[EL] buying candidates?
Mark Schmitt
schmitt.mark at gmail.com
Mon Nov 3 19:06:19 PST 2014
But if the spending "makes [voters] reject the supported candidates," then
the candidate's vote isn't really bought, is it? Voters do still have
agency. The issue is the resources available to persuade or inform those
voters -- voters should be able to hear all sides of an argument, and all
candidates and ideas that have some support should have a reasonable
opportunity to be heard. And elected officials should not be in a position
of strong dependency on a particular donor or outside spender.
One can say all those things without resorting to the "buying votes"
metaphor, which is very much a metaphor. I'm a reformer, I think we can and
should reduce the influence of concentrated wealth on elections and
legislation. But we're not doing the cause any favors with some of the
exaggerated, unexamined, and unpersuasive metaphors that litter our
language. Same is true on the other side, of course.
Mark Schmitt
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: mschmitt9
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Robert Wechsler <catbird at pipeline.com>
wrote:
> 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
> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
> twitter: mschmitt9
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Robert Wechsler <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
>> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
>> twitter: mschmitt9
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Sean Parnell <
>> 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 (c)
>>>
>>> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Robert Wechsler [mailto:catbird at pipeline.com]
>>> *Sent:* Monday, November 03, 2014 7:56 AM
>>> *To:* Sean Parnell
>>> *Cc:* 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 (c)
>>>
>>> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Robert Wechsler [mailto:catbird at pipeline.com
>>> <catbird at pipeline.com>]
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 02, 2014 4:55 PM
>>> *To:* Sean Parnell
>>> *Cc:* 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 (c)
>>>
>>> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Robert Wechsler [mailto:catbird at pipeline.com
>>> <catbird at pipeline.com>]
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 02, 2014 10:06 AM
>>> *To:* Sean Parnell
>>> *Cc:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu; fwoocher at strumwooch.com;
>>> 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 (c)
>>>
>>> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *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>] *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 <614.236.6317>*
>>>
>>> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
>>> <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* | tyler at rethinkmedia.org | Media Associate
>>>
>>> ReThink Media <http://rethinkmedia.org> | (202) 449-6960
>>> <%28202%29%20449-6960> office | (925) 548-2189 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> 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
>>>
>>> F. +1.202.654.9150
>>>
>>> E. BSvoboda at perkinscoie.com <%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 <614.236.6317>*
>>>
>>> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
>>> <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* | tyler at rethinkmedia.org | Media Associate
>>>
>>> ReThink Media <http://rethinkmedia.org> | (202) 449-6960
>>> <%28202%29%20449-6960> office | (925) 548-2189 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>
>>> 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 <614.236.6317>*
>>>
>>> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
>>> <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
>>> <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] *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
>>>
>>>
>>> “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.*
>>>
>>> [image: 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>
>>>
>>> [image: 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>
>>>
>>> [image: 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>
>>>
>>> [image: 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.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: 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.
>>>
>>> [image: 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.”
>>>
>>> [image: 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.
>>>
>>> [image: 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*
>>>
>>> [image: 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>
>>>
>>> [image: 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>
>>>
>>> [image: 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>
>>> .
>>>
>>> [image: 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.
>>>
>>> [image: 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>
>>>
>>> [image: 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.*
>>>
>>> [image: 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>
>>>
>>> [image: 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/>
>>>
>>> [image: 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/ <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.
>>>
>>> [image: 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.
>>>
>>> [image: 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 - 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://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/ba29b58e/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/ba29b58e/attachment.png>
View list directory