[EL] Supreme Court and campaign finance

[Rick Hasen]

If anyone responds to this, please use this (or another) subject line 
(and not ELB News and Commentary)

On 6/30/14, 12:44 PM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
> Regarding this:
>
> /The Court has shown no such deference when it comes to the need for 
> campaign finance regulation or to protect the voting rights of racial 
> minorities and others. The Roberts Court has overturned or limited 
> every campaign finance law it has examined (aside from disclosure 
> laws). It has struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. 
> How much deference did Congress get in those cases? None./
>
> /Well when is Congress wise and entitled to deference? When the Court 
> agrees with Congress’s approach. Let’s call that “faux deference,” to 
> go with the “f//aux-nanimity/ 
> <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2014/scotus_roundup/scotus_end_of_term_massachusetts_abortion_clinic_buffer_zone_law_goes_down.html>/” 
> of the rest of the term./
>
> Rather than deference, a much better argument could be made for 
> scepticism when it comes to Congress writing campaign finance laws.  
> After all, with campaign finance laws, members of Congress are writing 
> the rules for their own election specifically and when citizens can 
> criticize them generally. There are no subjects that they are more 
> intensely self-interested.
>
> Ironically, "reformers" should know this.  Some of them believe that 
> members of Congress thirst so strongly for campaign contributions that 
> they would sell their votes for just a few hundred dollars.  If this 
> is true, then surely they would write campaign finance laws to benefit 
> themselves.  Jim Bopp
>
> In a message dated 6/30/2014 1:05:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
> rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>
>
>         #HobbyLobby: When is Congress “Wise?” When the Court Agrees
>         with Congress’s Wisdom <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62877>
>
>     Posted on June 30, 2014 8:50 am
>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62877>by Rick Hasen
>     <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
>     Near the end of Justice Alito’s majority opinion in the Hobby
>     Lobby <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf>
>     case today, he writes that it is not the Court’s job to question
>     the “wisdom” of Congress in using the compelling interest test in
>     RFRA, but the Court applies that RFRA test strongly, and in a way
>     which shows the Court apparently giving great deference to
>     Congress’s judgment about how to balance the government’s interest
>     in generally applicable laws with the accommodations of religious
>     freedoms. It reminded me of Justice Scalia’s pleas in Windsor
>     <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf>last
>     term for deference to Congress on the need for the Defense of
>     Marriage Act.
>
>     The Court has shown no such deference when it comes to the need
>     for campaign finance regulation or to protect the voting rights of
>     racial minorities and others. The Roberts Court has overturned or
>     limited every campaign finance law it has examined (aside from
>     disclosure laws). It has struck down a key provision of the Voting
>     Rights Act. How much deference did Congress get in those cases? None.
>
>     Well when is Congress wise and entitled to deference? When the
>     Court agrees with Congress’s approach. Let’s call that “faux
>     deference,” to go with the “faux-nanimity
>     <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2014/scotus_roundup/scotus_end_of_term_massachusetts_abortion_clinic_buffer_zone_law_goes_down.html>”
>     of the rest of the term.
>

-- 
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/20140630/3936d492/attachment.html>