[EL] ELB News and Commentary 10/9/13
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue Oct 8 21:40:03 PDT 2013
Chief Justice Roberts: A Campaign Finance Moderate Who Gets It?
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55849>
Posted on October 8, 2013 9:13 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55849>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I recall when I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2006
about the reauthorization of the expiring provisions of the Voting
Rights Act. Sen. Arlen Specter's conservative staff brought in a bunch
of liberal and left-leaning law professors to make the case that
renewing the Act for another 25 years without updating the coverage
formula or making other changes left the Act constitutionally
vulnerable. (We know how that ended up.)
Almost all of the Senators on the committee asking questions asked
predictable questions to those witnesses who were likely to support
their own positions (Republicans that there were constitutional
problems; Democrats that there were not.) Senator Specter, himself,
however, was unpredictable and in the middle. His questions showed he
was really struggling with the difficult questions and not posturing to
score political points or to make a record.
I was reminded of the exchange with Senator Specter when I read the
transcript
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-536_21o2.pdf>of
the oral argument in the Supreme Court's /McCutcheon /case today. All
the Justices were in their assigned roles: Justice Scalia, sarcastic as
ever, bemoaning any regulation; Justice Ginsburg complaining about undue
influence of big donors; Justice Breyer buried in the facts (and
somewhat confused) looking for a way out without seeing campaign finance
law further deregulated by the Court.
But the Chief Justice was different. He was not predictable. While he
has shown great hostility to limits on independent spending, we really
did not know much about what he thought about the danger of corruption
from large money coming directly to officeholders and candidates. Today
his questions suggested nuance and a middle ground---not a Scaliaesque
(or Thomasesque) aversion to any limits. Consider this exchange from
the transcript:
But the --- the consequence is --- just to get back to my prior
question, the consequence is you are telling somebody who doesn't
want to give 3.4 million but wants to contribute to more than nine
House candidates, just up to the maximum, which would be the $5,000
per the double cycle, you are telling him that he can't make that
contribution, however modest, certainly within the limits Congress
has said does not present the problem of corruption, to a tenth
candidate.*I appreciate the argument you are making about the
3-point-whatever million-dollar check and the need for the aggregate
limits to address that.I understand that point.* But what do you do
with the flip side? I mean, you can't pretend that that is pursued
with no First Amendment cost quite apart from the one that's there.
It seems to me a very direct restriction on much smaller
contributions that Congress said do not present a problem with
corruption.
I fully expect the Chief Justice to vote to strike the aggregate limits
as to candidates, unless Justice Breyer can convince him to kick the can
down the road by remanding for more factfinding. I'm less sure about
what the Chief will do about the aggregate limits as to parties and
PACs. I'm not sure how he would draw the distinction doctrinally between
the two (looks like both could flunk strict scrutiny and pass the
traditional Buckley standard of review for contributions). But this is a
Justice looking for nuance and a middle path, not one who will take the
Justice Scalia scorched earth policy to limits. It is someone who "gets
it" that giving multi-million dollar checks to officeholders raises
questions of corruption, conflict of interest, and a danger to public
confidence.
The nuance and uncertainty was a pleasant surprise. We'll see how long
it lasts. A lot can happen between the time of oral argument and the
time of decision.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55849&title=Chief%20Justice%20Roberts%3A%20A%20Campaign%20Finance%20Moderate%20Who%20Gets%20It%3F&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
"Initiative Reforms Likely to Build Citizen Engagement, Trust in
Government" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55847>
Posted on October 8, 2013 9:00 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55847>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
PPIC Press Release <http://www.ppic.org/main/pressrelease.asp?i=1400>:
A report <http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/atissue/AI_1013MBAI.pdf>
released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC)
recommends three steps to improve the initiative process---steps
that reflect both Californians' desire to continue making laws at
the ballot box and their criticisms of the system. These policy
changes would connect the legislative and initiative processes,
increase disclosure of initiative funders, and reengage citizens in
the initiative process.
The changes could have far-reaching consequences, says report author
Mark Baldassare, PPIC's president and CEO.
"These reforms are likely to have an impact beyond the initiative
process," he said. "They hold considerable promise for increasing
citizen engagement, encouraging voter participation, and building
trust in state government."
The report, Reforming California's Initiative Process, notes that
the 10 years since the historic recall of the state governor have
seen a level of political reform unprecedented in recent California
history. Voters have been asked to weigh in on 100 state ballot
propositions, 68 of them citizens' initiatives. Many of the measures
in recent years aimed to improve fiscal and governance systems that
voters viewed as inadequate. Political reformers and legislators are
now taking aim at the 102-year-old initiative process itself. At the
same time, PPIC Statewide Surveys have consistently found both broad
support for the initiative process and broad consensus that changes
are needed to improve it.
Specifically, Californians would like to see changes that give them
a role in fiscal policy, allay their concerns about the influence of
moneyed interests, reduce their distrust of the legislature, and
break through the partisan gridlock that has stifled government
action on important policy decisions.
There is broad consensus on these three steps to change the
initiative process:
* Connect the legislative and initiative processes. Californians
like the idea of expanding the legislature's involvement in the
initiative process---as long as voters continue to be part of
the decisionmaking. PPIC Surveys show that overwhelming
majorities of Californians favor having a period of time that an
initiative sponsor and the legislature could meet to seek
compromise before a measure goes to the ballot. Overwhelming
majorities of Californians also support a system of review and
revision for proposed initiatives to try to avoid legal issues
and drafting errors. One way to set up such a system would be to
revive California's indirect initiative, in which sponsors bring
their initiatives to the legislature after the required number
of signatures has been gathered. A way to give Californians a
say in fiscal decisions---as they had in deciding the
Proposition 30 tax initiative last year---would be to lower the
vote threshold for the legislature to place tax measures on the
ballot. A solid majority of residents favor this idea. But
Californians balk at increasing the legislature's power too
much: Less than half favor allowing the legislature, with the
governor's approval, to amend initiatives after a certain number
of years. And most oppose making it easier for the legislature
to raise taxes without a public vote.
* Increase disclosure of initiative funders. Voters feel moneyed
interests have too much involvement in the initiative process
and that the intentions of these interests are not well known.
Steps to increase public disclosure could include naming the top
financial backers in signature-gathering materials, paid
advertising, and the voter information guide. Voters could also
get a chance to meet the advocates and opponents of an
initiative through televised debates between the two sides.
Televised debates are supported by overwhelming majorities in
the PPIC Survey.
* Reengage citizens in the initiative process. Californians have
lost their connection to their own citizens' initiative
process---one in which it takes a well-funded campaign just to
get a measure on the ballot. Strong majorities of Californians
like the idea of giving initiative sponsors more time to qualify
for the ballot if their campaigns use volunteers rather than
paid workers to gather signatures. Strong majorities also like
the idea of renewing important ballot decisions by voting on
them after a few years---a process that could result in more
flexible lawmaking at the ballot box. Finally, California could
benefit from a close look at Oregon's experience. Oregon has
established an independent citizens' commission that holds
public hearings on state initiatives and makes recommendations
in the official voter information guide. This innovation gets
strong support in the PPIC Statewide Survey.
The report notes that while voters have made big changes through
initiatives, there has been little change to the initiative process
itself. But a flurry of recent actions to reform state government
suggests that the time may be ripe for reforming this tool of direct
democracy. Voters have taken the power to draw legislative districts
from the legislature, replaced partisan primaries with the top-two
primary, changed legislative term limits, enabled legislators to
pass a state budget with a simple majority vote, and raised their
own taxes through a citizens' initiative, Proposition 30. Given this
recent history of reform and the consensus for making changes to the
initiative process, the state may be poised to improve its system of
direct democracy, Baldassare says.
"In the last five years, Californians have taken bold actions to
reform their state government. Initiative reform---if pursued
thoughtfully---could result in a brighter future for the state," he
said.
The report is supported with funding from the S. D. Bechtel, Jr.
Foundation.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55847&title=%E2%80%9CInitiative%20Reforms%20Likely%20to%20Build%20Citizen%20Engagement%2C%20Trust%20in%20Government%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in direct democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>
Jesse Wegman on "The Long Shadow of Citizens United"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55844>
Posted on October 8, 2013 8:47 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55844>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here
<http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/08/the-long-shadow-of-citizens-united/?_r=0>,
at NYT Editorial's "Taking Note" blog.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55844&title=Jesse%20Wegman%20on%20%E2%80%9CThe%20Long%20Shadow%20of%20Citizens%20United%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Dahlia Lithwick on McCutcheon Argument
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55842>
Posted on October 8, 2013 5:33 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55842>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Read
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2013/10/mccutcheon_v_fec_supreme_court_case_to_raise_limits_on_campaign_contributions.html>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55842&title=Dahlia%20Lithwick%20on%20McCutcheon%20Argument&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Nina Totenberg on McCutcheon Argument
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55840>
Posted on October 8, 2013 5:23 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55840>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Listen.
<http://www.npr.org/2013/10/08/230519762/scotus-re-enters-debate-over-money-and-politics?ft=1&f=1014&utm_campaign=nprpolitics&utm_source=politics&utm_medium=twitter>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55840&title=Nina%20Totenberg%20on%20McCutcheon%20Argument&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Top Recent Downloads in Election Law on SSRN
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55838>
Posted on October 8, 2013 5:13 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55838>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/topten/topTenResults.cfm?groupingId=991929&netorjrnl=jrnl>:
*RECENT HITS (for all papers announced in the last 60 days) *
*TOP 10 Papers for Journal of LSN: Election Law & Voting Rights (Topic)*
<http://papers.ssrn.com/publicRss/rssManagerInc.cfm?journalId=991929>
/August 9, 2013 to October 8, 2013/
Rank Downloads Paper Title
1 100 *Beyond the Discrimination Model on Voting*
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2306080>
Samuel Issacharoff
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=48053>,
New York University School of Law,
/Date posted to database: /August 6, 2013
/Last Revised: /September 5, 2013
2 73 *Elections and Alignment*
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2313941>
Nicholas Stephanopoulos
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=636048>,
University of Chicago Law School,
/Date posted to database: /August 23, 2013
/Last Revised: /September 28, 2013
3 66 *Voting Rules and Constitutional Law*
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2322765>
Edward B. Foley
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=33055>,
Ohio State University (OSU) -- Michael E. Moritz College of Law,
/Date posted to database: /September 9, 2013
/Last Revised: /September 9, 2013
4 42 *Contracting Around Citizens United: Private Ordering, Political
Dynamics, and Third-Party Campaign Spending*
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2322453>
Ganesh Sitaraman
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1107794>,
Vanderbilt Law School,
/Date posted to database: /September 14, 2013
/Last Revised: /September 23, 2013
5 31 *The Emerging Democratic Presidential Majority: Lessons of
Obama's Victory*
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2301060>
Alan Abramowitz
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=349266>,
Emory University,
/Date posted to database: /August 8, 2013
/Last Revised: /August 8, 2013
6 29 *More than Marriage: Civil Cases in the Supreme Court's 2012-2013
Term* <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2314499>
Todd E. Pettys
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=328179>,
University of Iowa -- College of Law,
/Date posted to database: /August 22, 2013
/Last Revised: /September 17, 2013
7 28 *Evolution of an Issue: Voter ID Laws in the American States*
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2300630>
Daniel A. Smith
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=345144>, Seth
C. McKee
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1321457>,
Mitchell Sellers
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=2096810>,
William D Hicks
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=2107857>,
Unaffiliated Authors -- Independent, University of Florida -- Department
of Political Science, University of Florida, University of Florida,
/Date posted to database: /August 22, 2013
/Last Revised: /August 22, 2013
8 20 *The Democratic Risk to Democratic Transitions*
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2324861>
Samuel Issacharoff
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=48053>,
New York University School of Law,
/Date posted to database: /September 14, 2013
/Last Revised: /September 22, 2013
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55838&title=Top%20Recent%20Downloads%20in%20Election%20Law%20on%20SSRN&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
"Shelby County and the End of History"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55836>
Posted on October 8, 2013 5:02 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55836>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Joel Heller has posted this draft
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2337027> on SSRN
(forthcoming, /University of Memphis Law Review/). Here is the abstract:
In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court largely ignored
history. Striking down a central provision of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965 ("VRA"), the Court suggested that the past was a minimal,
and perhaps irrelevant, consideration in determining whether federal
oversight of state election laws was necessary. The Court held that
VRA's use of voting policies and turnout rates from the 1960s and
1970s to select jurisdictions for such oversight was irrational,
because such information reflected only "decades-old problems" and
had "no logical relation to the present day." Yet the past
influences the present; history and memory affect current-day
actions and attitudes, and, when that history includes voting
discrimination on account of race, can do so in ways inimical to the
right to vote. The Court is correct, of course, that "history did
not end in 1965," but it did not begin then, either.
In explaining that history is not a "current condition," the Court
did not acknowledge that the influence of the past is a distinct
phenomenon from the past itself; even if the latter no longer merits
a congressional response, the former still might. The Court's
failure to recognize the power of the past and the burden of memory
likewise resulted in an incomplete analysis of the continued
necessity, and thus the continued constitutionality, of the
federal-oversight provision. Downplaying the relevance of history as
a probative metric for evaluating the need for remedial
voting-rights legislation, the Court ignored part of the work that
the VRA was doing in the present. By considering the past, the
invalidated provision of the VRA operated to address the
problematical influence of history; it was a past-focused solution
to a past-centered problem. This Article explores the power of the
past in jurisdictions with a history of discrimination, explains why
the VRA's role in relation to this phenomenon justifies its
continued existence, and posits how Congress can respond to the
Court's decision in a way that recognizes this important role.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55836&title=%E2%80%9CShelby%20County%20and%20the%20End%20of%20History%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
Fair Market Value of Pot at Issue in Colorado Campaign Finance
Complaint <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55834>
Posted on October 8, 2013 4:59 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55834>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
See here
<http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/10/08/ethics-complaint-filed-against-anti-pot-taxation-group/101415/>.
And no, unlike McCutcheon, this doesn't involve a "joint fundraising
committee.
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/09/campaign_finance_at_the_supreme_court_is_mccutcheon_v_fec_the_next_citizens.html>"
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55834&title=Fair%20Market%20Value%20of%20Pot%20at%20Issue%20in%20Colorado%20Campaign%20Finance%20Complaint&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
election law "humor" <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=52>
"How Do Liberal Supporters of Citizens United Feel Now?"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55832>
Posted on October 8, 2013 4:10 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55832>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Slate asks
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/10/how_liberals_who_supported_citizens_united_feel_about_mccutcheon.html>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55832&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Do%20Liberal%20Supporters%20of%20Citizens%20United%20Feel%20Now%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
"High Court Wary of Another Campaign Contribution Barrier"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55830>
Posted on October 8, 2013 4:07 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55830>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Marcia Coyle
<http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleSCI.jsp?id=1202622690935&thepage=1> for
NLJ.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55830&title=%E2%80%9CHigh%20Court%20Wary%20of%20Another%20Campaign%20Contribution%20Barrier%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Andy Kroll on What's at Stake in McCutcheon
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55828>
Posted on October 8, 2013 3:41 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55828>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/mccutcheon-fec-supreme-court-citizens-united-mitch-mcconnell>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55828&title=Andy%20Kroll%20on%20What%E2%80%99s%20at%20Stake%20in%20McCutcheon&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Michael Ramsey, on Originalism Blogs, Doubts Originalist Arguments
on Both Sides in McCutcheon <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55826>
Posted on October 8, 2013 3:38 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55826>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Read this
<http://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2013/10/some-doubts-about-mccutcheon-v-fecmichael-ramsey.html>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55826&title=Michael%20Ramsey%2C%20on%20Originalism%20Blogs%2C%20Doubts%20Originalist%20Arguments%20on%20Both%20Sides%20in%20McCutcheon&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
"Arizona to segregate federal and state election ballots"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55824>
Posted on October 8, 2013 2:49 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55824>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The latest.
<http://www.cvbugle.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=993&ArticleID=40020>
More from TPM
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/voter-iders-in-kanas-arizona-moving-to-two-tier-voting-systems>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55824&title=%E2%80%9CArizona%20to%20segregate%20federal%20and%20state%20election%20ballots%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
Election Assistance Commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=34>, The
Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter registration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>, Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
"Eric Holder's 2014 Racial Politics: The Attorney General tries to
reverse a Supreme Court ruling by the back door."
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55822>
Posted on October 8, 2013 2:18 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55822>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WSJ editorial.
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304906704579111261360872456.html>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55822&title=%E2%80%9CEric%20Holder%E2%80%99s%202014%20Racial%20Politics%3A%20The%20Attorney%20General%20tries%20to%20reverse%20a%20Supreme%20Court%20ruling%20by%20the%20back%20door.%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>,
The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
"How Close Will the Supreme Court Get to Ending Campaign-Finance
Laws?" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55820>
Posted on October 8, 2013 2:00 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55820>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Garrett Epps writes
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/how-close-will-the-supreme-court-get-to-ending-campaign-finance-laws/280401/>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55820&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Close%20Will%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20Get%20to%20Ending%20Campaign-Finance%20Laws%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Million Dollar Contributions Corrupt Democracy
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55815>
Posted on October 8, 2013 1:21 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55815>by Spencer Overton
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=17>
I was at the U.S. Supreme Court's campaign finance oral argument today.
Please click here
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/spencer-overton/million-dollar-contributi_b_4065854.html> to
find my latest on the front page of the Huffington Post, "Million Dollar
Contributions Corrupt Democracy
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/spencer-overton/million-dollar-contributi_b_4065854.html>."
Based on my academic work and practical experiences fundraising, I
observe that striking down the $123,200 aggregate contribution limit
would result in U.S. House and Senate members soliciting checks of up to
$2.95 million per individual for a joint fundraising committee, and also
result in quid pro quo corruption.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55815&title=Million%20Dollar%20Contributions%20Corrupt%20Democracy&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
"Justice Alito's 'Wild Hypotheticals' Claim In McCutcheon v. FEC
Misses The Mark" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55813>
Posted on October 8, 2013 1:07 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55813>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
HuffPo
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/mccutcheon-v-fec-alito_n_4065441.html?1381262498>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55813&title=%E2%80%9CJustice%20Alito%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%98Wild%20Hypotheticals%E2%80%99%20Claim%20In%20McCutcheon%20v.%20FEC%20Misses%20The%20Mark%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Read the Transcript in McCutcheon Oral Argument at Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55810>
Posted on October 8, 2013 10:33 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55810>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-536_21o2.pdf>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55810&title=Read%20the%20Transcript%20in%20McCutcheon%20Oral%20Argument%20at%20Supreme%20Court&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
Early Reports on McCutcheon Oral Argument: Agreggate Limits Likely
to Fall, But Not Clear If Standard of Review Will Change
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55799>
Posted on October 8, 2013 8:36 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55799>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP:
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/campaign-contribution-caps-issue-high-court>
Chief Justice John Roberts said that telling an individual he can
give the legal maximum of $2,600 per election to only a handful of
candidates for Congress "seems to me a very direct restriction" on
First Amendment rights.
The court did not appear willing to call into question all
contribution limits in its first major campaign finance case since 2010.
HuffPo
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/mccutcheon-v-fec_n_4059180.html?utm_hp_ref=tw>
More to come
MORE:
Bloomberg
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-08/campaign-contribution-caps-questioned-by-u-s-supreme-court.html>
WaPo
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-skeptical-of-limits-on-federal-campaign-contributions/2013/10/08/1a1fca06-302c-11e3-9ccc-2252bdb14df5_story.html>
NY Times
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/us/politics/supreme-court-weighs-campaign-contribution-limits.html?_r=0>"Chief
Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who probably holds the crucial vote,
indicated that he was inclined to strike down overall limits on
contributions to several candidates, but not a separate overall limit on
contributions to several political committees."
USA Today
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/08/shaun-mccutcheon-supreme-court-campaign-finance-citizens-united/2939143/>
SCOTUSBlog
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/10/argument-recap-how-is-political-influence-bought/>:
"Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., who may well hold a decisive vote
in this case, wondered aloud whether there was any way to deal with the
problem of rich people writing very large checks that would not also
inhibit wider participation in the money side of politics....Will the
Court start all over with the issue of limiting campaign contributions,
as it did four years ago with independent campaign spending, opening the
money floodgates further? Maybe, but there was almost nothing heard in
Court on Tuesday that would suggest any such boldness."
Reuters
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/08/us-usa-court-campaignfinance-idUSBRE9970M320131008>
McClatchy
<http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/08/204688/supreme-court-seems-skeptical.html>
LA Times
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-supreme-court-campaign-finance-20131008,0,5144824.story>
Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/supreme-court-campaign-finance-97989.html>
CQ Roll Call
<http://cdn1.cq.com/emailed/cf0ROEgLx6K9gSlF8npQWitk-GQ/news-4358622.html>
TPM
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/conservative-justices-seek-to-further-gut-campaign-finance-regs>
CPI
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/10/08/13511/supreme-court-mulls-axing-campaign-donation-limits>
BuzzFeed
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/chief-justice-weighs-first-amendment-against-corruption-conc>
ABC News
<http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/10/conservative-supreme-court-justices-question-campaign-contribution-limits/>
I've explained in /Slate /
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/09/campaign_finance_at_the_supreme_court_is_mccutcheon_v_fec_the_next_citizens.html>that
the most important question is not IF the limits fall but HOW. A broad
ruling could endanger /all/ campaign contribution limits.
Also, to understand /McCutcheon/ you've got to know the history of
/Buckley v. Valeo. ///I tell its story in /The Nine Lives of //Buckley
v. Valeo /
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1593253>(in First
Amendment Stories (Garnett and Koppelman eds.)
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55799&title=Early%20Reports%20on%20McCutcheon%20Oral%20Argument%3A%20Agreggate%20Limits%20Likely%20to%20Fall%2C%20But%20Not%20Clear%20If%20Standard%20of%20Review%20Will%20Change&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
--
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://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20131008/871f8380/attachment.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/20131008/871f8380/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rss_small.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4442 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20131008/871f8380/attachment-0001.png>
View list directory