[EL] WARNING: SNARK AHEAD RE: Supreme Court and campaign finance

[Larry Levine]

First, how long would you expect that to hold up under legal challenge?

Second, what difference does it make for incumbents, who a far easier time
raising funds than a challenger in most instances?

I raise it as an example of how reforms always sound better than they are.

Larry

 

From: Steve Kolbert [mailto:steve.kolbert at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 2:16 PM
To: larrylevine at earthlink.net
Cc: law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] WARNING: SNARK AHEAD RE: Supreme Court and campaign
finance

 

With regard's to Larry's question regarding fundraising blackout periods
applying only to incumbents, not challengers:

Internal legislative rules in both chambers of the Florida Legislature
prohibit fundraising during the 60-day annual legislative session. See Rules
of the Florida House of Representatives
<http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/publications.aspx?Publicat
ionType=Reference&DocumentType=The%20Rules%20of%20the%20House%20of%20Represe
ntatives> , Rule 15.3(b) (adopted 2012); Rules of the Florida Senate
<http://www.flsenate.gov/PublishedContent/ADMINISTRATIVEPUBLICATIONS/rules.p
df> , Rule 1.361(1) (adopted 2012). These internal legislative rules do not
apply to challengers, who may raise funds during the blackout period.

I'm not aware of whether any incumbent has challenged either of these rules
either in court or internally within the Legislature. However, as I recall,
there is an official ruling or opinion (or something) in one chamber or the
other (or perhaps both), finding that the blackout rules do not apply to
legislators running for federal office and raising funds for their federal
campaign.



Steve Kolbert
(202) 422-2588
steve.kolbert at gmail.com
@Pronounce_the_T

 

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
wrote:

Take, for instance, blackout periods. Can you prohibit an incumbent from
raising funds during certain times like when the budget is being debated and
not prohibit challengers during the same period?

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140703/76dc7e49/attachment.html>