[EL] buying candidates?
Sean Parnell
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
Sun Nov 2 13:05:26 PST 2014
And off the top of my head I recall votes in 2000 in Milwaukee going for a
free pack of cigarettes. So there is an actual market in votes, illegal as
it is.
Sean Parnell
President
Impact Policy Management, LLC
6411 Caleb Court
Alexandria, VA 22315
571-289-1374 (c)
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
From: Maceda, Cliff [mailto:cmaceda_CONTRACTOR at ap.org]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 7:17 PM
To: Sean Parnell
Cc: Robert Wechsler; Benjamin Barr; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] buying candidates?
Speaking only on the price of votes: it clearly wouldn't be worth the cost
to the candidate or campaign in most cases and places. But it has been
reported in the past few years that candidates for county offices in certain
Appalachian counties would buy votes for as little as $20 or a bottle of
liquor per vote. I recall a piece on a group of candidates pooling a
couple of hundred grand for just that purpose. That might seem like a lot
of money considering how little the offices in question pay in KY or WV.
But of course they weren't drawn to the salaries, but to the money to be
made from the opportunities for corruption that the offices provide.
Cliff Maceda
Sent from a telephone
On Nov 1, 2014, at 5:58 PM, Sean Parnell <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>
wrote:
Robert: I'd be happy to keep the purchase of votes part of the discussion.
Of course, there can't be a purchase without a seller, so let's begin the
discussion there.
One key element of markets, for example, is price, which generally occurs at
the intersection of the supply and demand curves. Tell me, Robert, how much
do you sell yours for? Or what price are you willing to pay for mine? Or
what price do you think anyone sells theirs for?
Let's discuss my personal supply curve for votes, since we're talking about
the purchase of votes and my own supply curve is really the only one I can
talk about with any real knowledge.
As a producer of votes, I'm willing to provide as many votes as I can up to
a point where the marginal gain of another vote meets or exceeds the
marginal cost (or expected marginal gain meets expected marginal costs, if
you prefer) that vote. At the point where the expected marginal cost of
producing one additional vote exceeds the expected marginal gain, I will
cease production of votes.
In my case the number of votes I, personally, am willing to provide is 1, at
least per election, per candidate. The cost to me to produce this vote is
rather negligible - perhaps $0.50 or so in gas, another $0.10 or so in
depreciation on my vehicle, depending on how long the wait in line is
perhaps $100 or $200 in forgone income. On the other side of the ledger are
my expected gains, which include the psychic income from the feeling of
having done my civic duty, the value to me of not running the risk of
showing up on some creepy politician's list of people who haven't done their
civic duty (see this for what I'm talking about:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/10/dems-keep-it-creepy.php), plus
financial benefits that may accrue to me from elected officials adopting
policies I favor (this is a triple probability function, of course - the
probability that my vote might make the difference in an election times the
probability the elected official will keep their word times the probability
my favored policies will result in the outcome I believe it will times the
net-present value of those financial benefits), plus non-financial benefits
that may accrue to me (again a triple probability function, substitute
psychic income values for the financial benefit values in the previous
calculation).
That last bit about the value of financial and non-financial value is more
complicated than what I just outlined, of course - the value of the benefit
to me must be compared to the lesser or possibly even negative financial
result that might occur should things go the other way. But to provide a
simple illustration of what I'm talking about, on the financial side I may
benefit from an increase in the Child Tax Credit if that is what the
candidate I vote for pledges, on the non-financial side I may benefit from
not being locked up for dissenting from government approved orthodoxy if the
candidate I vote for opposes 'truth in politics' laws.
As for why I'm only willing to produce a single vote for a candidate, the
fact is that the gross marginal value of that second vote is vanishingly
small (because the probability that my second vote will make the difference
in an election is near-zero), while the costs of that second vote are
significant. For starters, I lose the psychic income from performing my
civic duty and in fact incur psychic costs, because I'm now doing the
opposite of my civic duty. On top of that, if I am caught (another
probability calculation) then I face a variety of legal sanctions, which to
me seem a very high cost indeed. Comparing the miniscule gain to the
substantial cost, the rational decision to me is to only produce a single
vote.
This is just the start of the discussion, of course. All I've provided here
is the maximum number of votes I am willing to provide as a seller of votes.
To begin with, there's still a product differentiation issue (i.e. which
candidate will I sell my vote to) which is simply which candidate offers the
greatest net gain to me, once both the financial and non-financial gains are
summed. Perhaps the next round we'll address this?
Anyways, these are just some opening thoughts on the sale and purchase of
votes, of course. Your thoughts, Robert? Or have I misunderstood you, and
you don't really mean the actual purchase of votes, instead it's simply some
sort of silly euphemism tossed about by 'reformers' who wish to imply
illegality and nefarious undertakings when discussing the ability of persons
to attempt to persuade voters to support certain candidates and policies? If
that's the case, we probably ought to drop the whole "purchase of votes"
meme, since it's obviously not really applicable, and instead you ought to
whine about the simple unfairness of the fact that some people are more
persuasive than others, or that people you disagree with are occasionally
more persuasive than those you agree with, or whatever your real issue is.
Best,
Sean Parnell
President
Impact Policy Management, LLC
6411 Caleb Court
Alexandria, VA 22315
571-289-1374 (c)
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Robert
Wechsler
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 5:36 PM
To: Benjamin Barr
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] buying candidates?
We don't feel guilty or ashamed that we've made money in free market.
This isn't about making money in a free market. It is about spending money
in a market that is not free: the election of those who manage our
communities. If this market were free, then people could buy each other's
votes. If you are unflinching in your inclination toward liberty, how can
you oppose the purchasing of votes?
I would like to see the purchase of votes be part of the discussion. After
all, that's really what the discussion is about.
Robert Wechsler
City Ethics
On 10/31/2014 4:54 PM, Benjamin Barr wrote:
Professor,
Some of us are stricken with an unflinching inclination toward liberty.
We'd prefer that a free people be able to speak as they see fit, pool their
resources together as they'd like, associate in commonality as they enjoy,
and otherwise engage in the American experiment.
We don't feel guilty or ashamed that we've made money in free market. We
welcome the Steyers, Kochs, and Soros of the world to compete for our
attention and shake up the public mind. We aren't afraid of their ideas.
We welcome unions, corporations, trial attorneys, and coal producers to
share their thoughts, even when they use silly names. We believe in free
exchange and citizens capable of self-government.
We also realize that the surest path to tyranny is found in displacing this
precious liberty held by Americans with the unilateral voice of government
to decide who has "political power or who gets elected."
Forward, and a Happy Halloween to all!
Benjamin Barr
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Schultz, David A. <dschultz at hamline.edu>
wrote:
I will chime in late on this debate since I was working.
The difficulty of us to really draw the lines between permissible use of
money to influence candidates or races and impermissible uses (buying
candidates or bribery) might suggest that it is impossible to do so because
it may be a distinction without a difference. This may thus speak to the
core issue that I repeatedly bring up but which most of you chose to simply
ignore: i.e., perhaps it is not legitimate for people to use money or
convert over economic resources into political resources or perhaps it is
simply not legitimate to make money the allocative factor that determines
who has political power or who gets elected.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
I have changed this subject heading to something more descriptive.
On 10/31/14, 11:25 AM, Benjamin Barr wrote:
Brad's on to something here.
There's an awful example of this going on in Texas right now (and something
I'm working on with the Wyoming Liberty Group folks). The case is Cary v.
Texas and is in the Fifth District appellate court. It involves a crew of
people who improperly funded a judicial campaign. But instead of having the
state slap them with violations of its Election Code and Judicial Campaign
Fairness Act, they're going after one of the funders under criminal bribery,
"organized crime," and Texas' favorite money laundering laws to pursue 14
years of jail for him.
Prosecutors there believe you can sidestep the state's campaign finance laws
because the giving of money to "run for office" and "continue to run for
office" constitutes bribery and organized criminal activity in their eyes.
It's worth pausing to read that again. Make one mistake in how you decide
to fund a candidate for office and you're not dealing with campaign finance
violations (pesky in and of themselves); you're facing 14 years in the
slammer.
There's a careful sort of delineation, constitutionally mandated, in nearly
every state's bundle of anti-corruption laws. Bribery and criminal offenses
are the proverbial jackhammers here. They prevent immediate quid pro quo
arrangements and include pesky things like heightened evidentiary standards
and burdens of proof that some prosecutors don't like very much. Campaign
finance laws, aimed at preventing future quid pro quo arrangements and
serving limited informational interests, regulate with much more precision
and more lightly given the important First Amendment interests at stake.
It's time to get over the notion that Americans coming together to support
policies and politicians they prefer are engaged in criminal activity. Its
destroying real people who get caught up in this nonsense.
Forward,
Benjamin Barr
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
wrote:
So Democrat Jones announces he is running for Senate, and states plainly, "I
don't agree with most of my party on campaign finance reform. I oppose
amending the constitution, and I oppose the DISCLOSE Act." Larry Lessig
says, "This will hurt Jones in getting the Democratic nomination. Mayday PAC
will support Jones' opponent."
That's "buy[ing] the candidate's policy decisions"?
Isn't that more accurately called "opposing a candidate you disagree with"?
"Right to Life will oppose candidates who support abortion rights. Support
for abortion rights will hurt a candidate in Republican primaries." That's
bribery?
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: Tyler Creighton [tyler at rethinkmedia.org]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 11:03 AM
To: Svoboda, Brian (Perkins Coie)
Cc: Smith, Brad; law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] more news 10/30/14
To acquire candidate Smith's silence or opposition to the carbon tax by
paying for ads supporting candidate Smith or by promising to pay for ads
attacking him.
Tyler Creighton | <mailto:tyler at rethinkmedia.org> tyler at rethinkmedia.org |
Media Associate
ReThink Media <http://rethinkmedia.org> | (202) 449-6960
<tel:%28202%29%20449-6960> office | (925) 548-2189
<tel:%28925%29%20548-2189> mobile
@ReThinkDemocrcy <https://twitter.com/rethinkdemocrcy> | @ReThink_Media
<https://twitter.com/rethink_media> |
<http://www.twitter.com/tylercreighton> @TylerCreighton
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Svoboda, Brian (Perkins Coie)
<BSvoboda at perkinscoie.com> wrote:
The universal unconscious scores again, because this discussion comes while
I am reading Dan Lowenstein's "When Is a Campaign Contribution a Bribe?",
republished in Heffernan and Kleinig's Private and Public Corruption. It
seems to me that Professor Lowenstein's five hypotheticals would provide a
useful framework for this debate. Perhaps the listserv's monthly robo email
could include a hyperlink to Professor Lowenstein's article, which never
seems to go out of season.
=B.
Brian Svoboda | Perkins Coie LLP
PARTNER
700 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005-3960
D. +1.202.434.1654 <tel:%2B1.202.434.1654>
F. +1.202.654.9150 <tel:%2B1.202.654.9150>
E. BSvoboda at perkinscoie.com <mailto:%20BSvoboda at perkinscoie.com>
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Smith,
Brad
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 9:46 AM
To: Tyler Creighton
Cc: law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] more news 10/30/14
You have a curious interpretation of "buy."
You seem to be exactly the kind of person I was referring to.
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: Tyler Creighton [tyler at rethinkmedia.org]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 7:28 AM
To: Smith, Brad
Cc: Reuben, Richard C.; Rick Hasen; law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] more news 10/30/14
The President of AFP seems to confirm that big spending for a candidate (or
the threat of big spending against a candidate) is in fact to buy the
candidate's policy decisions.
In NYT today
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/us/why-republicans-keep-telling-everyone-
theyre-not-scientists.html?ref=todayspaper%20> :
Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, said his group intends
to aggressively work against Republicans who support a carbon tax or
regulations in the 2016 presidential primary campaigns. "They would be at a
severe disadvantage in the Republican nomination process," Mr. Phillips
said. "We would absolutely make that a crucial issue."
Tyler Creighton | <mailto:tyler at rethinkmedia.org> tyler at rethinkmedia.org |
Media Associate
ReThink Media <http://rethinkmedia.org> | (202) 449-6960
<tel:%28202%29%20449-6960> office | (925) 548-2189
<tel:%28925%29%20548-2189> mobile
@ReThinkDemocrcy <https://twitter.com/rethinkdemocrcy> | @ReThink_Media
<https://twitter.com/rethink_media> |
<http://www.twitter.com/tylercreighton> @TylerCreighton
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:
This actually strikes me as pretty tame compared to what I've seen, so maybe
the future is now.
But it is a shame that over the years so many have labored so hard to
convince Americans that if someone contributes to an officeholder's
campaign, it is proof that the officeholder is bought and that the
officeholder's decisions are not based on the merits, the officeholder's
ideology, or the perceived desires of constituents, but simply the wishes of
donors.
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
[law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Reuben, Richard
C. [ReubenR at missouri.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 4:31 PM
To: 'Rick Hasen'; 'law-election at UCI.edu'
Subject: Re: [EL] more news 10/30/14
Apologies if this has already been posted, but I thought you might like to
see the future of judicial campaigns, as played out today in a judicial
election in Cole County, Mo. This one is obviously very ugly, and there is
still time yet before the election.
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick
Hasen
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 2:57 PM
To: law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: [EL] more news 10/30/14
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67669> "Messing With Texas Again: Putting It
Back Under Federal Supervision"
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67669> October 30, 2014 12:40 pm
by <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
I have written
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/messing-with-texas-voter-id> this piece
for TPM Cafe. It begins:
Readers of the
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141009-TXID-Opinion.pdf>
entire 147-page opinion issued earlier this month by a federal district
court striking down Texas's strict voter identification law as
unconstitutional and a violation of the Voting Rights Act might have been
too exhausted to realize that the opinion's very last sentence may be its
most important. The court ended its opinion with a dry statement promising a
future hearing on "plaintiffs' request for relief under Section 3(c) of the
Voting Rights Act." That hearing, however, has the potential to require
Texas to get federal approval for any future voting changes for up to the
next decade, and to make it much more difficult for the state to pass more
restrictive voting rules. It may be much more important than the ruling on
the voter ID law itself.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D67669&title=%E2%80%9CMessing%20With%20Texas%20Again%3A%20Putting%20It
%20Back%20Under%20Federal%20Supervision%E2%80%9D&description=>
<image001.png>
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> election administration,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> The Voting Wars,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> voter id,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67667> "McDonnell team sought mistrial over
juror's ouster, expressed concern about alternate"
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67667> October 30, 2014 12:30 pm
by <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/mcdonnell-team-sought
-mistrial-over-jurors-ouster-expressed-concern-about-alternate/2014/10/30/d3
f3d1c2-6053-11e4-8b9e-2ccdac31a031_story.html> WaPo reports.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D67667&title=%E2%80%9CMcDonnell%20team%20sought%20mistrial%20over%20ju
ror%E2%80%99s%20ouster%2C%20expressed%20concern%20about%20alternate%E2%80%9D
&description=> <image001.png>
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54> bribery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67665> "Ginsburg Was Right: Texas' Extreme
Voter ID Law Is Stopping People From Voting"
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67665> October 30, 2014 12:24 pm
by <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/texas-voter-id_n_6076536.html?utm_
hp_ref=tw> HuffPo reports.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D67665&title=%E2%80%9CGinsburg%20Was%20Right%3A%20Texas%E2%80%99%20Ext
reme%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20Is%20Stopping%20People%20From%20Voting%E2%80%9D&de
scription=> <image001.png>
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> election administration,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> The Voting Wars,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9> voter id,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67663> "50,000 Missing Georgia
Voter-Registration Applications? Nothing to See Here"
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67663> October 30, 2014 12:20 pm
by <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/30/50-000-missing-georgia-vot
er-registration-applications-nothing-to-see-here.html?via=desktop&source=twi
tter> The Daily Beast reports.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D67663&title=%E2%80%9C50%2C000%20Missing%20Georgia%20Voter-Registratio
n%20Applications%3F%20Nothing%20to%20See%20Here%E2%80%9D&description=>
<image001.png>
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> election administration,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> The Voting Wars,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37> voter registration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67661> "Argument preview: Racial
gerrymandering, partisan politics, and the future of the Voting Rights Act"
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67661> October 30, 2014 12:07 pm
by <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
I have written
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/argument-preview-racial-gerrymandering-pa
rtisan-politics-and-the-future-of-the-voting-rights-act/> an extensive
preview for SCOTUSBlog of a pair of cases the Supreme Court will hear at a
November 12 oral argument. The issues are complex but very important and
I've tried to lay it out so that someone not in the election law field can
understand what's at stake. The preview begins:
The Supreme Court has long ignored Justice Felix Frankfurter's warning to
stay out of the political thicket. It regularly hears
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/perry-v-perez/> challenges to
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/arizona-state-legislature-v-ariz
ona-independent-redistricting-commission/?wpmp_switcher=desktop>
redistricting cases (not to mention
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mccutcheon-v-federal-election-co
mmission/> lots of other
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/crawford-v-marion-county-electio
n-bd/> types of
<http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Roberts-order-Lux-
9-30-101.pdf> election
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/susan-b-anthony-list-v-driehaus/
> cases), raising issues from the
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/001449.html> one-person, one-vote rule
to <http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/06/comments-on-lulac-v-perry/> vote
dilution under the Voting Rights Act, to
<http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_357> racial and
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/06/texas-redistricting-counting-the-votes/>
partisan gerrymandering claims. The Court's decision to hear a part of a
challenge to Alabama's state legislative redistricting plan enacted after
the 2010 census (in
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/alabama-legislative-black-caucus
-v-alabama/> Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/alabama-democratic-conference-v-
alabama/> Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama, set for argument on
November 12) brings all of these issues together in a seemingly technical
but high-stakes case, showing the artificiality of separating issues of race
and party in redistricting, offering a bold role reversal in political
parties' use of racial gerrymandering claims, and offering a surprising new
threat to the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D67661&title=%E2%80%9CArgument%20preview%3A%20Racial%20gerrymandering%
2C%20partisan%20politics%2C%20and%20the%20future%20of%20the%20Voting%20Right
s%20Act%E2%80%9D&description=> <image001.png>
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> Uncategorized
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67659> "State election officials opt to
delay election in Bobby Harrell's old House seat"
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67659> October 30, 2014 10:06 am
by <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
Following up on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67649> this post, the South
Carolina state election board i
<http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20141030/PC1603/141039960?fb_comment_
id=fbc_521814574587702_521834871252339_521834871252339#f35ae82f9c> s
delaying the election and Democrats intend to appeal to the state Supreme
Court.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D67659&title=%E2%80%9CState%20election%20officials%20opt%20to%20delay%
20election%20in%20Bobby%20Harrell%E2%80%99s%20old%20House%20seat%E2%80%9D&de
scription=> <image001.png>
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> election administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67657> "In Michigan, Spending Big Money to
Stop Big Money"
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67657> October 30, 2014 9:45 am by
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2014/10/30/?entry=3977&_php=tru
e&_type=blogs&smid=tw-share> NYT First Draft: "Now, with Election Day
nearing, Mayday is pinning its hopes on Michigan's Sixth Congressional
District, where Representative Fred Upton, a Republican who is the chairman
of the influential Energy and Commerce Committee and was once deemed a safe
incumbent, is facing an unexpectedly strong challenge from Paul Clements, a
Democrat. In a race that was on no one's radar a month ago, Mayday is now
the biggest outside spender."
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D67657&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20Michigan%2C%20Spending%20Big%20Money%20to%2
0Stop%20Big%20Money%E2%80%9D&description=> <image001.png>
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> campaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67655> "Horse. Stable Door. Too Late"
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67655> October 30, 2014 9:24 am by
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://blogs.reed.edu/earlyvoting/commentary/non-citizen-voting-and-why-pol
itical-scientists-who-are-publicly-engaged-may-need-an-editor/> Paul Gronke
on the non-citizen voting controversy and Jesse Richman's most recent
comments on it which try to pull back from some of its bolder claims.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D67655&title=%E2%80%9CHorse.%20Stable%20Door.%20Too%20Late%E2%80%9D&de
scription=> <image001.png>
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> election administration,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67653> "CFI Releases Analysis of Money in
State Elections"
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67653> October 30, 2014 9:07 am by
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/14-10-30/CFI_Releases_Analysis_of_Money_i
n_State_Elections.aspx> New release, with these subheads:
Nearly Two-Thirds of the Candidates' 2012 Money in the Median State Came
from PACs or from $1,000+ Donors; Small Donors Gave 16%
Less than 1% of Adults in the Median State Gave any Money at All to a
Candidate for State Office
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D67653&title=%E2%80%9CCFI%20Releases%20Analysis%20of%20Money%20in%20St
ate%20Elections%E2%80%9D&description=> <image001.png>
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> campaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67651> Lava!
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67651> October 30, 2014 9:05 am by
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
and other things that can mess up an election administrator's election day,
via <http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly>
Electionline Weekly.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D67651&title=Lava%21&description=> <image001.png>
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18> election administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67649> Fight in South Carolina Over
Replacing Resigning House Speaker on Ballot
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67649> October 30, 2014 7:21 am by
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
See
<http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20141030/PC1603/141039975/1031/palmet
to-sunrise-decision-on-harrell-district-house-race-today> here and
<http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20141029/PC1603/141029303?fb_action_i
ds=887859377892337&fb_action_types=og.comments> here.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D67649&title=Fight%20in%20South%20Carolina%20Over%20Replacing%20Resign
ing%20House%20Speaker%20on%20Ballot&description=> <image001.png>
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59> campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67647> "Danger Zone: A Supreme Court Misstep
On Voting Rights"
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67647> October 30, 2014 7:19 am by
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/opinion/a-supreme-court-misstep-on-voting
-rights.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region
®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region> Linda
Greenhouse NYT column.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D67647&title=%E2%80%9CDanger%20Zone%3A%20A%20Supreme%20Court%20Misstep
%20On%20Voting%20Rights%E2%80%9D&description=> <image001.png>
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> Supreme Court,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60> The Voting Wars,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67644> "Keep On Drillin'? Santa Barbara
Prepares To Vote On Oil Future"
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67644> October 30, 2014 7:14 am by
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://www.npr.org/2014/10/30/359894342/keep-on-drillin-santa-barbara-prepa
res-to-vote-on-oil-future?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campa
ign=morningedition&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=2054> NPR's Kirk Siegler on
big money being spent on a local ballot measure.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D67644&title=%E2%80%9CKeep%20On%20Drillin%E2%80%99%3F%20Santa%20Barbar
a%20Prepares%20To%20Vote%20On%20Oil%20Future%E2%80%9D&description=>
<image001.png>
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> campaign finance,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59> campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67642> "The S.E.C. and Political Spending"
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67642> October 30, 2014 7:10 am by
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/opinion/the-sec-and-political-spending.ht
ml?_r=2> NYT editorial.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D67642&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20S.E.C.%20and%20Political%20Spending%E2%80%
9D&description=> <image001.png>
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> campaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67640> "Ethics commission approves dark
money regulation"
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67640> October 30, 2014 7:09 am by
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Ethics-commission-approves-da
rk-money-regulation-5856838.php> San Antonio Express News:
Texas' campaign finance regulator is set to shine a light on secret spending
in state elections.
The Texas Ethics Commission, in a unanimous vote Wednesday, approved a new
regulation to require politically active nonprofits to disclose donors if
they spend more than 25 percent of their annual budget on politicking.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D67640&title=%E2%80%9CEthics%20commission%20approves%20dark%20money%20
regulation%E2%80%9D&description=> <image001.png>
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> campaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67638> "Beth White Hoist on Her Own Petard"
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67638> October 30, 2014 7:06 am by
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://ballots.blogspot.com/2014/10/beth-white-hoist-by-own-petard-httpwww.
html> Robbin Stewart. More
<http://ballots.blogspot.com/2014/10/placeholder-for-post-to-write-tomorrow.
html> here.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D67638&title=%E2%80%9CBeth%20White%20Hoist%20on%20Her%20Own%20Petard%E
2%80%9D&description=> <image001.png>
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> campaign finance,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59> campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67636> "How Canadian Corporations are
Tipping the Scales in US Politics"
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67636> October 30, 2014 7:05 am by
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/ho
w-canadian-corporations-are-tipping-the-scales-in-us-politics/article2135775
9/> The Globe and Mail reports.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D67636&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Canadian%20Corporations%20are%20Tipping%20
the%20Scales%20in%20US%20Politics%E2%80%9D&description=> <image001.png>
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> campaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67634> "Election Analysis Blog Launched"
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67634> October 30, 2014 7:02 am by
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://www.law.uky.edu/index.php?nid=247> Press release:
The University of Kentucky College of Law Election Law Society, a law
student organization, and election law professor, Joshua A. Douglas,
announce the first of its kind at UK - an Election Analysis Blog.
<http://www.uky.edu/electionlaw/> http://www.uky.edu/electionlaw/
Professor Douglas, the Robert G. Lawson and William H. Fortune Associate
Professor of Law, and students from the Election Law Society will provide
live analysis on legal issues surrounding the election as results pour in
across the Commonwealth and the nation. They will field questions from the
general public and media and provide ongoing commentary on any legal issues
that may arise.
There have already been significant lawsuits in the past few weeks - about
Kentucky's 300-foot ban on electioneering around a polling site, allegations
of false campaign advertising, voter ID laws, and more - that will impact
Election Day. The U.S. Senate race in Kentucky between Alison Lundergan
Grimes and Mitch McConnell is one of the most expensive - and potentially
one of the closest - in the country. UK's Election Analysis Blog will
chronicle it all.
Good luck to Josh Douglas and the students at UK. They join the great
<http://stateofelections.com/> State of Elections blog at William and Mary
whose law students do a consistently excellent job.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D67634&title=%E2%80%9CElection%20Analysis%20Blog%20Launched%E2%80%9D&d
escription=> <image001.png>
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> Uncategorized
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67632> "Sandra Fluke's Election Bid Opposed
By One Big-Spending Businessman"
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67632> October 30, 2014 6:58 am by
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/sandra-fluke-election_n_6070726.ht
ml> Paul Blumenthal reports for HuffPo.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D67632&title=%E2%80%9CSandra%20Fluke%E2%80%99s%20Election%20Bid%20Oppo
sed%20By%20One%20Big-Spending%20Businessman%E2%80%9D&description=>
<image001.png>
Posted in <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> campaign finance,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59> campaigns
--
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
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
_____
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by
reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without
copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
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
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
David Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
Hamline University
Department of Political Science
1536 Hewitt Ave
MS B 1805
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858 (voice)
651.523.3170 (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
Twitter: @ProfDSchultz
My latest book: Election Law and Democratic Theory, Ashgate Publishing
http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754675433
FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
The information contained in this communication is intended for the use
of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of this
communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that you have received this communication in error, and that any review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at +1-212-621-1898
and delete this email. Thank you.
[IP_US_DISC]
msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141102/3fbb05f3/attachment.html>
View list directory