[EL] What a Shock!
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Apr 9 12:38:09 PDT 2014
To be clear, some people complaining about you don't necessarily
disagree with your positions. The first person I quoted is hardly a
campaign reformer. They disagree with your lack of civility.
And with this, and at the risk of you saying I'm trying to shut you up,
I'm done.
On 4/9/14, 12:32 PM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
> As I have explained, which started this all, "reformers" want to use
> campaign finance laws to shut up their opponents so they can get their
> liberal agenda through. Comments by them after McCutcheon have made
> this crystal clear, as well as has Breyer's dissent. So I am not at
> all surprised that they want to shut me up too. Many people think
> that disagreeing with them is disagreeable.
> Rick, I am glad you may not be in that camp. Jim Bopp
> In a message dated 4/9/2014 2:47:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>
> Jim,
>
> If I really wanted to discourage you from commenting about my
> views on the listserv, I would have removed you from the listserv,
> which many people have been urging me to do for your lack of
> civility for some time.
>
> (More emails to that effect came in today. A few choice quotes:
> "I’d move to get rid of Jim Bopp from the list-serve. .... It’s
> tiresome. He clearly can’t disagree without being disagreeable.
> Let him find another forum for his snark. I’d prefer not to get
> any more emails from him. And I don’t even necessarily disagree
> with some of his positions. I can’t be alone in this
> assessment." "Just curious, is there a way to tone down the
> constant snark/invective he (and many of the CCP folks) constantly
> post? It is ironic because, even as a reformer, I could take
> their arguments more seriously if they weren’t so obnoxious.").
>
> Instead, despite your intemperate comments on the listserv I have
> engaged with you, just like I have debated Brad Smith and Floyd
> Abrams with whom I also disagree.
>
> Rick
>
> On 4/9/14, 10:48 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
>> Fair enough. I have no interest in long debates either but
>> it is also true that these fundamentally different world views
>> continue to be advocated for and currently debated.
>> I thought I raised a new twist on it in my post, in response to
>> yours, which is the fact that reformers regularly make dire
>> predictions that almost never come true. Your post wants to hold
>> the "deregulators" into account for their predictions and I was
>> simply holding "reformers" to the same. Their predictions about
>> CU were wrong, they should be held in account for it and as a
>> result their current predictions should be viewed with more
>> skepticism.
>> But of course you and anyone is free not to defend their
>> opinions if they choose. But that won't discourage me from
>> commenting on them, which honestly is what I think you are trying
>> to do. Jim Bopp
>> PS And I seriously doubt that anyone would think that you would
>> agree with even my non-outlandish and non-snarky statements.
>> In a message dated 4/9/2014 1:16:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>> rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>>
>> Jim,
>>
>> We have fundamentally different world views as well as
>> assessments of the empirical evidence. We have had a number
>> of exchanges on the list and elsewhere over the years about
>> these conflicting normative views and views of the evidence,
>> and I don't think that repeating that debate on the listserv
>> would be a good use of anyone's time. It is not that I don't
>> think you are unworthy of debate. It is that it all has been
>> said before. I am not sure if our CATO live debate from a few
>> years ago is still on the Internet. I'd be happy to reprise
>> that debate at some point in the future. But back and forth
>> sniping on the listserv seems a waste of time.
>>
>> The fullest explication of my views on campaign finance
>> appears in my 2003 book, /The Supreme Court and Election Law.
>> /You can read the chapter on campaign finance if you want to
>> understand my full views---though they have evolved in some
>> significant ways since then. I am planning likely another
>> book length treatment to make my full case for a political
>> equality view of the First Amendment---one which differs, by
>> the way, from Justice Breyer's dissent in some important
>> ways. I hope when I can make my sustained argument it will
>> convince many people who might be on the fence on these
>> issues. I certainly don't expect it to convince you even in
>> a book length treatment (much less in a short listserv response).
>>
>> Of course my views expressed on the blog or elsewhere are
>> fair targets for you, and you can respond however you wish.
>> The reason I posted a short note in response to you was that
>> I did not want to leave anyone new to the list with the
>> impression that I agreed with your outlandish and snarky
>> statements. Beyond that, you have new lawsuits to bring (and
>> many to win, unfortunately in my view) and I have a book to
>> write.
>>
>>
>> Rick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/9/14, 10:03 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
>>> Well then I will await your much larger work anxiously. I
>>> can raise questions about your posts and you defend yourself
>>> by citing "larger works."
>>> You have said repeatedly, when you occasionally respond to
>>> one of my posts, that "I'm not going to get into another
>>> long debate with you on the internet." I don't know if you
>>> think I am just not worthy of debating you or you don't want
>>> to debate in public so others can evaluate your
>>> arguments. Or perhaps you prefer just to express your
>>> opinions everyday but are above defending them. The Oracles
>>> of Delphi felt the same way. Either way it is an odd brush
>>> off by someone with so many opinions and one who so
>>> aggressively puts them out to the public. But I guess some
>>> are just too good to be soiled by debate with us commoners.
>>> Oh, and by the way, just because I responded I am still "not
>>> going to get into another long debate with you on the
>>> internet." How about a short debate instead? I have more
>>> lawsuits to work on. Jim Bopp
>>> In a message dated 4/9/2014 11:18:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight
>>> Time, rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>>>
>>> Jim,
>>> I'm not going to get into another long debate with you
>>> on the internet. But depending upon how one defines the
>>> problem, the sky actually is already falling, and the
>>> election of Obama does not prove that the system is
>>> working. I've made a number of points about the problem
>>> of legislative skew in this piece
>>> (http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/lobbying-rent-seeking-and-constitution)
>>> and I've begun work on a much larger work which will
>>> eventually respond to these points.
>>> Rick
>>>
>>> On 4/9/14, 5:55 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
>>>> Regarding Rick's comment under "What a Shock!:"
>>>> /P.S. Someone should collect all the statements from
>>>> the deregulationists who said getting rid of aggregate
>>>> limits is no big deal and it wouldn’t lead to
>>>> multi-million dollar checks and the emergence of soft
>>>> money./
>>>> I would but my hard drive is already full of all the
>>>> Chicken Little claims of imminent doom by the campaign
>>>> finance "reformers" after almost every Court decision
>>>> since /Buckley/.
>>>> Just to mention one, /Citizens United/ was decided in
>>>> 2010. The Chicken Littles said that corporations would
>>>> own all the politicians. Obama was reelected in 2012.
>>>> Was he owned by corporations? Opps. And the Chicken
>>>> Littles have not even apologized to Obama. They just
>>>> press on with more dire predictions. Jim Bopp
>>>> In a message dated 4/8/2014 11:47:01 P.M. Eastern
>>>> Daylight Time, rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tom Edsall on McCutcheon
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on April 8, 2014 8:27 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250>by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> Important NYT opinion column
>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/opinion/the-high-cost-of-free-speech.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>.
>>>>
>>>> Tom links to my SCOTUSBlog post, “Does the Chief
>>>> Justice not Understand Politics, or Does He
>>>> Understand it all too Well?
>>>> <http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/symposium-does-the-chief-justice-not-understand-politics-or-does-he-understand-it-all-too-well/>“
>>>>
>>>> It’s not every day I’m called more cynical than
>>>> Richard Posner.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom
>>>> Edsall on McCutcheon&description=
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=>
>>>> Posted in campaign finance
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “Miss. preparing to use new voter ID law”
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60247>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on April 8, 2014 8:00 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60247>by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> Gannett reports.
>>>> <http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20140408/NEWS01/304080033/Miss-preparing-use-new-voter-ID-law>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60247&title=“Miss.
>>>> preparing to use new voter ID lawâ€&description=
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60247&title=%E2%80%9CMiss.%20preparing%20to%20use%20new%20voter%20ID%20law%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>>> Posted in election administration
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting
>>>> Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “Blacks and Early Voting, in Ohio and
>>>> Wisconsin” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60245>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on April 8, 2014 7:56 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60245>by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> NYT letter to the editor
>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/opinion/blacks-and-early-voting-in-ohio-and-wisconsin.html?ref=opinion>
>>>> from NAACP Ohio and Wisconsin leaders.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60245&title=“Blacks
>>>> and Early Voting, in Ohio and
>>>> Wisconsinâ€&description=
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60245&title=%E2%80%9CBlacks%20and%20Early%20Voting%2C%20in%20Ohio%20and%20Wisconsin%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>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> NYT Letters to the Editor on David Brooks
>>>> McCutcheon Column
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60243>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on April 8, 2014 7:55 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60243>by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> Here.
>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/opinion/money-politics-and-the-justices.html?ref=opinion>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60243&title=NYT
>>>> Letters to the Editor on David Brooks McCutcheon
>>>> Column&description=
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60243&title=NYT%20Letters%20to%20the%20Editor%20on%20David%20Brooks%20McCutcheon%20Column&description=>
>>>> Posted in campaign finance
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How Low Will Dick Morris Go?
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60241>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on April 8, 2014 7:53 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60241>by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> This low.
>>>> <http://thehill.com/opinion/dick-morris/203019-dick-morris-investigate-2012-vote-fraud>
>>>>
>>>> Didn’t realize he was a member of the fraudulent
>>>> fraud squad.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60241&title=How
>>>> Low Will Dick Morris Go?&description=
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60241&title=How%20Low%20Will%20Dick%20Morris%20Go%3F&description=>
>>>> Posted in fraudulent fraud squad
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The Voting
>>>> Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What a Shock!: “John Roberts Gets the Parties
>>>> Started” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60239>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on April 8, 2014 7:43 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60239>by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> Politico reports:
>>>> <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/john-roberts-supreme-court-mccutcheon-republican-party-105503.html>
>>>>
>>>> Insiders are dreaming up how to maximize a
>>>> recent Supreme Court ruling that frees up some
>>>> big donors to give even more.
>>>>
>>>> A prominent idea: create a new class of donors
>>>> who contribute a total of six- or seven-figures
>>>> to each of three party committees and spread
>>>> cash to endangered lawmakers. In exchange, the
>>>> big-money givers would get something of an “all
>>>> access pass” that comes with perks from the big
>>>> three national committees, like face time with
>>>> top officials.
>>>>
>>>> Of course Roberts told us that this wouldn’t
>>>> happen, or that the FEC or Congress would easily
>>>> fix it.
>>>> Yeah right.
>>>> <http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/symposium-does-the-chief-justice-not-understand-politics-or-does-he-understand-it-all-too-well/>
>>>> And don’t delude yourselves. Many Democratic party
>>>> operatives are /delighted/ with /McCutcheon./
>>>> P.S. Someone should collect all the statements from
>>>> the deregulationists who said getting rid of
>>>> aggregate limits is no big deal and it wouldn’t
>>>> lead to multi-million dollar checks and the
>>>> emergence of soft money.
>>>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60239&title=What
>>>> a Shock!: “John Roberts Gets the Parties
>>>> Startedâ€&description=
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60239&title=What%20a%20Shock%21%3A%20%E2%80%9CJohn%20Roberts%20Gets%20the%20Parties%20Started%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>>> Posted in campaign finance
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Two Panels on Voting Rights May 2 at LA Law
>>>> Library as Part of Law Week
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60236>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on April 8, 2014 7:00 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60236>by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> Looking forward to participating in this:
>>>>
>>>> http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Law_Week_Flyer_Friday.png
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Law_Week_Flyer_Friday.png>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60236&title=Two
>>>> Panels on Voting Rights May 2 at LA Law Library as
>>>> Part of Law Week&description=
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60236&title=Two%20Panels%20on%20Voting%20Rights%20May%202%20at%20LA%20Law%20Library%20as%20Part%20of%20Law%20Week&description=>
>>>> Posted in voting
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>, Voting Rights
>>>> Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “Government Brief Cites McCutcheon Case In
>>>> Defending FEC’s Requirements for PACs”
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60234>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on April 8, 2014 6:51 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60234>by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> Bloomberg BNA
>>>> <http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=44415475&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0e8w1u4z2&split=0>:
>>>> “Supreme Court precedents, including the court’s
>>>> most recent campaign finance ruling in McCutcheon
>>>> v. Fed. Election Comm’n, consistently have
>>>> supported requirements for public disclosure of
>>>> campaign money, government attorneys argued in a
>>>> brief
>>>> <http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/freespeech_fec_opp_brief.pdf>
>>>> filed with the high court (Free Speech v. FEC,
>>>> U.S., No. 13-772, brief filed 4/4/14).”
>>>>
>>>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60234&title=“Government
>>>> Brief Cites McCutcheon Case In Defending FEC’s
>>>> Requirements for PACsâ€&description=
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60234&title=%E2%80%9CGovernment%20Brief%20Cites%20McCutcheon%20Case%20In%20Defending%20FEC%E2%80%99s%20Requirements%20for%20PACs%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>>> Posted in campaign finance
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “How to Clean Up American Elections”
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60232>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on April 8, 2014 6:46 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60232>by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> Ganesh Sitaraman writes
>>>> <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/clean-up-elections-with-peoples-pledge-105492.html#.U0SlbMeT6N8>
>>>> for Politico.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60232&title=“How
>>>> to Clean Up American Electionsâ€&description=
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60232&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20to%20Clean%20Up%20American%20Elections%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>>> Posted in campaign finance
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “RNC chairman: Strike down all contribution
>>>> limits” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60230>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on April 8, 2014 6:44 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60230>by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> That’s
>>>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/08/rnc-chairman-strike-down-all-contribution-limits/>more
>>>> like it.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60230&title=“RNC
>>>> chairman: Strike down all contribution
>>>> limitsâ€&description=
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60230&title=%E2%80%9CRNC%20chairman%3A%20Strike%20down%20all%20contribution%20limits%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>>> Posted in campaign finance
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “Stay issued on subpoenas in NC election law
>>>> case “ <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60228>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on April 8, 2014 1:31 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60228>by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> AP reports.
>>>> <http://www.news-record.com/news/north_carolina_ap/article_451dc9df-0dcb-58c2-9fb5-8b87ed1d86b9.html>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60228&title=“Stay
>>>> issued on subpoenas in NC election law case
>>>> “&description=
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60228&title=%E2%80%9CStay%20issued%20on%20subpoenas%20in%20NC%20election%20law%20case%20%E2%80%9C&description=>
>>>> Posted in The Voting Wars
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “The Hounding of Brendan Eich Gives New Cover
>>>> to Defenders of Dark Money”
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60226>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on April 8, 2014 1:30 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60226>by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> Important piece
>>>> <http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117307/brendan-eichs-resignation-mozilla-gives-new-cover-dark-money>
>>>> from Alec MacGillis.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60226&title=“The
>>>> Hounding of Brendan Eich Gives New Cover to
>>>> Defenders of Dark Moneyâ€&description=
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60226&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Hounding%20of%20Brendan%20Eich%20Gives%20New%20Cover%20to%20Defenders%20of%20Dark%20Money%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>>> Posted in campaign finance
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “McConnell Doubts Individual Campaign Finance
>>>> Limits Will Go Away”
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60224>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on April 8, 2014 1:20 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60224>by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> Roll Call reports
>>>> <http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/mcconnell-doubts-individual-campaign-finance-limits-will-go-away/>.
>>>> I don’t think he’s the only one calling the shots
>>>> on this though.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60224&title=“McConnell
>>>> Doubts Individual Campaign Finance Limits Will Go
>>>> Awayâ€&description=
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60224&title=%E2%80%9CMcConnell%20Doubts%20Individual%20Campaign%20Finance%20Limits%20Will%20Go%20Away%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>>> Posted in campaign finance
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Demos Explainer on McCutcheon
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60222>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on April 8, 2014 1:03 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60222>by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> Guide for the Perplexed.
>>>> <http://www.demos.org/publication/what-mccutcheon-v-fec>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60222&title=Demos
>>>> Explainer on McCutcheon&description=
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60222&title=Demos%20Explainer%20on%20McCutcheon&description=>
>>>> Posted in campaign finance
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “Judge Rules Delaware Disclosure Law
>>>> Unconstitutional”
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60220>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on April 8, 2014 12:58 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60220>by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> CCP:
>>>> <http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2014/04/08/judge-rules-delaware-disclosure-law-unconstitutional/>“A
>>>> federal court today issued an order
>>>> <http://www.campaignfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/SLR-Order-08apr20141.pdf>
>>>> barring enforcement
>>>> <http://www.campaignfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Order-Granting-MPI.pdf>
>>>> of a recently adopted Delaware law that would have
>>>> forced a group that publishes non-partisan voter
>>>> guides to violate its members’ privacy.”
>>>>
>>>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60220&title=“Judge
>>>> Rules Delaware Disclosure Law
>>>> Unconstitutionalâ€&description=
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60220&title=%E2%80%9CJudge%20Rules%20Delaware%20Disclosure%20Law%20Unconstitutional%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>>> Posted in campaign finance
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “Rich People Will Always Beat Campaign Finance
>>>> Restrictions”
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60218>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on April 8, 2014 12:55 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60218>by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> Steve Chapman
>>>> <http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/07/rich-people-will-always-beat-campaign-fi>writes
>>>> for /Reason./
>>>>
>>>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60218&title=“Rich
>>>> People Will Always Beat Campaign Finance
>>>> Restrictionsâ€&description=
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60218&title=%E2%80%9CRich%20People%20Will%20Always%20Beat%20Campaign%20Finance%20Restrictions%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>>> Posted in campaign finance
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “Shelby and Section 3: Pulling the Voting
>>>> Rights Act’s Pocket Trigger to Protect Voting
>>>> Rights after Shelby County v. Holder”
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60216>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on April 8, 2014 12:51 pm
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60216>by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> Paul Wiley has postedthis draft student note
>>>> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2421605>
>>>> on SSRN (forthcoming, /Washington and Lee Law
>>>> Review/). Here is the abstract:
>>>>
>>>> The Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County
>>>> v. Holder presents voting rights advocates with
>>>> a difficult challenge: finding an effective
>>>> substitute for the preclearance regime struck
>>>> down by the Court. The best possible
>>>> alternative may live within the Voting Rights
>>>> Act itself in Section 3(c)’s “pocket trigger.”
>>>> Section 3(c) permits a federal court to retain
>>>> jurisdiction and preclear a jurisdiction’s
>>>> changes to its voting procedures upon a finding
>>>> of a constitutional violation. By relating more
>>>> closely to current conditions in a specific
>>>> locality, Section 3(c) preclearance avoids many
>>>> of the problems the Court identified in NAMUDNO
>>>> and Shelby County.
>>>>
>>>> This Note analyzes the history of Voting Rights
>>>> Act litigation and suggests a more expansive
>>>> use of Section 3(c) preclearance to continue
>>>> federal oversight of election procedures.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60216&title=“Shelby
>>>> and Section 3: Pulling the Voting Rights Act’s
>>>> Pocket Trigger to Protect Voting Rights after
>>>> Shelby County v. Holderâ€&description=
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60216&title=%E2%80%9CShelby%20and%20Section%203%3A%20Pulling%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%99s%20Pocket%20Trigger%20to%20Protect%20Voting%20Rights%20after%20Shelby%20County%20v.%20Holder%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>>> Posted in Supreme Court
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights
>>>> Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>, VRAA
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=81>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All My McCutcheon Commentary in One Place
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60214>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on April 8, 2014 10:47 am
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60214>by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> Courtesy
>>>> <http://www.law.uci.edu/news/faculty/hasen_040214.html>
>>>> of @UCILaw:
>>>>
>>>> * The Guardian
>>>> <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/08/supreme-court-fight-for-voting-rights>
>>>>
>>>> * Daily Journal (PDF)
>>>> <http://www.law.uci.edu/news/in-the-news/2014/djournal_hasen_040814.pdf>
>>>>
>>>> * Reuters
>>>> <http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/04/07/opening-the-political-money-chutes/>
>>>>
>>>> * SCOTUSBlog
>>>> <http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/symposium-does-the-chief-justice-not-understand-politics-or-does-he-understand-it-all-too-well/>
>>>>
>>>> * Slate <http://slate.me/1oqLlN0>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60214&title=All
>>>> My McCutcheon Commentary in One Place&description=
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60214&title=All%20My%20McCutcheon%20Commentary%20in%20One%20Place&description=>
>>>> Posted in campaign finance
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “McCutcheon and Corruption in America”
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60212>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on April 8, 2014 9:13 am
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60212>by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> Harvard University Press blog
>>>> <http://harvardpress.typepad.com/hup_publicity/2014/04/mccutcheon-and-corruption-in-america-zephyr-teachout.html>:
>>>>
>>>> In /Corruption in America: From Benjamin
>>>> Franklin’s Snuff Box to Citizens United/
>>>> <http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674050402>,
>>>> Teachout reminds us that the particularly
>>>> demanding notion of corruption represented by
>>>> that early gifts rule is central to American
>>>> law and democracy. This notion of corruption,
>>>> she explains, is not limited to the blatant
>>>> bribes and explicit quid pro quo to which Chief
>>>> Justice Roberts referred in this week’s
>>>> /McCutcheon v. FEC/
>>>> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commission/>
>>>> ruling, and Justice Kennedy in /Citizens
>>>> United/
>>>> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/>
>>>> before that. The foundational American
>>>> understanding of corruption encompassed
>>>> emotional, internal, psychological
>>>> relationships in an effort to protect the
>>>> morality of interactions between official
>>>> representatives of government and private
>>>> parties, foreign parties, or other politicians.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60212&title=“McCutcheon
>>>> and Corruption in Americaâ€&description=
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60212&title=%E2%80%9CMcCutcheon%20and%20Corruption%20in%20America%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>>> Posted in campaign finance
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marty Lederman Goes Into the Weeds on Standing
>>>> and Ripeness Issues in Susan B. Anthony False
>>>> Speech SCOTUS Case
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60210>
>>>>
>>>> Posted on April 8, 2014 9:00 am
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60210>by Rick Hasen
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>>>
>>>> A very helpful primer
>>>> <http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/dewine-v-dewine-with-the-united-states-somewhere-in-between/>,
>>>> at SCOTUSBlog.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60210&title=Marty
>>>> Lederman Goes Into the Weeds on Standing and
>>>> Ripeness Issues in Susan B. Anthony False Speech
>>>> SCOTUS Case&description=
>>>> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60210&title=Marty%20Lederman%20Goes%20Into%20the%20Weeds%20on%20Standing%20and%20Ripeness%20Issues%20in%20Susan%20B.%20Anthony%20False%20Speech%20SCOTUS%20Case&description=>
>>>> Posted in campaigns
>>>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>>> http://electionlawblog.org
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
> --
> 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
>
--
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/20140409/700e67c9/attachment.html>
View list directory