[EL] more news 5/7/14

Wed May 7 13:37:27 PDT 2014

    "Prosecutors seek stay of ruling halting Doe probe into Walker
    recall" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61292>

Posted on May 7, 2014 1:35 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61292>by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Prosecutors to 7th Circuit: 
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/halt-to-john-doe-probe-lifts-obstacle-to-scott-walker-re-election-bid-b99264574z1-258293621.html>

    Attention now shifts to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The
    prosecutors told that court Wednesday that Randa's order to
    permanently destroy the documents they had gathered was
    inappropriate because it was only a preliminary ruling. Destroying
    that evidence "cannot be undone" if they are ultimately allowed to
    continue their investigation, they argued....

    In their latest filing, they contended Randa did not have the
    ability to issue Tuesday's decision because of their earlier appeals.

    "The order was issued without jurisdiction and is void for that
    reason," they wrote.

    They noted Randa issued his decision without holding a hearing. He
    had twice scheduled hearings, only to cancel them.

    "The district court denied defendants an opportunity to either
    present evidence or argue the law," the prosecutors wrote.

    Randa
    <http://www.wied.uscourts.gov/index.php?option=com_contxtd&task=view&contact_id=1>
    has been reversed by the federal appeals court in another past
    criminal case with strong political overtones.

    In April 2007, the appeals court ruled that state purchasing
    supervisor Georgia L. Thompson was wrongly convicted of making sure
    a state travel contract went to a firm linked to Democratic Gov. Jim
    Doyle's re-election campaign.

    In that case, in which Randa sentenced Thompson to 18 months in
    prison, one appellate judge called the evidence used to convict
    Thompson "beyond thin."

    In his decision Tuesday, Randa ordered an immediate halt to the
    investigation, the return of all property seized during it, and the
    destruction of any information and materials gained in the
    investigation. He told the Wisconsin Club for Growth
    <http://wicfg.com/> it did not need to cooperate with prosecutors in
    any way.

    Special prosecutor Francis Schmitz, who was leading the
    investigation, said late Tuesday he expects to challenge the
    decision by appealing to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago
    <https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/>.

    "I'm virtually assured we will appeal this decision," Schmitz said.
    "I have to consult with the others and my attorney" before making a
    final decision.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D61292&title=%E2%80%9CProsecutors%20seek%20stay%20of%20ruling%20halting%20Doe%20probe%20into%20Walker%20recall%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, 
chicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>

    After McCutcheon, New RNC Challenge to Soft Money Rules
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61289>

Posted on May 7, 2014 1:25 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61289>by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

On the day the Supreme Court decided McCutcheon, I wrote in /Slate/ 
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/04/the_subtle_awfulness_of_the_mccutcheon_v_fec_campaign_finance_decision_the.html>:

    Third and most dramatically, the court seems to open the door for a
    future challenge to what remains of the McCain-Feingold law: the ban
    on large, "soft money" contributions collected by political parties.
    These contributions were banned because it had become clear that
    political parties were becoming conduits for access between elected
    officials and big donors. Today Roberts rejects ingratiation and
    access as a problem, and says that this funnel of significant money
    to parties could serve the purpose of strengthening political
    parties and thus be a good thing. He writes: "When donors furnish
    widely distributed support within all applicable base limits, all
    members of the party or supporters of the cause may benefit, and the
    leaders of the party or cause may feel particular gratitude. That
    gratitude stems from the basic nature of the party system, in which
    party members join together to further common political beliefs, and
    citizens can choose to support a party because they share some,
    most, or all of those beliefs. ... To recast such shared interest,
    standing alone, as an opportunity for /quid pro quo /corruption
    would dramatically expand government regulation of the political
    process."

Well it did not take long 
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/6/rnc-set-to-join-landmark-suit-taking-on-campaign-l/?page=1>:

    Members of the Republican National Committee
    <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/republican-national-committee/>
    gathering in Memphis, Tennessee, for their spring meeting are set to
    join a lawsuit seeking to strike down campaign finance limits and
    free the GOP to spend unlimited money on get-out-the-vote efforts.

    Republicans have long argued that "soft money" spending limits
    imposed on political parties by the Federal Election Commission
    <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/federal-election-commission/>
    in the aftermath of the 2002 McCain-Feingold law have punished the
    RNC
    <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/republican-national-committee/>
    and state political parties while letting pro-Democrat unions spend
    unlimited money to organize voters.

    The lawsuit specifically will ask the courts to allow national and
    state parties to form super PACs that can raise and spend unlimited
    amounts on election efforts, something the FEC
    <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/federal-election-commission/>
    has prohibited.

    "We think this will put the final nail in the coffin of the
    McCain-Feingold law," Louisiana Republican Party Chairman Roger
    Villere <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/roger-f-villere-jr/>
    said in an interview.

    "If we win this suit against the federal government, it will allow
    our national committee and our state parties to have some freedom
    not to be constrained by campaign finance rules that hold back us
    but not the Democrats," he said.

    Republicans have long complained that Democrats have been getting
    unrestricted election help from allies such as teachers and public
    employees unions.

    The lawsuit is the brainchild of former Indiana RNC
    <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/republican-national-committee/>
    member Jim Bopp <http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/jim-bopp/>, a
    constitutional lawyer who devised the legal strategy that dealt a
    body blow to McCain-Feingold in the Supreme Court with the 2010
    Citizens United decision.

(H/t Ron Collins 
<http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2014/05/fan-14-first-amendment-news-why-the-justices-vote-as-they-do-in-first-amendment-free-expression-cases.html>).

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D61289&title=After%20McCutcheon%2C%20New%20RNC%20Challenge%20to%20Soft%20Money%20Rules&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme 
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

    "Adelson's political beneficiaries adopt casino magnate's cause to
    ban Internet gambling" <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61287>

Posted on May 7, 2014 9:48 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61287>by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/adelsons-political-beneficiaries-attack-casino-magnates-bete-noire-internet-gambling/2014/05/07/7ff15aba-cf1a-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html>: 
"Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, waging a new campaign to ban Internet 
gambling, is deploying a state-level political network he has been 
quietly developing over the past few years."

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D61287&title=%E2%80%9CAdelson%E2%80%99s%20political%20beneficiaries%20adopt%20casino%20magnate%E2%80%99s%20cause%20to%20ban%20Internet%20gambling%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

    Frank v. Walker Opinion Striking Down Voter ID in Wisconsin Now
    Posted at ELB <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61285>

Posted on May 7, 2014 8:52 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61285>by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

I just went to look for a Westlaw citation for this 4/29/2014 case but 
it is not yet on Westlaw. In the meantime, you can find the opinion 
posted here: http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/frankvwalker.pdf.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D61285&title=Frank%20v.%20Walker%20Opinion%20Striking%20Down%20Voter%20ID%20in%20Wisconsin%20Now%20Posted%20at%20ELB&description=>
Posted in voter id <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>, Voting Rights 
Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>

    Just a Quick Thought on the John Doe Case and Its Troubling
    Implications for Campaign Finance Law
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61282>

Posted on May 7, 2014 8:11 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61282>by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Yesterday I linked <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61269>to this 
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article 
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federal-judge-halts-john-doe-probe-into-walker-recall-b99264341z1-258209431.html> 
about a newfederal court decision 
<http://media.jrn.com/documents/doeruling.pdf>.  As the article 
described it, "a federal judge ordered a halt Tuesday to the John Doe 
investigation into campaign spending and fundraising by Gov. Scott 
Walker's campaign and conservative groups, saying the effort appeared to 
violate one of the group's free speech rights."

I am crashing under a number of impending deadlines, which will impede 
by blogging for the next few weeks. But I did want to say something 
quickly about this decision.

I don't have a firm opinion on whether the judge was right or wrong on 
the facts here.  I'd have to study the case and controversy much more 
closely.  But I am concerned about the broader implications of this case 
if it is allowed to stand, particularly the judge's virtual celebration 
of coordination and circumvention of campaign finance laws.

As I wrote to the election law listserv, I am concerned about the broad 
language of the opinion. I do think this ruling breaks new ground and 
goes much further than even Citizens United and McCutcheon.  While the 
Supreme Court is willing to tolerate circumvention of rules in the name 
of the First Amendment, this ruling celebrates it.  Further, it sees 
extensive cooperation between candidate campaigns and outside groups as 
well protected by the First Amendment when in fact it is the presence or 
absence of this cooperation which has been key in creating the dividing 
line between contributions and expenditures.  By blurring the rationales 
between contributions and expenditures, and by solidifying the 
distinction between express advocacy and issue advocacy, the opinion, if 
it stands, would lead to even further deregulation of the political system.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D61282&title=Just%20a%20Quick%20Thought%20on%20the%20John%20Doe%20Case%20and%20Its%20Troubling%20Implications%20for%20Campaign%20Finance%20Law&description=>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

    "Texas Ordered to Disclose Legislative Docs in Voting Case"
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61280>

Posted on May 7, 2014 8:05 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61280>by 
Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Legal Times reports 
<http://www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/id=1202654305167/Texas-Ordered-to-Disclose-Legislative-Docs-in-Voting-Case?slreturn=20140407110311>.

Share 
<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D61280&title=%E2%80%9CTexas%20Ordered%20to%20Disclose%20Legislative%20Docs%20in%20Voting%20Case%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in Department of Justice <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>, 
Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>

-- 
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/20140507/cfc83bea/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/20140507/cfc83bea/attachment.png>