[EL] Free Speech Just Got More Expensive

Mon Apr 14 11:40:25 PDT 2014

I would think that certain groups would certainly think so.  There have been, for instance, efforts to disrupt foreign money flowing to efforts to proselytize certain schools within Islam, like Wahhabism, in the United States.  Many still view any wealthy religious institution as potential threat to our political system, if not society as a whole.

Regardless, the author of the piece makes the argument that money is not speech.  Fair enough.  But money is not religion either, and, if Congress passed a law limiting spending money on defense lawyers, money is also not a lawyer.

My point is that limiting money that one can spend in the exercise of a right limits the exercise of that right.  It's just that the author is okay with others' rights are limited-I was wondering if would feel the same way about what's important to him.  And the ability to exercise freely one's Constitutional rights is certainly relevant to our political system.

Bill

From: Robert Wechsler [mailto:catbird at pipeline.com]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 11:21 AM
To: Bill Maurer
Cc: law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Free Speech Just Got More Expensive

Bill, is the corruption of a religious institution via huge gifts, or the corruption of minds by excessive proselytism, relevant to our democratic political system?

On 4/14/2014 1:09 PM, Bill Maurer wrote:
The WaPo piece raises an issue that I always wonder about when I hear faith leaders discuss how awful Citizens United and related cases are: if Congress passed a law limiting how much money a person could contribute to a religious institution, or limiting how much money a religious institution could spend proselytizing, would these same leaders consider those laws to be a violation of the right of free exercise?

Bill

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2014 9:46 AM
To: law-election at UCI.edu<mailto:law-election at UCI.edu>
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/13/14

With Leland Yee Out, Is CA Secretary of State Race Wide Open?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60439>
Posted on April 13, 2014 9:33 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60439> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Front page<http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-secretary-of-state-20140413,0,5294613.story#axzz2ymgVCh2C> of the CA section of today's LA Times.  What's interesting is that there are two potentially viable reform candidates in the race<http://graphics.latimes.com/towergraphic-candidates-california-secretary-state/>, Derek Cressman (running as a Democrat, and formerly of Common Cause) and Dan Schnur (of USC's Jesse Unruh Institute, formerly a Republican but running as a "no party preference" candidate).  Further, the Green Party candidate David Curtis is making modification of the two-two primary, because it makes it harder for third party or independent candidates to run, one of his main issues.

This is the first statewide race under top-two where things seem open to a third party or non-party candidate. Nonetheless, party id still matters a lot under top two, as may name recognition. The new Field Poll <http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2465.pdf.> has Republican Pete Peterson leading with 30% followed by Democrat Alex Padilla with 17%. Part of the issue is that this is a low salience race and the party preference on the general election ballot could make a difference.
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60439&title=With%20Leland%20Yee%20Out%2C%20Is%20CA%20Secretary%20of%20State%20Race%20Wide%20Open%3F&description=>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, primaries<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
"Google, once disdainful of lobbying, now a master of Washington influence"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60437>
Posted on April 13, 2014 9:20 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60437> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Your Sunday morning reading from WaPo<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-transforming-power-and-politicsgoogle-once-disdainful-of-lobbying-now-a-master-of-washington-influence/2014/04/12/51648b92-b4d3-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html>, which begins:

In May 2012, the law school at George Mason University hosted a forum billed as a "vibrant discussion" about Internet search competition. Many of the major players in the field were there - regulators from the Federal Trade Commission, federal and state prosecutors, top congressional staffers.

What the guests had not been told was that the day-long academic conference was in large part the work of Google<http://washpost.bloomberg.com/marketnews/stockdetail/?symbol=GOOG>, which maneuvered behind the scenes with GMU's Law & Economics Center<http://www.masonlec.org/> to put on the event. At the time, the company was under FTC investigation over concerns about the dominance of its famed search engine, a case that threatened Google's core business.

In the weeks leading up to the GMU event, Google executives suggested potential speakers and guests, sending the center's staff a detailed spreadsheet listing members of Congress, FTC commissioners, and senior officials with the Justice Department and state attorney general's offices.

"If you haven't sent out the invites yet, please use the attached spreadsheet, which contains updated info," Google legal assistant Yang Zhang wrote to Henry Butler, executive director of the law center, according to internal e-mails obtained by The Washington Post<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/2014/04/12/how-google-worked-behind-the-scenes-to-invite-federal-regulators-to-conferences/> through a public records request. "If you've sent out the invites, would it be possible to add a few more?"

Butler replied, "We're on it!"
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60437&title=%E2%80%9CGoogle%2C%20once%20disdainful%20of%20lobbying%2C%20now%20a%20master%20of%20Washington%20influence%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in lobbying<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
"FairVote Survey Shows Support for Takoma Park Voting Reforms"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60435>
Posted on April 13, 2014 9:16 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60435> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Rob Richie blogs<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-richie/fairvote-survey-shows-sup_b_5134618.html>.
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60435&title=%E2%80%9CFairVote%20Survey%20Shows%20Support%20for%20Takoma%20Park%20Voting%20Reforms%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in alternative voting systems<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>
"Ranked Choice Voting and Civility: New Evidence from American Cities"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60433>
Posted on April 13, 2014 9:15 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60433> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

New FairVote report<http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Ranked-Choice-Voting-Civility-Study-April-2014.pdf>, which begins:

Ranked choice voting (RCV) has been associated with a range of civic benefits, but in the context of the polarized politics of the United States its potential to promote civil and inclusive campaigns is especially promising. As the use of ranked choice voting has increased in the U.S. - including adoptions in Minnesota's Twin Cities and the Bay Area in California - there is now more data available to test this idea in American elections. Highlights from two recent studies provide strong evidence that RCV has been embraced by voters and candidates alike, who see RCV as a means of reducing divisive politics and fostering more positive, inclusive, and informative campaigns.
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60433&title=%E2%80%9CRanked%20Choice%20Voting%20and%20Civility%3A%20New%20Evidence%20from%20American%20Cities%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in alternative voting systems<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>
Jeff Toobin and Ryan Lizza Discuss McCutcheon on New Yorker Podcast<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60431>
Posted on April 13, 2014 9:13 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60431> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Here.<http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/04/political-scene-little-chance-for-campaign-finance-reform.html?utm_source=tny&utm_campaign=generalsocial&utm_medium=twitter&mbid=social_twitter>
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60431&title=Jeff%20Toobin%20and%20Ryan%20Lizza%20Discuss%20McCutcheon%20on%20New%20Yorker%20Podcast&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
"Mudslinging at the FEC over disclosure"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60429>
Posted on April 13, 2014 9:12 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60429> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CPI<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/04/11/14577/mudslinging-fec-over-disclosure>: "Federal Election Commission Chairman Lee Goodman and two of his fellow Republican colleagues skewered Vice Chairwoman Ann Ravel - a Democrat - on Thursday because she didn't vote to defend the agency last month against litigation from campaign finance reform-minded organizations."

My earlier coverage is here<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60346>.
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60429&title=%E2%80%9CMudslinging%20at%20the%20FEC%20over%20disclosure%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, federal election commission<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
"COMMENTARY: Free speech just got more expensive"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60427>
Posted on April 13, 2014 9:09 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60427> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Jusus Baird of Religion News Service has written a commentary<http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/commentary-free-speech-just-got-more-expensive/2014/04/08/3522733c-bf54-11e3-9ee7-02c1e10a03f0_story.html> which begins:

Dear Supreme Court justices: When I heard about the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling, it made me plotz.

I'm a rabbi, so I know much more about the Talmud than about torts. But if there's any group that can compete with scholars of constitutional law, it's rabbis.

Your recent decision was all about the First Amendment and free speech.

As I understand it, legal scholars have interpreted that word "speech" to include "political expression." So far, I'm with you. I think the freedom of being able to talk politics without fear of reprisal, whether you are a mighty politician or a lowly voter, is A-OK.

But when you said that political expression is the same as a campaign contribution, you lost me.
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60427&title=%E2%80%9CCOMMENTARY%3A%20Free%20speech%20just%20got%20more%20expensive%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Zack Roth on Obama's Latest Volley in the Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60425>
Posted on April 13, 2014 9:05 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60425> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Here<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-democrats-go-all-voting-rights>, at MSNBC.
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60425&title=Zack%20Roth%20on%20Obama%E2%80%99s%20Latest%20Volley%20in%20the%20Voting%20Wars&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
"Florida no longer part of controversial national voter data project"<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60423>
Posted on April 13, 2014 9:04 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60423> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Miami Herald<http://electionlawblog.org/Florida%20no%20longer%20part%20of%20controversial%20national%20voter%20data%20project%20%20Read%20more%20here:%20http:/miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2014/04/florida-no-longer-part-of-controversial-national-voter-data-project.html#storylink=cpy>:

For those following the issue of voter fraud nationwide, this fact-check by PunditFact of a claim by Fox News commentator Dick Morris is a must-read.

Morris said that "probably over a million people" voted twice in the 2012 general election nationwide. PunditFact rated that False - and you can read the full report here<http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/10/dick-morris/dick-morris-theres-proof-over-1-million-people-vot/>.

Morris was referring to data from a project dubbed Interstate Crosscheck run by Republican Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

As of 2013, 28 states sent voter information to Kansas where the record of each of their voters is run against the records in all the other participating states. They are matched on first name, last name, date of birth and Social Security number.

Interstate Crosscheck's own guide for states includes an important caveat that tends to get overlooked: "a significant number of apparent double votes are false positives and not double votes. Many are the result of errors - voters sign the wrong line in the poll book, election clerks scan the wrong line with a barcode scanner."

Interstate Crosscheck's reports in 2013 include Florida data based on the 2012 election. However, Florida is absent from the 2014 report. We asked a spokeswoman for Republican Secretary of State Ken Detzner why Florida dropped out.
Dan Smith<http://electionsmith.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/kansas-sos-kobachs-interstate-voter-registration-matching-program-so-unreliable-even-florida-has-opted-out/>: Kansas SOS Kobach's interstate voter registration matching program so unreliable, even Florida has opted out
[Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60423&title=%E2%80%9CFlorida%20no%20longer%20part%20of%20controversial%20national%20voter%20data%20project%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

--

Rick Hasen

Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science

UC Irvine School of Law

401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000

Irvine, CA 92697-8000

949.824.3072 - office

949.824.0495 - fax

rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>

http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/

http://electionlawblog.org

________________________________

Spam<about:blank>
Not spam<about:blank>
Forget previous vote<about:blank>

_______________________________________________

Law-election mailing list

Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>

http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

________________________________

Spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04LNSldR7&m=a9f529ba2545&t=20140414&c=s>
Not spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04LNSldR7&m=a9f529ba2545&t=20140414&c=n>
Forget previous vote<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04LNSldR7&m=a9f529ba2545&t=20140414&c=f>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140414/c8cef6d4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140414/c8cef6d4/attachment.png>