[EL] What a Shock!
Douglas Carver
dhmcarver at gmail.com
Wed Apr 9 13:31:39 PDT 2014
Jim, I know plenty of campaign finance reformers. Some of them agree with
you at times, you may be surprised to know. Very often, most often, even,
they disagree with you, usually pretty strongly. But none of them want to
shut you up.
One of the things I most value about this listserve -- and why I am so
grateful to Rick and all of the others who keep it running and participate
in its dialogue -- is that there is free and frank discussion of the
issues. So thanks to all who make it happen.
Douglas Carver
Albuquerque, NM
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:32 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.
> [image:
> 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>
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60247&title=â EURO oeMiss.
> preparing to use new voter ID lawâ EURO &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.
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60245&title=â EURO oeBlacks
> and Early Voting, in Ohio and Wisconsinâ EURO &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>
> [image:
> 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.
> [image:
> 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.
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60239&title=What
> a Shock!: â EURO oeJohn Roberts Gets the Parties Startedâ EURO &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:
>
> [image:
> http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Law_Week_Flyer_Friday.png]<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Law_Week_Flyer_Friday.png>
> [image:
> 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)."
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60234&title=â EURO oeGovernment
> Brief Cites McCutcheon Case In Defending FECâ EURO (tm)s Requirements for PACsâ EURO
> &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.
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60232&title=â EURO oeHow
> to Clean Up American Electionsâ EURO &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.
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60230&title=â EURO oeRNC
> chairman: Strike down all contribution limitsâ EURO &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>
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60228&title=â EURO oeStay
> issued on subpoenas in NC election law case â EURO oe&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.
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60226&title=â EURO oeThe
> Hounding of Brendan Eich Gives New Cover to Defenders of Dark Moneyâ EURO
> &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.
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60224&title=â EURO oeMcConnell
> Doubts Individual Campaign Finance Limits Will Go Awayâ EURO &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>
> [image:
> 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."
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60220&title=â EURO oeJudge
> Rules Delaware Disclosure Law Unconstitutionalâ EURO &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.*
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60218&title=â EURO oeRich
> People Will Always Beat Campaign Finance Restrictionsâ EURO &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 posted this 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.
>
>
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60216&title=â EURO oeShelby
> and Section 3: Pulling the Voting Rights Actâ EURO (tm)s Pocket Trigger to Protect
> Voting Rights after Shelby County v. Holderâ EURO &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>
>
> [image:
> 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.
>
> [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60212&title=â EURO oeMcCutcheon
> and Corruption in Americaâ EURO &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.
> [image:
> 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 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://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 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://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 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://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 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://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
>
--
Dilexi iustitiam et odivi iniquitatem, propterea morior in exilio.
(I have loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile.)
-- the last words of Saint Pope Gregory VII (d. 1085)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140409/db2ee746/attachment.html>
View list directory