[EL] more news 6/23/14
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Mon Jun 23 16:07:06 PDT 2014
A New Era for Pay-to-Play <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62666>
Posted on June 23, 2014 3:55 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62666>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The following is a guest blog post by Jason Abel
<http://www.steptoe.com/professionals-Jason_Abel.html>:
Last Friday, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced
a settlement involving Rule 206(4)-5, otherwise known as the
"pay-to-play" rule for investment advisers. This settlement is the
first of its kind, for the moment. However, it may mark the start of
increased enforcement of pay-to-play rules. As 2014 is upon us and
we move toward 2016, the weakening of traditional campaign finance
laws through recent court decisions and FEC deadlocks may leave an
opening for increased enforcement by the SEC and other regulators.
Those entities covered by pay-to-play rules, and in particular
investment advisers, should view this settlement as a shot across
the bow, and make sure their compliance policies and procedures
accurately reflect this evolving area of campaign finance law.
Rule 206(4)-5
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sec.gov%2Frules%2Ffinal%2F2010%2Fia-3043.pdf&ei=ACuoU_jjF4LIsATLo4HYCg&usg=AFQjCNGFLSY96IA7aMuBMPEbCWCaPiipDw&sig2=jf7tS5C1e6CzoS0kwsqu8g&bvm=bv.69411363,d.cWc>
became effective in 2011 and mandates a two-year ban on compensated
investment advisory services for an investment adviser if the
adviser or a "covered associate" makes a contribution (above a /de
minimis/ amount) to a "covered official." If the investment adviser
does not abide by this two-year ban, it is in violation of the
rule. The Rule also prohibits solicitations for covered officials
and any attempts to circumvent the contribution ban (/i.e./ through
PACs that then contribute to covered officials). Intent is not a
factor in determining whether a violation occurred (though it could
be a mitigating factor in seeking an exemption). I have explained a
bit more about the Rule here
<http://www.steptoe.com/publications-9478.html>, including how to
define both "covered associate" and "covered official."
On Friday, the SEC settled its first case under the Rule, forcing TL
Ventures to pay almost $300,000 for pay-to-play violations.
Specifically, TL Ventures violated the pay-to-play rule by
continuing to accept compensation for advisory services from the
Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System (SERS) and the
Philadelphia Retirement Board after one of its covered associates
made campaign contributions to a candidate for Mayor of Philadelphia
and Tom Corbett, the Governor of Pennsylvania ($2,500 and $2,000,
respectively), which exceeded /de minimis/ threshold. These offices
fall squarely within the Rule's definition of "covered official."
As explained in footnote 6 of the Order
<http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2014/ia-3859.pdf>, "If the
governor of a state can appoint at least part of a state pension
fund's board, the governor is considered to be an official of the
government entity."
The SEC's decision regarding TL Ventures can and should be viewed in
the larger context of campaign finance law. In light of /McCutcheon
v. FEC/, there has been an intense discussion over the definition of
"corruption" and what level of corruption is needed to justify
campaign finance regulations. Interestingly, on page two of the
Order, the SEC stated that "Rule 206(4)-5 does not require a showing
of quid pro quo or actual intent to influence an elected official or
candidate." While this is true given that Rule 206(4)-5 is a strict
liability rule with /de minimis /exceptions, it may reignite the
debate over corruption rationale in the pay-to-play area. Despite
not needing to demonstrate /quid pro quo/ corruption occurred in
order prove a violation, the justification of pay-to-play rules
appear to be to prevent such /quid pro quo /corruption. For
instance, during the announcement of the drafting of a pay-to-play
rule for municipal advisors, the Chair of the MSRB stated that
"Extending these [pay-to-play] provisions to municipal advisors will
help prevent /quid pro quo/ political corruption, or the appearance
of such corruption, in public contracting for both dealers and
municipal advisors."
To that end, pay-to-play rules are on the rise. In addition to G-37
and Rule 206(4)-5, the MSRB is working on its aforementioned rule
for municipal advisors, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
already has a rule that governs the actions of swap dealers, and the
SEC is poised to release its rule for security-based swap dealers.
Eventually there will be a rule to govern the actions of placement
agents. The SEC's actions in the TL Ventures case demonstrate that
it will not back down from enforcement of pay-to-play, and expect
other regulators to follow suit. Even though the Federal Election
Commission is deadlocked, the SEC and others could become
increasingly active in the cycles ahead, especially as covered
officials (e.g.//Chris Christie) may run for higher office in 2016.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62666&title=A%20New%20Era%20for%20Pay-to-Play&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
Mississippi AG and SOS Issue Release Limiting Conservative
Challengers at #MSSEN Polls <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62662>
Posted on June 23, 2014 3:48 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62662>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The full release is below the fold. But here's the key part which
should shut the "election observers"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62528> folks down
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62633>
*Poll watchers in polling place*
....
There is no authority in state law for a PAC or other outside group to
place "election observers" in Mississippi polling places.
*Challenges*
....
A person lawfully in the polling place may challenge a voter based on
party loyalty only if the voter openly declares he does not intend to
support the nominees of the party whose primary the voter is
participating in.
Continue reading ? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62662#more-62662>
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62662&title=Mississippi%20AG%20and%20SOS%20Issue%20Release%20Limiting%20Conservative%20Challengers%20at%20%23MSSEN%20Polls&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
"Temporary Amnesia" Claimed by Scott Walker Supporter Charged with
Voting Multiple Times with Absentee Ballots in Wisconsin Elections
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62659>
Posted on June 23, 2014 2:39 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62659>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Sorry,
<http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/writers/mike_ivey/voter-fraud-case-targets-scott-walker-backer/article_7afa077e-faf2-11e3-b655-0019bb2963f4.html>
my irony meter broke.
<http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=325853> Back soon.
And no, this does not appear to be a case of in-person impersonation
voter fraud.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62659&title=%E2%80%9CTemporary%20Amnesia%E2%80%9D%20Claimed%20by%20Scott%20Walker%20Supporter%20Charged%20with%20Voting%20Multiple%20Times%20with%20Absentee%20Ballots%20in%20Wisconsin%20Elections&description=>
Posted in absentee ballots <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>,
chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
DOJ Keeping an Eye on Potential Voter Intimidation in #MSSEN
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62657>
Posted on June 23, 2014 2:31 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62657>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
So reports
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/conservatives-plan-poll-watch-gop-run> MSNBC.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62657&title=DOJ%20Keeping%20an%20Eye%20on%20Potential%20Voter%20Intimidation%20in%20%23MSSEN&description=>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>
"Scott Walker Makes a Mess" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62654>
Posted on June 23, 2014 10:38 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62654>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Frank Wilkinson
<http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-23/scott-walker-makes-a-mess>for
BV.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62654&title=%E2%80%9CScott%20Walker%20Makes%20a%20Mess%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
"The John Doe probe and the growing problem of 'coordination'"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62652>
Posted on June 23, 2014 10:29 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62652>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Lee Drutman oped
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/the-john-doe-probe-and-the-growing-problem-of-coordination-b99297204z1-264265731.html>
in the /Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel./
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62652&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20John%20Doe%20probe%20and%20the%20growing%20problem%20of%20%E2%80%98coordination%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
Is Adams Now Suggesting a Legal Challenge to Outcome of
Cochran-McDaniel #MSSEN Race if Cochran Wins?
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62649>
Posted on June 23, 2014 10:03 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62649>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Sounds like it could be
<http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2014/06/23/race-baiting-mississppi-senate-runoff-to-help-thad-cochran/>,
using records showing that people who historically voted Democratic
voting in this Republican runoff.
Maybe not. It is hard to tell what exactly he's up to.
We will have to see what the "election observers" do and if they only
observe in predominantly African-American precincts.
Earlier coverage here <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62528> and here
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62528>.
At least nothreat
<https://twitter.com/ElectionLawCtr/status/480920890960408577>of
<https://twitter.com/ElectionLawCtr/status/480923159076405249> a
defamation
<https://twitter.com/ElectionLawCtr/status/480921548677603331> suit
today, as I had last night. But the day is still young.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62649&title=Is%20Adams%20Now%20Suggesting%20a%20Legal%20Challenge%20to%20Outcome%20of%20Cochran-McDaniel%20%23MSSEN%20Race%20if%20Cochran%20Wins%3F&description=>
Posted in fraudulent fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>
"We Just Don't Need Section 5 Anymore"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62647>
Posted on June 23, 2014 9:30 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62647>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Roger Clegg writes
<http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380964/we-just-dont-need-section-5-anymore-roger-clegg>
for NRO. He says sections 2 and 3 of the Voting Rights Act provide
enough protection for minority voters.
What Roger doesn't tell you, but what I confirmed when we were on a
panel recently <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61496> at the University
of Chicago Institute of Politics, is that his interpretation of section
2 is so narrow <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/war-voting-rights-act> that
it wouldhardly cover <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59492> anything
beyond intentional discrimination.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62647&title=%E2%80%9CWe%20Just%20Don%E2%80%99t%20Need%20Section%205%20Anymore%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
"Mississippi Senate race muddles voter ID debate"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62645>
Posted on June 23, 2014 9:23 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62645>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
CBS News reports
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mississippi-senate-race-muddles-voter-id-debate/>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62645&title=%E2%80%9CMississippi%20Senate%20race%20muddles%20voter%20ID%20debate%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
voter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
"Inside the vast liberal conspiracy"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62643>
Posted on June 23, 2014 8:43 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62643>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Vogel writes
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/inside-the-vast-liberal-conspiracy-108171.html?hp=t1>
on the Democracy Alliance: "The 21 groups at the core of the Democracy
Alliance's portfolio intend to spend $374 million during the midterm
election cycle --- including nearly $200 million this year --- to boost
liberal candidates and causes in 2014 and beyond, according to internal
documents obtained by POLITICO."
They've posted a 62-page briefing book
<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1202744-da-portfolio2012-2014-042714.html#document/p1>as
well.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62643&title=%E2%80%9CInside%20the%20vast%20liberal%20conspiracy%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
"No excuse needed to vote absentee in Minnesota"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62641>
Posted on June 23, 2014 8:39 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62641>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Star Tribune reports
<http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/264181781.html?elq=b158100a58ca4f6bbd186e023d75a2a7&elqCampaignId=7554#9IsADZm81Uqaocyb.97>.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62641&title=%E2%80%9CNo%20excuse%20needed%20to%20vote%20absentee%20in%20Minnesota%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in absentee ballots <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>,
election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
"FEC Deadlocks and the Role of the Courts"
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62639>
Posted on June 23, 2014 8:37 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62639>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bauer blogs
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2014/06/fec-deadlocks-role-courts/>.
And contrary to what Bob says, I want a more diminished role for courts
generally on these constitutional questions, as I articulate in my 2003
book
<http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Court-Election-Law-Equality/dp/0814736912/ref=la_B0089NJCR2_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403537815&sr=1-6>,
The Supreme Court and Election Law.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62639&title=%E2%80%9CFEC%20Deadlocks%20and%20the%20Role%20of%20the%20Courts%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
Instapundit Says I Am "Stuck in the Past" About Possible Voter
Intimidation in #MSSEN Race <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62636>
Posted on June 23, 2014 8:32 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62636>by
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
In response to a post of mine from last night, "Sad echoes of the past
in #*MSSEN* <https://twitter.com/hashtag/MSSEN?src=hash> race, but
intimidation in Republican primary? http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62633
<http://t.co/EeMUhAmWFD>," Glenn Reynolds wrote
<https://twitter.com/instapundit/status/480911673121722368>:
"@*rickhasen* <https://twitter.com/rickhasen> Or maybe you are stuck in
the past."
My response to Glenn
<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/480912071605751809>, "Glenn, I
wish voter intimidation were a thing of the past. It doesn't happen
nearly as often, but it still exists. Rick"
Glenn didn't choose to retweet that response, but did retweetthis one
<https://twitter.com/dew5150/status/480914232074985472> with an
obscenity, which ironically seems to make light of Freedom Summer,
almost exactly 50 years ago.
More on potential voter intimidation
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/06/23/how_will_poll_watchers_in_mississippi_spot_the_black_democrats_voting_in.html>in
Mississippi from Weigel.
Share
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D62636&title=Instapundit%20Says%20I%20Am%20%E2%80%9CStuck%20in%20the%20Past%E2%80%9D%20About%20Possible%20Voter%20Intimidation%20in%20%23MSSEN%20Race&description=>
Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
--
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/20140623/5d6bdf34/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140623/5d6bdf34/attachment.png>
View list directory