-03>.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D49865&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Colorado%E2%80%99s%20Forthcoming%20Election%20Law%20Incentivizes%20The%20GOP%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in election administration
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
> The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
>
>
> "States try to tackle 'secret money' in politics"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49862>
>
> Posted on May 2, 2013 8:41 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49862> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> LAT:
> <http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-secret-money-20130503,0,5507521,full.story>
>
> Early last month, state lawyers and election officials around the
> country dialed into a conference call to talk about how to
> deal with
> the flood of secret money that played an unprecedented role in the
> 2012 election.
>
> The discussion, which included officials from California, New
> York,
> Alaska and Maine, was a first step toward a collaborative
> effort to
> force tax-exempt advocacy organizations and trade associations out
> of the shadows.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D49862&title=%E2%80%9CStates%20try%20to%20tackle%20%E2%80%98secret%20money%E2%80%99%20in%20politics%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
> tax law
> and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22> | Comments Off
>
>
> Liptak on Lehrer Discussing SOC on BvG
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49859>
>
> Posted on May 2, 2013 6:52 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49859> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Listen
> <http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2013/may/02/sandra-day-oconnors-doubts-bush-v-gore/>.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D49859&title=Liptak%20on%20Lehrer%20Discussing%20SOC%20on%20BvG&description=>
> Posted in Bush v. Gore reflections
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=5>,
> Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
>
>
> "Elections bill to fix long voter lines stalls over Miami-Dade
> elections office" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49856>
>
> Posted on May 2, 2013 5:35 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49856> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Miami Herald
> <http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/02/3377515/elections-bill-to-fix-long-voter.html>:
>
> Embarrassed by an elections meltdown, lawmakers headed to the
> Florida Capitol this year with a pledge to undo a law that helped
> lead to long lines, angry voters and jeers about "Flori-duh."
>
> But the elections clean-up bill that the House passed on the very
> first day of the legislative session has yet to pass the
> Legislature
> as the last day dawns.
>
> Lawmakers overwhelmingly support the plan to reverse a 2011
> election
> law by expanding the number of early voting sites and days.
> The bill
> also gives people a chance to correct an absentee ballot they
> forgot
> to sign and would make it easier to prosecute people caught with
> multiple absentee ballots.
>
> But there's a major hang-up between the House and Senate: a
> plan to
> punish election supervisors deemed ineffective and "noncompliant"
> with the state's election code.
>
> I don't think there's any questionthat the Miami-Dade elections office
> needs to make some major changes.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D49856&title=%E2%80%9CElections%20bill%20to%20fix%20long%20voter%20lines%20stalls%20over%20Miami-Dade%20elections%20office%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in election administration
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
> The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> | Comments Off
>
>
> "Colorado Senate OKs mail-ballot voting, as GOP maintains fraud
> concern" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49853>
>
> Posted on May 2, 2013 12:58 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49853> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The latest
> <http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23157781/colorado-senate-oks-mail-ballot-voting-gop-maintains>
> in the Colorado voting wars.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D49853&title=%E2%80%9CColorado%20Senate%20OKs%20mail-ballot%20voting%2C%20as%20GOP%20maintains%20fraud%20concern%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in election administration
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
> The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter
> registration
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37> | Comments Off
>
>
> "Colorado Independent Candidate Files Opening Brief in 10th
> Circuit,
> in Case Challenging Discriminatory Contribution Limits"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49850>
>
> Posted on May 2, 2013 11:39 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49850> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Fascinating case
> <http://www.ballot-access.org/2013/05/02/colorado-independent-candidate-files-opening-brief-in-10th-circuit-in-case-challenging-discriminatory-contribution-limits/>,
> and from my quick glance, one that challengers to the contribution
> limits should win (something you don't see me saying all that often).
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D49850&title=%E2%80%9CColorado%20Independent%20Candidate%20Files%20Opening%20Brief%20in%2010th%20Circuit%2C%20in%20Case%20Challenging%20Discriminatory%20Contribution%20Limits%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, third
> parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=47> | Comments Off
>
>
> More on Disclosure <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49847>
>
> Posted on May 2, 2013 9:35 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49847> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Brad Smith on SEC Disclosure
> <http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2013/05/01/shareholders-make-their-views-known-they-dont-want-mandatory-disclosure-of-political-activity/>
>
> ACLU on Murkowski-Wyden
> <http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/thoughts-latest-political-disclosure-proposal>
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D49847&title=More%20on%20Disclosure&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
> Comments Off
>
>
> "Jeff Merkley Escalates Push For Filibuster Reform"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49844>
>
> Posted on May 2, 2013 8:35 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49844> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> TPM reports
> <http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/05/jeff-merkley-filibuster-reform-email.php?ref=fpblg>.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D49844&title=%E2%80%9CJeff%20Merkley%20Escalates%20Push%20For%20Filibuster%20Reform%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in legislation and legislatures
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>, political parties
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, political polarization
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68> | Comments Off
>
>
> "Ex-chief justice pens book about court's 'dark money'"
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49841>
>
> Posted on May 2, 2013 8:16 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49841> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Item
> <http://record-eagle.com/local/x1169345821/New-book-claims-states-highest-court-is-corrupted>:
>
> The Michigan Supreme Court is corrupted by "dark money,"
> secrecy and
> ideology.
>
> So contends former Supreme Court Chief Justice Elizabeth Weaver, a
> Republican from Glen Arbor, who's co-authored a book
> <http://www.judicialdeceit.com/> in which she alleges Michigan's
> highest court often rules on behalf of special interest groups
> that
> bankroll judges' election campaigns, as opposed to the merits
> of cases.
>
> H/t Howard Bashman <http://howappealing.law.com/050213.html#050780>
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D49841&title=%E2%80%9CEx-chief%20justice%20pens%20book%20about%20court%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%98dark%20money%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
> judicial elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19> | Comments Off
>
>
> "All the presidents' debt'; White House hopefuls from yesteryear
> still awash in red ink" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49838>
>
> Posted on May 2, 2013 7:50 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=49838> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> CPI reports
> <http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/05/02/12573/all-presidents-debt>.
>
> Share
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D49838&title=%E2%80%9CAll%20the%20presidents%E2%80%99%20debt%E2%80%99%3B%20White%20House%20hopefuls%20from%20yesteryear%20still%20awash%20in%20red%20ink%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
> 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 <mailto: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/20130503/c6ca4563/attachment-0001.html
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: share_save_171_16.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 1504 bytes
> Desc: not available
> Url :
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130503/c6ca4563/attachment-0001.png
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 10:23:53 -0500
> From: Jon Roland <jon.roland at constitution.org
> <mailto:jon.roland at constitution.org>>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Push polling
> To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> Message-ID: <5183D689.1040609 at constitution.org
> <mailto:5183D689.1040609 at constitution.org>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130503/0d1e1a11/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 15:37:40 +0000
> From: Michael P McDonald <mmcdon at gmu.edu <mailto:mmcdon at gmu.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Push polling
> To: "law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>"
> <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
> Message-ID:
>
> <0BE36B01083C8A44882395DDDEF366890D336AF1 at BL2PRD0511MB423.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
> <mailto:0BE36B01083C8A44882395DDDEF366890D336AF1 at BL2PRD0511MB423.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Here is the American Association of Public Opinion Researchers
> statement on push polling. As you may surmise, the professional
> organization of pollsters believes that push polling is unethical:
>
> http://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Statements_on_Push_Polls1.htm
>
> ============
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
> Associate Professor
> George Mason University
> 4400 University Drive - 3F4
> Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
>
> phone: 703-993-4191 (office)
> e-mail: mmcdon at gmu.edu <mailto:mmcdon at gmu.edu>
> web: http://elections.gmu.edu
> twitter: @ElectProject
>
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf
> Of Jon Roland
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 11:24 AM
> To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Push polling
>
> There is a use for push-polls on this and other subjects, but your
> questions, as stated, are very poorly designed for a push poll.
> Each question should be very simple, avoid vague abstraction, and
> not require any knowledge the the one polled does not already
> have. Each question should, however, step by step, lead to a
> conclusion you want him or her to reach, that may be somewhat
> unexpected on the part of the one polled. It mostly should involve
> putting together lesser ideas the one polled already has, into a
> more comprehensive, coherent concept the one polled has not yet
> thought through.
>
> If anyone seriously wants to do a push poll of some kind, you
> might want to consult with me on the design.
>
> On 05/01/2013 03:19 PM, Smith, Brad wrote:
> I'm thinking of doing my own push poll on money in politics.
>
>
>
> -- Jon
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Constitution Society http://constitution.org
> 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 twitter.com/lex_rex
> <http://twitter.com/lex_rex>
> Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 jon.roland at constitution.org
> <mailto:jon.roland at constitution.org>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 15:59:04 +0000
> From: "Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu
> <mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Push polling
> To: "law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>"
> <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
> Message-ID:
>
> <51D6964FB432CC4D8A09CA508AF5844735DF82AA at MSGEXCH02.capital.edu
> <mailto:51D6964FB432CC4D8A09CA508AF5844735DF82AA at MSGEXCH02.capital.edu>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I had no idea my comments would be so thoroughly misunderstood by
> so many, and can therefore only assume it is my fault in
> communication.
>
> We know what a push poll is.
>
> I am sitting here just chuckling at this discussion. Clearly my
> bad. LOL.
>
>
> 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
> <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 Michael P McDonald [mmcdon at gmu.edu <mailto:mmcdon at gmu.edu>]
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 11:37 AM
> To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Push polling
>
> Here is the American Association of Public Opinion Researchers
> statement on push polling. As you may surmise, the professional
> organization of pollsters believes that push polling is unethical:
>
> http://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Statements_on_Push_Polls1.htm
>
> ============
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
> Associate Professor
> George Mason University
> 4400 University Drive - 3F4
> Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
>
> phone: 703-993-4191 (office)
> e-mail: mmcdon at gmu.edu <mailto:mmcdon at gmu.edu>
> web: http://elections.gmu.edu
> twitter: @ElectProject
>
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf
> Of Jon Roland
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 11:24 AM
> To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Push polling
>
> There is a use for push-polls on this and other subjects, but your
> questions, as stated, are very poorly designed for a push poll.
> Each question should be very simple, avoid vague abstraction, and
> not require any knowledge the the one polled does not already
> have. Each question should, however, step by step, lead to a
> conclusion you want him or her to reach, that may be somewhat
> unexpected on the part of the one polled. It mostly should involve
> putting together lesser ideas the one polled already has, into a
> more comprehensive, coherent concept the one polled has not yet
> thought through.
>
> If anyone seriously wants to do a push poll of some kind, you
> might want to consult with me on the design.
>
> On 05/01/2013 03:19 PM, Smith, Brad wrote:
> I'm thinking of doing my own push poll on money in politics.
>
>
>
> -- Jon
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Constitution Society http://constitution.org
> 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 twitter.com/lex_rex
> <http://twitter.com/lex_rex>
> Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 jon.roland at constitution.org
> <mailto:jon.roland at constitution.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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 11:39:43 -0500
> From: Jon Roland <jon.roland at constitution.org
> <mailto:jon.roland at constitution.org>>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Push polling
> To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> Message-ID: <5183E84F.5080500 at constitution.org
> <mailto:5183E84F.5080500 at constitution.org>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130503/1dc3fb58/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 18:35:56 +0000
> From: Michael P McDonald <mmcdon at gmu.edu <mailto:mmcdon at gmu.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Push polling
> To: "law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>"
> <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
> Message-ID:
>
> <0BE36B01083C8A44882395DDDEF366890D336CA3 at BL2PRD0511MB423.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
> <mailto:0BE36B01083C8A44882395DDDEF366890D336CA3 at BL2PRD0511MB423.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Jon,
>
> I'm much relieved that you do not really seem to be talking about
> conducting a push poll. I may have disagreements with you, but
> I've never thought you to be unethical. You say that a poll should
> not pretend to be something it is not. A hallmark of a push poll
> is falsehoods masquerading as a poll, thereby giving the
> impression they must be true since they are delivered in a
> question format that credible polling organizations use. And I'd
> agree that it is often important to probe more deeply by providing
> balanced, factual arguments. That is just good survey methodology
> practice, not a push poll. From an election law perspective, I
> suppose we care that the message/polls has the proper sponsoring
> identification. Another indicator is that push polls don't convey
> this information.
>
> -Mike
>
> ============
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
> Associate Professor
> George Mason University
> 4400 University Drive - 3F4
> Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
>
> phone: 703-993-4191 (office)
> e-mail: mmcdon at gmu.edu <mailto:mmcdon at gmu.edu>
> web: http://elections.gmu.edu
> twitter: @ElectProject
>
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf
> Of Jon Roland
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 12:40 PM
> To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Push polling
>
> A push poll is not necessarily unethical, as long as it does not
> pretend to be something it is not. It is an educational tool. Done
> well, it merely helps the one polled to reach conclusions he might
> reach by himself if he were to diligently think through what he
> already knows and believes. Most people don't do that, and harbor
> inconsistent views.
>
> An example of how this might be done on a current topic would be
> on universal background checks for the transfer of firearms.
> Stated simply, that sounds harmless enough, as a result of which
> polls get results like 80+% public support for it. But in a push
> poll the one polled could be asked things like would you support
> making it a federal felony for someone to loan a firearm to a
> family member for more than seven days without going through a
> firearms dealer to do a background check on the receiving family
> member, subjecting both family members to imprisonment for up to
> ten years. Other questions on the details of the legislative
> proposal that would make the one polled aware of the details,
> would likely lead to him concluding that the proposal is a bad
> idea and that he should oppose it instead of supporting it.
>
> The best push polling does little more than make people aware of
> details that may lead to unintended consequences. But that can be
> a valuable service to public discourse on policy matters.
>
> On 05/03/2013 10:37 AM, Michael P McDonald wrote:
> Here is the American Association of Public Opinion Researchers
> statement on push polling. As you may surmise, the professional
> organization of pollsters believes that push polling is unethical:
>
> http://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Statements_on_Push_Polls1.htm
>
>
>
>
> -- Jon
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Constitution Society http://constitution.org
> 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 twitter.com/lex_rex
> <http://twitter.com/lex_rex>
> Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 jon.roland at constitution.org
> <mailto:jon.roland at constitution.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
>
> End of Law-election Digest, Vol 25, Issue 3
> *******************************************
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130503/ca23e136/attachment.html>
View list directory