[EL] ELB News and Commentary 10/15/13
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Mon Oct 14 20:18:27 PDT 2013
Just a reminder: be sure to pay attention to the name of the person
posting. There are posts below from Spencer Overton and Rick Pildes.
"No, overturning campaign contribution limits really would be a
problem" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55991>
Posted on October 14, 2013 8:14 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55991>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bob Biersack responds
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/10/14/no-overturning-campaign-contribution-limits-really-would-be-a-problem/>
to Ray LaRaja
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/10/09/the-supreme-court-might-strike-down-overall-contribution-limits-and-thats-okay/>at
The Monkey Cage.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55991&title=%E2%80%9CNo%2C%20overturning%20campaign%20contribution%20limits%20really%20would%20be%20a%20problem%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
"Poll: Americans support fine-tuning election policy"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55989>
Posted on October 14, 2013 8:10 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55989>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
USA Today
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/14/americans-election-policy-usa-today-bipartisan-policy-center-poll/2983159/>:
A nationwide USA TODAY/Bipartisan Policy Center poll finds a
majority of Americans support a range of proposals aimed at easing
hyper-partisanship and building confidence in elections. Some
command the sort of broad bipartisan backing rare in national politics.
Allow independents to vote in primaries? Yes. Require photo IDs to
curb voter fraud? Definitely. Find an alternative to having
legislatures draw congressional districts? Maybe. Vote over the
Internet? Well, no.
And there's this, which supports what I've been seeing for the last few
years:
Republicans and Democrats have sharply different priorities when it
comes to elections. By 54%-43%, a majority of Republicans say it's
more important to make sure no one commits voter fraud and harms the
rights of legitimate voters. By 78%-20%, Democrats say it's more
important to make sure every individual who has the right to vote is
allowed to exercise that right.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55989&title=%E2%80%9CPoll%3A%20Americans%20support%20fine-tuning%20election%20policy%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
primaries <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>, redistricting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
"McCutchen v. FEC: Why It Matters"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55987>
Posted on October 14, 2013 7:26 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55987>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Jerad Najvar and Dan Backer have written this oped
<http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/14/mccutcheon-v-fec-why-it-matters/> for
the /Daily Caller./
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55987&title=%E2%80%9CMcCutchen%20v.%20FEC%3A%20Why%20It%20Matters%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
North Carolina and Racial Redistricting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55985>
Posted on October 14, 2013 2:28 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55985>by Richard Pildes
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>
In addition to North Carolina's package of changes to its voting laws,
the same state legislature has been sued for unconstitutionally using
race to gerrymander its state election districts. Though this racial
gerrymandering issue has gotten less attention in the press so far than
the changes to voting laws, the gerrymander might well have more
significant outcomes on actual politics and policymaking in the state
over the next decade.
Before the Supreme Court's /Shelby County/ decision, the state trial
court upheld this redistricting plan. It is now pending before the
state Supreme Court, which among other things, will have to determine if
/Shelby County/ has any bearing on the issues. Depending on the
outcome, the case could find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Although I very rarely sign on to /amicus/ briefs, I agreed to join one
here, on behalf of academic experts in the voting-rights field. The
brief can be found here
<http://its.law.nyu.edu/faculty/profiles/representiveFiles/amicus%20brief%20in%20NC_B6B90AF8-5056-AF45-531A014F7FD5037E.pdf>.
//
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55985&title=North%20Carolina%20and%20Racial%20Redistricting&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
The Real Argument for Liberal Originalism in the Campaign Finance
Cases? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55982>
Posted on October 14, 2013 8:21 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55982>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Is the concern that a Justice such as Justice Kagan
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55923> would not want to say she or he is
embracing the equality rationale while still doing it, a la Justice
Marshall in /Austin/? In that case, dependence corruption works as a
kind of fig leaf. At least I think that's the argument ofBruce Cain
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2267187> about how
this might work.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55982&title=The%20Real%20Argument%20for%20Liberal%20Originalism%20in%20the%20Campaign%20Finance%20Cases%3F&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
"The Gamble: Choice and Chance in the 2012 Presidential Election"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55980>
Posted on October 14, 2013 8:17 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55980>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I've just received my copy
<http://www.amazon.com/The-Gamble-Choice-Presidential-Election/dp/0691156883>
in the mail and I can't wait to read it. And check out John Sides and
Lynn Vavreck:How We Wrote the Gamble
<http://themonkeycage.org/2013/08/29/how-we-wrote-the-gamble/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+themonkeycagefeed+%28The+Monkey+Cage%29>,
at The Monkey Cage.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55980&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Gamble%3A%20Choice%20and%20Chance%20in%20the%202012%20Presidential%20Election%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
"Navigating Debates About Redistricting"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55978>
Posted on October 14, 2013 8:15 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55978>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Monkey Cage
<http://themonkeycage.org/2012/12/12/navigating-debates-about-redistricting/>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55978&title=%E2%80%9CNavigating%20Debates%20About%20Redistricting%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
"The Voting Wars Coming to Wisconsin"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55976>
Posted on October 14, 2013 8:14 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55976>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/10/14/voting-wars-coming-to-wisconsin/>."As
if Wisconsin needed another debate to divide its citizens, the voting
wars are coming to Madison. The state Senate last week passed four
measures, three almost exclusively on party-line votes, to make minor
changes to election day procedures."
Good report but lousy headline. Coming to?
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55976&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Voting%20Wars%20Coming%20to%20Wisconsin%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
How Aggregate Limits Prevent Quid Pro Quo Corruption
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55969>
Posted on October 14, 2013 6:15 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55969>by Spencer Overton
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=17>
I discussed the U.S. Supreme Court's /McCutcheon/ case Saturday on
Karen Finney's MSNBC show Disrupt
<http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49263362/vp/52199227#53265390>, and also last
week in this HuffPo commentary
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/spencer-overton/million-dollar-contributi_b_4065854.html>.
"Aggregate limits" seem technical, but the issue is simple.
*Invalidating aggregate limits would allow an elected official to ask a
wealthy contributor for a single check of about $3 million, *which would
open the door to quid pro quo corruption.
In 2012, for example, the Obama campaign solicited checks as large as
$75,800 for the Obama Victory Fund (a joint fundraising
committee)---with $30,800 going toward the DNC, $40,000 to Democratic
state parties, and $5000 going toward the Obama campaign. Mitt Romney
did the same. Significantly larger checks were not solicited only
because of the aggregate limits. These victory funds are not
outliers---in 2012 they were the mainstay of presidential major donor
fundraising and tied to pretty much all fundraising events once it was
likely the candidate would be the party's nominee.
If the Court strikes the aggregate limits, a federal elected official
(President, Senator, Congressperson) would be able to ask a wealthy
individual for a $3 million check, which would be divided between the
elected official's national and state party committees, and as well as
fellow party members running for all U.S. House and Senate seats
nationwide. As evidenced during the Watergate and soft-money era
scandals (which led to reforms), solicitation by elected officials of
these large contributions will result in more explicit quid pro quo
corruption.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55969&title=How%20Aggregate%20Limits%20Prevent%20Quid%20Pro%20Quo%20Corruption&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
"Lessig Explains His 'Originalist' Understanding of 'Corruption'"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55967>
Posted on October 13, 2013 9:40 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55967>by Rick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Josh Blackman blogs
<http://joshblackman.com/blog/2013/10/13/lessig-explains-his-originalist-understanding-of-corruption/>.
I guess the way I would think of it is similar to Josh's: would the
Framers have considered it to be an "abridgement" of "freedom of speech"
to limit campaign spending (or contributions)? Maybe in CAC's view
<http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/2268/rick-hasen%E2%80%99s-faulty-originalism>
I'm asking the wrong originalist question, though I am focusing on the
"key words and phrases" in the First Amendment. Could be---as they say,
I'm no originalist.
I just found it curious that Larry has built his edifice around the
construct of "dependence corruption" from Federalist No. 52, but the
kind of "dependence corruption" described in that pamphlet has nothing
to do <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55919> with the kind of
institutional skewing of politics towards donors which concerns Larry
and CAC. Further, the last part of CAC's post
<http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/2268/rick-hasen%E2%80%99s-faulty-originalism>
seems to be about traditional (quid pro quo) corruption, which Lessig in
/Republic, Lost/ says he's not concerned with. From my HLR review
<http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/126/december12/Book_Review_9410.php>:
82 If the people are not corrupt, how is the system corrupt? Lessig
explains:
[Dependence corruption is] a corruption practiced by decent people,
people we shouldrespect, people working extremely hard to do what
they believe is right, yet decent people working with a system that
has evolved the most elaborate and costly bending of democratic
government in our history. . . . This corruption has two elements .
. . . The first element is bad governance, which means simply that
our government doesn't track the expressed will of the people,
whether on the Left or on the Right. . . . The second element is
lost trust: when democracy seems a charade, we lose faith in its
process. . . .Participation thus declines, especially among the
sensible middle. Policy gets driven by the extremists at both ends.
(pp. 8--9)
I guess I'm just confused about the scope of both the originalist
argument and its connection to the First Amendment.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55967&title=%E2%80%9CLessig%20Explains%20His%20%E2%80%98Originalist%E2%80%99%20Understanding%20of%20%E2%80%98Corruption%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&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/20131014/de6861d8/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/20131014/de6861d8/attachment.png>
View list directory