[EL] buying candidates?
Robert Wechsler
catbird at pipeline.com
Mon Nov 3 13:33:22 PST 2014
Actually, outsize contributions and expenditures can /rationally/ appear
to be attempts to purchase an election. See my blog post
<http://www.cityethics.org/content/how-huge-corporations-political-spending-can-change-citys-ethics-environment>
on Chevron's $3 million (so far) in contributions and expenditures
supporting and opposing Contra Costa, CA candidates.
The problem I was pointing out is that people see this as an attempt to
"buy" votes, and that appearances are important. Many people don't see
attempts to "buy" votes as a metaphor. They see it as a fact. It can
make them reject the supported candidates, as in Coralville, IA. Or it
can turn them off, make them feel that elections aren't fair, that they
overwhelm you with useless, often negative ads, etc. And it can have an
effect on who runs, and doesn't run, for office.
The point where a contribution becomes perceived as an attempted
"purchase" depends on the circumstances: how much relative to the total
amount, who is spending the money and why (Chevron is the city's biggest
employer and is seeking a specific benefit; the Koch brothers were
out-of-towners in Coralville), how open they are about it, whether the
ads and fliers are positive or negative, honest or sleazy, etc. One or
more unions can cause the same sort of situation.
Rob Wechsler
City Ethics
On 11/3/2014 3:46 PM, Mark Schmitt wrote:
> "At some point, these expenditures appear to become qualitatively
> different from making campaign contributions to a candidate or to a
> committee supporting a candidate. That is why people see this as an
> attempt to purchase rather than to influence."
>
> Sorry, I don't really understand this sentence at all. At what point
> does this happen? Is the problem that "people see this as an attempt
> to purchase," or that it actually is?
>
> I think what you are saying is that if you have a situation where a
> candidate is almost totally dependent for his ability to compete in
> elections on a big outside spender, he or she will be so deeply
> indebted to that supporter (if elected) that he is all but "owned." I
> think we can agree that such a situation invites corruption, is bad
> for democracy, and that elections should be structured to prevent that
> situation. But the metaphor of "purchase" or "buying votes" makes an
> even bigger claim than the reality can support.
>
>
>
> Mark Schmitt
> 202/246-2350 <tel:202%2F246-2350>
> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
> twitter: mschmitt9
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Robert Wechsler <catbird at pipeline.com
> <mailto:catbird at pipeline.com>> wrote:
>
> Mark, I agree with you completely that metaphors "are not trump
> cards in an argument. And dismantling someone else's metaphor
> isn't a trump card either."
>
> I wrongly employed a metaphor at the start of this thread, trying
> to take the conversation away from "buying candidates" to looking
> at large campaign expenditures in terms of seeking to persuade
> /voters /to vote for particular candidates. However, I made
> further points without resorting to metaphors (see below).
>
> But here is why I think that the "buying votes" metaphor is
> important, although not as a trump card in an argument. When
> individuals make large campaign-related expenditures, even when
> they have no intention of influencing the candidates they support
> (because they already agree), their goal in spending money is to
> get votes for their candidate. At some point, these expenditures
> appear to become qualitatively different from making campaign
> contributions to a candidate or to a committee supporting a
> candidate. That is why people see this as an attempt to purchase
> rather than to influence. That is where the "buying votes" and
> "buying candidates" metaphors come from.
>
> Shorthand metaphors do not have a place in an argument about such
> issues, but they need to be recognized, because they can be
> central to how things appear to people. In government ethics
> appearance is very important (in fact, the surface appearance is
> all that people can see, and this is what they respond to). When
> people feel that elections are being bought, they feel it's
> unfair, they turn off, and this undermines trust and participation
> in our government and in elections.
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
> On 11/3/2014 9:38 AM, Mark Schmitt wrote:
>> There's a reason a conversation like this one becomes so
>> pointless so quickly: It is conducted entirely in metaphors.
>> "Buying votes" is a metaphor for the influence that large donors
>> can have on legislative decisions. "Market of ideas," "drowning
>> out speech," and "leveling the playing field" are also metaphors.
>>
>> As a writer, I love metaphors, and they can be aids to
>> understanding. But they are not trump cards in an argument. And
>> dismantling someone else's metaphor isn't a trump card either.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark Schmitt
>> 202/246-2350 <tel:202%2F246-2350>
>> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
>> twitter: mschmitt9
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Sean Parnell
>> <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
>> <mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>> wrote:
>>
>> So when you say that you "would like to see the purchase of
>> votes be part of the discussion,"you mean you've made your
>> point and aren't interested in clarifying or responding to
>> any questions or critiques of that point? Thanks for
>> explaining. By the way, I suggest you look up the definition
>> of "discussion," I suspect you may be surprised.
>>
>> Sean Parnell
>>
>> President
>>
>> Impact Policy Management, LLC
>>
>> 6411 Caleb Court
>>
>> Alexandria, VA 22315
>>
>> 571-289-1374 <tel:571-289-1374> (c)
>>
>> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
>> <mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>
>>
>> *From:*Robert Wechsler [mailto:catbird at pipeline.com
>> <mailto:catbird at pipeline.com>]
>> *Sent:* Monday, November 03, 2014 7:56 AM
>> *To:* Sean Parnell
>> *Cc:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] buying candidates?
>>
>> I made my point in the beginning, in response to what
>> Benjamin Barr wrote. You twisted it then, and there's no
>> reason to make it again. You can keep the benefit of the
>> doubt to yourself. Treat is a gift rather than as a
>> transaction involving a product that is bought and sold.
>>
>> On 11/2/2014 9:18 PM, Sean Parnell wrote:
>>
>> Exactly (and I do mean EXACTLY) what "free market values"
>> you see in our elections that so trouble you? I'll give
>> you the benefit of the doubt (for now) that you have some
>> point to make, so please make it.
>>
>> Sean Parnell
>>
>> President
>>
>> Impact Policy Management, LLC
>>
>> 6411 Caleb Court
>>
>> Alexandria, VA 22315
>>
>> 571-289-1374 <tel:571-289-1374> (c)
>>
>> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
>> <mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>
>>
>> *From:*Robert Wechsler [mailto:catbird at pipeline.com]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 02, 2014 4:55 PM
>> *To:* Sean Parnell
>> *Cc:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] buying candidates?
>>
>> What I said is not that parties are purchasing elections,
>> or that spending money supporting candidates (via
>> persuasion/dissuasion (the attempt to garner if not
>> purchase votes) or via the actual purchase of votes,
>> which has occurred on many occasions, whatever the value
>> of a vote may be) is about economics, but that the values
>> of free market economics are not appropriate to the
>> election of political candidates.
>>
>> One of the problems in the world of campaign finance is
>> that it often overlooks the fact that it is part of
>> government ethics, which is based in "regime values,"
>> that is, the values that underlie our system of
>> government: fairness, justice, openness, constitutional
>> freedoms, civic responsibility, and citizen
>> participation. It is not just about free speech vs. "reform."
>>
>> If you acknowledge that the appropriateness of free
>> market values in the election of candidates is an issue,
>> then we can have a discussion. If you do not, then you
>> can just keep being disrespectful.
>>
>> Rob Wechsler
>> City Ethics
>>
>>
>> On 11/2/2014 4:20 PM, Sean Parnell wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, Robert, but you're not really making any sense.
>>
>> Let's start with basics. For one party to purchase an
>> election, someone else must sell it to them. Explain
>> to me, in non-euphemistic terms (i.e. "politicians
>> are selling it to the rich") who the seller is.
>> Alternately, stop pretending you're talking about
>> economics.
>>
>> Sean Parnell
>>
>> President
>>
>> Impact Policy Management, LLC
>>
>> 6411 Caleb Court
>>
>> Alexandria, VA 22315
>>
>> 571-289-1374 <tel:571-289-1374> (c)
>>
>> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
>> <mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>
>>
>> *From:*Robert Wechsler [mailto:catbird at pipeline.com]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 02, 2014 10:06 AM
>> *To:* Sean Parnell
>> *Cc:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>;
>> fwoocher at strumwooch.com
>> <mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>;
>> cmaceda_CONTRACTOR at ap.org
>> <mailto:cmaceda_CONTRACTOR at ap.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] buying candidates?
>>
>> Mr. Parnell, my "real issue," as I said, is There is
>> a difference between persuading people about products
>> or issues and persuading people about voting. In your
>> mock discussion, you assume that a vote is a product,
>> rather than discuss whether or not it is a product
>> and what that might mean with respect to regulating
>> attempts to purchase it. Therefore, your response is
>> a way to play at responding to an issue I raised
>> without actually responding to it. It is
>> disrespectful and wasteful of our time.
>>
>> The appropriateness of market economics in voting is
>> not a "silly euphemism." It is a central issue that,
>> I believe, does not receive sufficient discussion,
>> which is why I raised it. Don't you realize that your
>> snideness reflects poorly both your ability to
>> counter reasonable, responsible arguments and on your
>> ethics in engaging with others?
>>
>> Mr. Woocher's and Mr. Maceda's responses to what you
>> wrote are, on the other hand, thoughtful, responsible
>> responses to what you wrote below. So let's "begin
>> the discussion" by discussing it, not mocking it.
>>
>> Rob Wechsler
>> City Ethics
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/1/2014 5:53 PM, Sean Parnell 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 <tel:571-289-1374> (c)
>>
>> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
>> <mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>
>>
>> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <tel:614.236.6317>/
>>
>> /http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx/
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:*Tyler Creighton
>> [tyler at rethinkmedia.org
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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* |
>> tyler at rethinkmedia.org
>> <mailto: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> |
>> @TylerCreighton
>> <http://www.twitter.com/tylercreighton>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:06 AM,
>> Svoboda, Brian (Perkins Coie)
>> <BSvoboda at perkinscoie.com
>> <mailto: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>
>> [mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <tel:614.236.6317>/
>>
>> /http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx/
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:*Tyler Creighton
>> [tyler at rethinkmedia.org
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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* |
>> tyler at rethinkmedia.org
>> <mailto: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> |
>> @TylerCreighton
>> <http://www.twitter.com/tylercreighton>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Smith,
>> Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu
>> <mailto: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 <tel:614.236.6317>/
>>
>> /http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx/
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
>> [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>]
>> on behalf of Reuben, Richard C.
>> [ReubenR at missouri.edu
>> <mailto:ReubenR at missouri.edu>]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 30, 2014 4:31 PM
>> *To:* 'Rick Hasen'; 'law-election at UCI.edu
>> <mailto:law-election at UCI.edu>'
>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] more news 10/30/14
>>
>> Apologies if this
>> <http://www.iagreetosee.com/portfolio/republicans-spending-oust-groovy-judge-pat-joyce/?utm_expid=75724171-4.BszejjW6RMeHyvjzhd7TGw.0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CCcQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.iagreetosee.com%252Fportfolio%252Frepublicans-spending-oust-groovy-judge-pat-joyce%252F%26ei%3DRZ9SVJq3JtX_yQSUw4DgBQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNF-VgTyYb_g2mLuoL36cxqDZUb2Pw%26sig2%3DQLsHDOuK-t-67ruAQca8wA%26bvm%3Dbv.78597519%2Cd.aWw?&version=a>
>> 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>
>> [mailto: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
>> <mailto:law-election at UCI.edu>
>> *Subject:* [EL] more news 10/30/14
>>
>>
>> "Messing With Texas Again: Putting It
>> Back Under Federal Supervision"
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67669>
>>
>> Posted on October 30, 2014 12:40 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67669> by
>> *Rick Hasen*
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> I have written this piece
>> <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/messing-with-texas-voter-id>for
>> TPM Cafe. It begins:
>>
>> /Readers of the entire 147-page
>> opinion
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/20141009-TXID-Opinion.pdf> 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./
>>
>> Share
>> <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=>
>>
>> Posted in election administration
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
>> Voting Wars
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,
>> voter id
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,
>> Voting Rights Act
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>>
>>
>> "McDonnell team sought mistrial over
>> juror's ouster, expressed concern
>> about alternate"
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67667>
>>
>> Posted on October 30, 2014 12:30 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67667> by
>> *Rick Hasen*
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> WaPo reports.
>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/mcdonnell-team-sought-mistrial-over-jurors-ouster-expressed-concern-about-alternate/2014/10/30/d3f3d1c2-6053-11e4-8b9e-2ccdac31a031_story.html>
>>
>> Share
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67667&title=%E2%80%9CMcDonnell%20team%20sought%20mistrial%20over%20juror%E2%80%99s%20ouster%2C%20expressed%20concern%20about%20alternate%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>> Posted in bribery
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>
>>
>>
>> "Ginsburg Was Right: Texas' Extreme
>> Voter ID Law Is Stopping People From
>> Voting"
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67665>
>>
>> Posted on October 30, 2014 12:24 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67665> by
>> *Rick Hasen*
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> HuffPo reports.
>> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/texas-voter-id_n_6076536.html?utm_hp_ref=tw>
>>
>> Share
>> <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%20Extreme%20Voter%20ID%20Law%20Is%20Stopping%20People%20From%20Voting%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>> Posted in election administration
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
>> Voting Wars
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,
>> voter id
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,
>> Voting Rights Act
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>>
>>
>> "50,000 Missing Georgia
>> Voter-Registration Applications?
>> Nothing to See Here"
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67663>
>>
>> Posted on October 30, 2014 12:20 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67663> by
>> *Rick Hasen*
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> The /Daily Beast/ reports.
>> <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/30/50-000-missing-georgia-voter-registration-applications-nothing-to-see-here.html?via=desktop&source=twitter>
>>
>> Share
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67663&title=%E2%80%9C50%2C000%20Missing%20Georgia%20Voter-Registration%20Applications%3F%20Nothing%20to%20See%20Here%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>> Posted in election administration
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
>> Voting Wars
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,
>> voter registration
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>
>>
>>
>> "Argument preview: Racial
>> gerrymandering, partisan politics,
>> and the future of the Voting Rights
>> Act"
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67661>
>>
>> Posted on October 30, 2014 12:07 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67661> by
>> *Rick Hasen*
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> I have written an extensive preview for
>> SCOTUSBlog
>> <http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/10/argument-preview-racial-gerrymandering-partisan-politics-and-the-future-of-the-voting-rights-act/> 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 challenges
>> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/perry-v-perez/> to
>> redistricting cases
>> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/arizona-state-legislature-v-arizona-independent-redistricting-commission/?wpmp_switcher=desktop> (not
>> to mention lots
>> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commission/> of
>> other types
>> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/crawford-v-marion-county-election-bd/> of
>> election
>> <http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Roberts-order-Lux-9-30-101.pdf>
>> cases
>> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/susan-b-anthony-list-v-driehaus/>),
>> raising issues from the one-person,
>> one-vote
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/archives/001449.html> rule
>> to vote dilution
>> <http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/06/comments-on-lulac-v-perry/> under
>> the Voting Rights Act, to racial
>> <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_357> and
>> partisan
>> <http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/06/texas-redistricting-counting-the-votes/> 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
>> /Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v.
>> Alabama/
>> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/alabama-legislative-black-caucus-v-alabama/> and
>> /Alabama Democratic Conference v.
>> Alabama/
>> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/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./
>>
>> Share
>> <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%20Rights%20Act%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>> Posted in Uncategorized
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>>
>>
>> "State election officials opt to
>> delay election in Bobby Harrell's old
>> House seat"
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67659>
>>
>> Posted on October 30, 2014 10:06 am
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67659> by
>> *Rick Hasen*
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Following up on this post
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67649>,
>> the South Carolina state election board
>> is delaying the election
>> <http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20141030/PC1603/141039960?fb_comment_id=fbc_521814574587702_521834871252339_521834871252339#f35ae82f9c> and
>> Democrats intend to appeal to the state
>> Supreme Court.
>>
>> Share
>> <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&description=>
>>
>> Posted in election administration
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
>>
>>
>> "In Michigan, Spending Big Money to
>> Stop Big Money"
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67657>
>>
>> Posted on October 30, 2014 9:45 am
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67657> by
>> *Rick Hasen*
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> NYT First Draft
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2014/10/30/?entry=3977&_php=true&_type=blogs&smid=tw-share>:
>> "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."
>>
>> Share
>> <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%20Stop%20Big%20Money%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>>
>>
>> "Horse. Stable Door. Too Late"
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67655>
>>
>> Posted on October 30, 2014 9:24 am
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67655> by
>> *Rick Hasen*
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Paul Gronke
>> <http://blogs.reed.edu/earlyvoting/commentary/non-citizen-voting-and-why-political-scientists-who-are-publicly-engaged-may-need-an-editor/> 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.
>>
>> Share
>> <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&description=>
>>
>> Posted in election administration
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
>> Voting Wars
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>>
>>
>> "CFI Releases Analysis of Money in
>> State Elections"
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67653>
>>
>> Posted on October 30, 2014 9:07 am
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67653> by
>> *Rick Hasen*
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> New release
>> <http://cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/14-10-30/CFI_Releases_Analysis_of_Money_in_State_Elections.aspx>,
>> 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/
>>
>> Share
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67653&title=%E2%80%9CCFI%20Releases%20Analysis%20of%20Money%20in%20State%20Elections%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>>
>>
>> Lava!
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67651>
>>
>> Posted on October 30, 2014 9:05 am
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67651> by
>> *Rick Hasen*
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> and other things that can mess up an
>> election administrator's election day,
>> via Electionline Weekly.
>> <http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly>
>>
>> Share
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67651&title=Lava%21&description=>
>>
>> Posted in election administration
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
>>
>>
>> Fight in South Carolina Over
>> Replacing Resigning House Speaker on
>> Ballot
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67649>
>>
>> Posted on October 30, 2014 7:21 am
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67649> by
>> *Rick Hasen*
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> See here
>> <http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20141030/PC1603/141039975/1031/palmetto-sunrise-decision-on-harrell-district-house-race-today> and
>> here.
>> <http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20141029/PC1603/141029303?fb_action_ids=887859377892337&fb_action_types=og.comments>
>>
>> Share
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67649&title=Fight%20in%20South%20Carolina%20Over%20Replacing%20Resigning%20House%20Speaker%20on%20Ballot&description=>
>>
>> Posted in campaigns
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>>
>>
>> "Danger Zone: A Supreme Court Misstep
>> On Voting Rights"
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67647>
>>
>> Posted on October 30, 2014 7:19 am
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67647> by
>> *Rick Hasen*
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Linda Greenhouse NYT column
>> <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>.
>>
>> Share
>> <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=>
>>
>> Posted in Supreme Court
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, The
>> Voting Wars
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,
>> Voting Rights Act
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>>
>>
>> "Keep On Drillin'? Santa Barbara
>> Prepares To Vote On Oil Future"
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67644>
>>
>> Posted on October 30, 2014 7:14 am
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67644> by
>> *Rick Hasen*
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> NPR's Kirk Siegler
>> <http://www.npr.org/2014/10/30/359894342/keep-on-drillin-santa-barbara-prepares-to-vote-on-oil-future?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=morningedition&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=2054>on
>> big money being spent on a local ballot
>> measure.
>>
>> Share
>> <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%20Barbara%20Prepares%20To%20Vote%20On%20Oil%20Future%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
>> campaigns
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>>
>>
>> "The S.E.C. and Political Spending"
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67642>
>>
>> Posted on October 30, 2014 7:10 am
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67642> by
>> *Rick Hasen*
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> NYT editorial.
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/opinion/the-sec-and-political-spending.html?_r=2>
>>
>> Share
>> <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=>
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>>
>>
>> "Ethics commission approves dark
>> money regulation"
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67640>
>>
>> Posted on October 30, 2014 7:09 am
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67640> by
>> *Rick Hasen*
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> /San Antonio Express News/
>> <http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Ethics-commission-approves-dark-money-regulation-5856838.php>:
>>
>> /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./
>>
>> Share
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67640&title=%E2%80%9CEthics%20commission%20approves%20dark%20money%20regulation%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>>
>>
>> "Beth White Hoist on Her Own Petard"
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67638>
>>
>> Posted on October 30, 2014 7:06 am
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67638> by
>> *Rick Hasen*
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Robbin Stewart.
>> <http://ballots.blogspot.com/2014/10/beth-white-hoist-by-own-petard-httpwww.html> More
>> here.
>> <http://ballots.blogspot.com/2014/10/placeholder-for-post-to-write-tomorrow.html>
>>
>> Share
>> <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%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
>> campaigns
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>>
>>
>> "How Canadian Corporations are
>> Tipping the Scales in US Politics"
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67636>
>>
>> Posted on October 30, 2014 7:05 am
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67636> by
>> *Rick Hasen*
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> The /Globe and Mail/ reports.
>> <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/how-canadian-corporations-are-tipping-the-scales-in-us-politics/article21357759/>
>>
>> Share
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D67636&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Canadian%20Corporations%20are%20Tipping%20the%20Scales%20in%20US%20Politics%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>>
>>
>> "Election Analysis Blog Launched"
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67634>
>>
>> Posted on October 30, 2014 7:02 am
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67634> by
>> *Rick Hasen*
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Press release
>> <http://www.law.uky.edu/index.php?nid=247>:
>>
>> /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//
>>
>> /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
>> State of Elections
>> <http://stateofelections.com/> blog at
>> William and Mary whose law students do a
>> consistently excellent job.
>>
>> Share
>> <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&description=>
>>
>> Posted in Uncategorized
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>>
>>
>> "Sandra Fluke's Election Bid Opposed
>> By One Big-Spending Businessman"
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67632>
>>
>> Posted on October 30, 2014 6:58 am
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67632> by
>> *Rick Hasen*
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Paul Blumenthal
>> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/sandra-fluke-election_n_6070726.html> reports
>> for HuffPo.
>>
>> Share
>> <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%20Opposed%20By%20One%20Big-Spending%20Businessman%E2%80%9D&description=>
>>
>> Posted in campaign finance
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,
>> campaigns
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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 <tel:949.824.3072> - office
>>
>> 949.824.0495 <tel:949.824.0495> - fax
>>
>> rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:949.824.3072> - office
>>
>> 949.824.0495 <tel:949.824.0495> - fax
>>
>> rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <tel:651.523.2858> (voice)
>> 651.523.3170 <tel: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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141103/b37c9bd7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141103/b37c9bd7/attachment.png>
View list directory