[EL] McCain predicts a major scandal
Trevor Potter
tpotter at capdale.com
Thu Apr 24 11:05:51 PDT 2014
Brad raises the question whether federal campaign finance laws can prevent scandals, and answers in the negative, citing as an example Watergate ( all the regulation we already have didn't prevent Watergate (they just broke the law against corporate contributions).
As it happens, I just gave a speech which included extensive references to Watergate this week, so I have been looking back at what happened there. It is, of course, more complicated and different than Brad's one liner suggests. To start with, the laws ignored that led to Watergate included disclosure laws. Those were ignored by Nixon and the RNC because " everyone " ignored them, and there was no penalty for failing to do so. The applicable Post -Watergate reform was the creation of the FEC , with comprehensive public filing obligations and reports open to press scrutiny, and a civil investigative and penalty process to ensure reports are filed in a timely, accurate and complete matter. If that structure had been in place before Watergate it is likely the scandal would not have occurred--corporations would not have made illegal contributions if they were publicly disclosed, and the White House safes would not have been awash in cash.
Senator McCain made specific note in his comments of the dangers of the millions of dollars of undisclosed " dark money" currently coursing through the federal political system. In that regard, it is the FEC that is ignoring the disclosure law, though--not the Nixon administration....just going to show that no reform is ever perfect!
Trevor Potter
On Apr 24, 2014, at 11:14 AM, "Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>> wrote:
I got a chuckle out of the top item in Rick's news of the day: "McCain predicts 'major scandal on campaign finance." Well, shake my day. "Dog Bites Man!" "Gonzaga favored in WCC!" "McCain predicts scandal!" "Sun to rise in East."
If I had a nickel for every time McCain has predicted a future scandal, I think I could retire. Of course he's right, because there's always a scandal at some point - all the regulation we already have didn't prevent Watergate (they just broke the law against corporate contributions), Abscam, the Keating Five, Ney, Cunningham and Jefferson, and so it goes. So long as there are politicians - so long as there are people - there will be ethical scandals.
So yes, there will be a scandal, and the question then is whether we analyze it seriously or jump right into the demagoguery. And there's a very predictable headline answering that question, too.
Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
614.236.6317
http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] on behalf of Rick Hasen [rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 11:07 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/24/14
“McCain predicts ‘major scandal’ on campaign finance”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60832>
Posted on April 24, 2014 8:03 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60832> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Hill reports.<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/campaign-committees/204228-sen-mccain-on-campaign-finance-rulings-i-predict-a-major>
<share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60832&title=%E2%80%9CMcCain%20predicts%20%E2%80%98major%20scandal%E2%80%99%20on%20campaign%20finance%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“How wealthy campaign donors may reduce political polarization and weaken the tea party”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60830>
Posted on April 24, 2014 8:01 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60830> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Part 2 of Bonica and Shen <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/24/how-wealthy-campaign-donors-may-reduce-political-polarization-and-weaken-the-tea-party/> on the aftermath of McCutcheon.
<share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60830&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20wealthy%20campaign%20donors%20may%20reduce%20political%20polarization%20and%20weaken%20the%20tea%20party%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“The left’s secret club plans for 2014, 2016″<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60828>
Posted on April 24, 2014 7:58 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60828> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Vogel<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/democrats-democracy-alliance-liberal-donors-105972.html?hp=t1>:
Some of the country’s biggest Democratic donors ― including Tom Steyer and Jonathan Soros ― are huddling behind closed doors next week in Chicago with union bigwigs and progressive superstars like Bill de Blasio to plan how to pull their party ― and the country ― to the left.
The setting is the annual spring meeting of the Democracy Alliance, a secretive club of wealthy liberals that’s the closest thing the left has to the vaunted Koch brothers’ political <http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/koch-brothers-2014-elections-102555.html> network<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/koch-brothers-2014-elections-102555.html>.
<share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60828&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20left%E2%80%99s%20secret%20club%20plans%20for%202014%2C%202016%E2%80%B3&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Disclosure, hypocrisy, and hyperbole in campaign finance”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60826>
Posted on April 24, 2014 7:29 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60826> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Brad Smith<http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2014/04/22/disclosure-hypocrisy-and-hyperbole-in-campaign-finance/>:
It has just come to my attention that last week David Schultz, a Professor at the Graduate School of Management at Hamline University with whom I’ve previously had cordial relations, rather out of the blue “called me out” last week. In a post<http://politicsinminnesota.com/2014/04/schultz-money-v-democracy-and-the-coming-death-of-disclosure/> at Politics in Minnesota, Professor Schultz accuses me, by name (along with Attorney Jim Bopp and political scientist John Samples of the Cato Institute), of “hypocrisy,” and complains that we wish to “hide in the dark,” are “authoritarians,” and wish to “create a new plutocracy.” Indeed, he appears to say of all three of us that “they do not want anyone to know who they are,” a particularly odd claim since you would be hard pressed to find three more visible advocates of free speech and free elections. Presumably, it’s just sloppy writing and he meant to suggest that others fit that last bill.
<share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60826&title=%E2%80%9CDisclosure%2C%20hypocrisy%2C%20and%20hyperbole%20in%20campaign%20finance%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Are Democrats Repeating Their Post-Citizens United Mistake? Three weeks after the McCutcheon ruling, Republicans are taking advantage of the new rules much quicker than Democrats.”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60824>
Posted on April 24, 2014 7:25 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60824> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
National Journal reports<http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/are-democrats-repeating-their-post-citizens-united-mistake-20140422>.
<share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60824&title=%E2%80%9CAre%20Democrats%20Repeating%20Their%20Post-Citizens%20United%20Mistake%3F%20Three%20weeks%20after%20the%20McCutcheon%20ruling%2C%20Republicans%20are%20taking%20advantage%20of%20the%20new%20rules%20much%20quicker%20than%20Democrats.%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“A Constitutional ‘Right to Participate’ in the Electoral Process?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60822>
Posted on April 24, 2014 7:21 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60822> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bauer blogs<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2014/04/constitutional-right-participate-electoral-process/>.
<share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60822&title=%E2%80%9CA%20Constitutional%20%E2%80%98Right%20to%20Participate%E2%80%99%20in%20the%20Electoral%20Process%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, voting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
“California judge named head of state’s political ethics agency”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60819>
Posted on April 23, 2014 9:42 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60819> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
LAT<http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-ethics-commission-20140424,0,6908.story#axzz2zm91URP9>:
Gov. Jerry Brown<http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/jerry-brown-PEPLT007547.topic> on Wednesday appointed as head of California’s political ethics agency a judge who has overseen the discipline of attorneys.
Jodi Remke, presiding judge of the State Bar Court of California, is Brown’s choice for chairwoman of the state Fair Political Practices Commission.
Good-government activists including Robert Stern, a former general counsel for the California agency and a coauthor of the state Political Reform Act, said they knew nothing about Remke. But a former boss said she was a great choice.
<share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60819&title=%E2%80%9CCalifornia%20judge%20named%20head%20of%20state%E2%80%99s%20political%20ethics%20agency%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election law biz<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>
“California secretary of state candidates clash over ethics ideas”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60817>
Posted on April 23, 2014 9:39 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60817> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
LAT.<http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-secretary-state-20140424,0,4719684.story#axzz2zm8dwhsE>
<share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60817&title=%E2%80%9CCalifornia%20secretary%20of%20state%20candidates%20clash%20over%20ethics%20ideas%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“The rich are dominating campaigns. Here’s why that’s about to get worse.”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60815>
Posted on April 23, 2014 9:33 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60815> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Adam Bonica and Jenny Shen<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/23/the-rich-are-dominating-campaigns-heres-why-thats-about-to-get-worse/> write at The Monkey Cage.
<share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60815&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20rich%20are%20dominating%20campaigns.%20Here%E2%80%99s%20why%20that%E2%80%99s%20about%20to%20get%20worse.%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Race and the Supreme Court”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60813>
Posted on April 23, 2014 8:45 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60813> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Andrew Cohen reflects<http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/race-and-supreme-court#.U1iHxtW6ay0.twitter> on Schuette, Shelby County, and more.
<share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60813&title=%E2%80%9CRace%20and%20the%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Southern Whites’ Loyalty to G.O.P. Nearing That of Blacks to Democrats”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60811>
Posted on April 23, 2014 8:40 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60811> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Nate Cohn<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/upshot/southern-whites-loyalty-to-gop-nearing-that-of-blacks-to-democrats.html?rref=upshot&_r=0> at NYT’s New “The Upshot:”
It is impossible to discuss Mr. Obama’s weakness among Southern whites without mention of race. It is surely a factor, and perhaps even a large one. Mr. Obama performed significantly worse than John Kerry among Southern whites, even though both were Northern liberals and 2008 was a far better year for Democrats than 2004. (The estimates are derived from census and exit poll data). And the pattern of white support in the 2012 presidential election is an eerie reversal of post-Reconstruction presidential elections, when Jim Crow laws rendered blacks ineligible to vote and Democrats won the so-called Solid South by similar margins.
But it is hard to know the extent to which racism is responsible for Mr. Obama’s weakness. After all, Mr. Obama is not the only Democrat to perform so poorly in recent years. Some white Democratic candidates, like Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, have done worse than Mr. Obama among Southern whites. And Mr. Obama’s losses are part of a longer-term trend. Mr. Kerry, for instance, performed worse than Al Gore, who even fared worse than Michael Dukakis among Southern whites.
<share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60811&title=%E2%80%9CSouthern%20Whites%E2%80%99%20Loyalty%20to%20G.O.P.%20Nearing%20That%20of%20Blacks%20to%20Democrats%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
Rethink Red Lion?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60808>
Posted on April 23, 2014 6:23 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60808> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ron Collins<http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2014/04/fan-12-first-amendment-news-red-lion-revisited.html>:
More than a quarter-century ago, Professor Laurence Tribe<http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10899/Tribe> declared: “The first amendment’s sweeping guarantees have been most compromised in the realm of the most modern medium: electronic broadcasting.” (American Constitutional Law, p. 1004: 1988).
Perhaps mindful of that contention, in his petition for certiorari<http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-minorit-05934/>Joshua Rosenkranz<http://www.orrick.com/Lawyers/E-Joshua-Rosenkranz/Pages/default.aspx> (who heads Orrick’s Supreme Court and appellate litigation practice) urges the Court to reconsider its unanimous ruling in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_2_2> (1969), which upheld the Fairness Doctrine over a First Amendment challenge. (Note: Archibald Cox and Erwin Griswold successfully represented the Respondents in the case. The ACLU filed an amicus brief submitted by Melvin L. Wulf and Eleanor Holmes Norton in which they supported the First Amendment claims.)
Josh was of course the first director of the Brennan Center and I worked with him a few years ago on the Carrigan case.
One to watch.
<share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60808&title=Rethink%20Red%20Lion%3F&description=>
Posted in Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Shorter Supreme Court in Child Pornography Case: Congress, Please Override Us<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60802>
Posted on April 23, 2014 5:34 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60802> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Today the Supreme Court decided a statutory interpretation case, Paroline v. U.S<http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-8561_7758.pdf>. with no easy answer, an unusual cross-ideological divide among the Justices, an interpretation offered by the majority which Adam Liptak<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/us/politics/justices-void-3-4-million-award-to-child-pornography-victim.html?hp> rightfully describes as “a new and vague legal standard,” and a Chief Justice in his dissenting opinion begging Congress to fix the problem (“The statute as written allows no recovery; we ought to say so, and give Congress a chance to fix it.”). Even though Congress rarely overrides Congress these days, I predict an override in this case, and probably relatively quickly.
As Adam explains the facts, “The 1994 law allows victims of child pornography to seek the ‘full amount’ of their losses from people convicted of producing, distributing or possessing it, and Amy asked the United States District Court in Tyler, Tex., to order Mr. Paroline to pay her the full $3.4 million [of her losses].” The majority in an opinion by Justice Kennedy said that was too much, and sent the case back for some kind of uncertain undertaking of the amount of damages; the Chief Justice (joined by Scalia and Thomas, but not Justice Alito) in dissent said the standard was unworkable and the proper amount was zero until Congress fixes the statute for others, and Justice Sotomayor, for herself only in dissent would have allowed for the full amount of damages awarded in the lower court.
The case is fascinating to me as someone who teaches both Torts and Remedies. (It’s not every day that you get the Justices on the Court opining on the difference between actual and proximate cause, citing the Restatement (Third) of Torts, and discussing the concept of independent concurrent causation.)
But thinking about this from the point of view of Legislation, this seems the ideal case for a Congressional override. As I’ve noted in a recent law review article<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2130190>, Congress now rarely overrides the Court, and when it does, there tend to be partisan overrides (as when Republicans overrode the Supreme Court in cutting back habeas for detainees in Hamdan or when Democrats overrode the Supreme Court in allowing more employment remedies in Ledbetteri). I attribute the decline of bipartisan overrides to increasing political polarization in Congress. (Christiansen and Eskridge<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60395> are skeptical of the partisanship point, and reach somewhat different conclusions using very different methodology. I will blog more about that at some point.)
But even in an era of intense partisanship, as we are in right now, there is room sometimes for biparisanship, and this looks like the perfect opportunity for two reasons. First, everyone hates child pornographers and wants to look tough on crime. Unless Congress is satisfied with the vague standard of the majority, it could look good for all of Congress to get tougher than the Court was willing to be on child pornographers―particularly when the Court’s ruling means that many victims are undercompensated. (Marci Hamilton offers a suggestion<http://hamilton-griffin.com/the-perils-of-paroline-v-united-states-and-what-congress-must-do-next/> for what new congressional legislation could look like.)
Second, though related to the first point, taking a stand in favor of fixing the statute won’t be seen as going up against the Supreme Court. If all the conservatives were on one side and all the liberals on the other in a 5-4 decision, then an override of a Supreme Court statutory case looks like an attack on one wing of the Court. Here, you have a case with a cross-ideological majority throwing up its hands as to an administrable rule, and three of four dissenters asking Congress to step in.
In an era where Congress can do so little thanks to ideological polarization, a new Amy Act looks to be a no-brainer.
UPDATE: Much more on what Congress can do from Paul Casell,<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/23/the-supreme-court-promises-child-pornography-victims-full-restitution-someday-how-long-is-that/> Amy’s lawyer.
<share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60802&title=Shorter%20Supreme%20Court%20in%20Child%20Pornography%20Case%3A%20Congress%2C%20Please%20Override%20Us&description=>
Posted in Remedies<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=57>, statutory interpretation<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=21>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, Torts<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=35>
“Hardening Partisanship in State Legislatures”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60800>
Posted on April 23, 2014 5:06 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60800> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
FairVote blog<http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/monopoly-politics-blog-series-hardening-partisanship-in-state-legislatures/>. [corrected link]
<share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60800&title=%E2%80%9CHardening%20Partisanship%20in%20State%20Legislatures%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in alternative voting systems<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>, political parties<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, political polarization<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>
This Does Not Bode Well for Congress’s Updating of the Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60798>
Posted on April 23, 2014 3:28 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60798> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
At I have been writing<http://electionlawblog.org/?s=%22eric+cantor%22&x=0&y=0>, the only real chance of the Voting Rights Act Amendment (<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=81>which would restore a form of preclearance regime) making it out of the current session of Congress appears to be if the bill gets the support of Eric Cantor. So far Cantor has been noncommittal.<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=58072>
Today, however, Eric Cantor is being attacked from the right <http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/22/Eric-Cantor-Shadow-Job-Interview-For-Speaker> (not about the VRAA, but generally). Whether the claims against Cantor are fair or not are not questions for me to answer. But there’s little doubt that if he endorses the VRAA he is going to get attacked from the right. While if he does nothing on the VRAA he will suffer no political cost. So this marginally makes it less likely that Cantor will do anything on the VRAA.
<share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60798&title=This%20Does%20Not%20Bode%20Well%20for%20Congress%E2%80%99s%20Updating%20of%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act&description=>
Posted in political parties<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>, political polarization<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>, VRAA<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=81>
“Governor Will Automatically Restore Voting Rights For All Virginians With A Drug Record”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60796>
Posted on April 23, 2014 3:06 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60796> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Think Progress reports<http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/04/18/3428483/governor-will-automatically-restore-voting-rights-for-all-virginians-with-a-drug-record/>.
<share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60796&title=%E2%80%9CGovernor%20Will%20Automatically%20Restore%20Voting%20Rights%20For%20All%20Virginians%20With%20A%20Drug%20Record%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in felon voting<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=66>
Politifact Rates as “Half-True” the President’s Statement that The U.S. Justice Department has “taken on more than 100 voting rights cases since 2009″<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60794>
Posted on April 23, 2014 2:58 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60794> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here<http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2014/apr/23/barack-obama/obama-boasts-about-number-voting-rights-cases-take/>.
<share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60794&title=Politifact%20Rates%20as%20%E2%80%9CHalf-True%E2%80%9D%20the%20President%E2%80%99s%20Statement%20that%20The%20U.S.%20Justice%20Department%20has%20%E2%80%9Ctaken%20on%20more%20than%20100%20voting%20rights%20cases%20since%202009%E2%80%B3&description=>
Posted in Department of Justice<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Citizens United plans political film on Colorado, Gov. Hickenlooper”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60792>
Posted on April 23, 2014 1:44 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60792> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Denver Post reports.<http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25618221/citizens-united-plans-political-film-colorado-gov-hickenlooper>
<share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60792&title=%E2%80%9CCitizens%20United%20plans%20political%20film%20on%20Colorado%2C%20Gov.%20Hickenlooper%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Trevor Potter, Ann Ravel, Norm Ornstein Testifying at Senate Committee Hearing on “Dark Money”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60788>
Posted on April 23, 2014 11:20 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60788> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here.<http://www.king.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/dark-money-to-be-subject-of-king-led-committee-hearing>
<share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60788&title=Trevor%20Potter%2C%20Ann%20Ravel%2C%20Norm%20Ornstein%20Testifying%20at%20Senate%20Committee%20Hearing%20on%20%E2%80%9CDark%20Money%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
Ohio Poll Worker for 10 Years Indicted for Voting Twice (Once Absentee)<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60786>
Posted on April 23, 2014 10:34 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60786> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Poll worker apparently<http://electionlawblog.org/more%20indicted%20in%20Hamilton%20County%20for%20illegal%20voting> said she didn’t understand the rules.
<share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60786&title=Ohio%20Poll%20Worker%20for%2010%20Years%20Indicted%20for%20Voting%20Twice%20%28Once%20Absentee%29&description=>
Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“WyLiberty Attorneys File Brief Highlighting Government Secrecy”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60784>
Posted on April 23, 2014 10:29 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60784> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Press release<http://wyliberty.org/feature/wyliberty-attorneys-file-brief-highlighting-government-secrecy/#ff_s=fA9Ie>: “Wyoming Liberty Group attorneys filed a supplemental brief<http://wyliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/FreeSpeechSuppBrief.pdf> with the United States Supreme Court today in the case Free Speech v. Federal Election Commission (FEC)<http://wyliberty.org/legal-center/free-speech-v-federal-election-commission/#ff_s=nNlWq>, discussing recent events at the FEC and how they should impact the Court’s review of Free Speech’s case.”
<share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60784&title=%E2%80%9CWyLiberty%20Attorneys%20File%20Brief%20Highlighting%20Government%20Secrecy%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, federal election commission<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>, Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Rand Paul: Incidence of Voter Fraud “Probably Small” and “Republicans May Have Over-Emphasized This”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60782>
Posted on April 23, 2014 10:28 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60782> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Woah<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/23/rand-paul-gop-might-be-over-selling-voter-fraud/>. #progress
<share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60782&title=Rand%20Paul%3A%20Incidence%20of%20Voter%20Fraud%20%E2%80%9CProbably%20Small%E2%80%9D%20and%20%E2%80%9CRepublicans%20May%20Have%20Over-Emphasized%20This%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“There Is One Campaign Finance Regulation That Rand Paul Supports”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60779>
Posted on April 23, 2014 8:30 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60779> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
HuffPo<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/23/rand-paul-campaign-finance_n_5198801.html?1398266598>: “In an appearance at the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics, the Kentucky Republican said he backed legislation that would prohibit the ability of federal contract recipients to plow money back into the political process. Though he kept his remarks broad (as he has in the past<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/rand-paul-campaign-reform-cheney-halliburton-lobbying>), Paul hinted that he supported prohibiting contractors from donating to campaigns and, potentially, from lobbying Congress.”
<share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60779&title=%E2%80%9CThere%20Is%20One%20Campaign%20Finance%20Regulation%20That%20Rand%20Paul%20Supports%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, lobbying<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
“D’Souza Case Is Political, Lawyer Says”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60777>
Posted on April 23, 2014 8:12 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60777> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Talk about NYT <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/nyregion/dsouza-lawyer-brafman-says-obama-criticism-spurred-straw-donor-case.html> burying the lede:
Prosecutors also said they had obtained a copy of a recording made surreptitiously last October by the husband of a woman Mr. D’Souza was involved with romantically around the time of the donations, when Mr. D’Souza was separated from his wife. In making the recording, the husband was not acting at the government’s direction, prosecutors said. The woman, Denise Joseph, was one of the alleged straw donors.
Ms. Joseph was recorded as saying that Mr. D’Souza had told her that if he were charged he might plead guilty, but would initially plead not guilty because that “gives him a window of opportunity to get his story out there,” the government said. Ms. Joseph had no comment, her lawyer said.
<share_save_171_16.png><http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60777&title=%E2%80%9CD%E2%80%99Souza%20Case%20Is%20Political%2C%20Lawyer%20Says%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
--
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>
hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org
_______________________________________________
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
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,
we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise,
any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting,
marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
matter addressed herein.
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
<-->
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140424/f735d294/attachment.png>
View list directory