[EL] dark msoney
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Fri Oct 10 09:33:23 PDT 2014
Wow, Joe. Right from the DNC's latest talking points.
So to add a little bipartisan flavor on this, see:
_Click here: As Democratic donors gather in Chicago, GOP takes aim -
Chicago Sun-Times_
(http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/27055776-452/as-democratic-donors-gather-in-chicago-gop-takes-aim.html#.VDgIx5t6D7c)
Dem fat cats meeting with Dem politicians to raise money for liberal "dark
money" groups.
Joe, please give us a break from hyper partisanship, at least on this list
serve. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 10/9/2014 5:59:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
sandler at sandlerreiff.com writes:
Thomas--
The June summit of donors held by the Koch Brothers is a good example-- it
was attended by Republican Members of Congress and candidates who got
to see first hand, literally in front of them, in person, the donors to the
Koch Brothers dark money c4/c6 organizations-- but the summit was locked
down with public and press kept out (although a tape of some of the
proceedings was leaked to one journalist
http://www.thenation.com/article/181363/caught-tape-what-mitch-mcconnell-complained-about-roomful-billionaires-exclusiv
e )
.
So these candidates absolutely know the source of the dark money
benefiting them but the public does not. (Even the leaked proceedings did not
identify any of the donors who attended). That's the significant problem with
dark money for just the reason you set out.
Joseph E. Sandler
Sandler Reiff Lamb Rosenstein & Birkenstock PC
1025 Vermont Ave NW Suite 300
Washington DC 20005
Tel: 202 479 1111
CELL 202 607 0700
Fax 202 479 1115
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Craig Holman
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 5:37 PM
To: Tom at tomcares.com; Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] dark money
Hi Thomas:
Selectively and discreetly informing lawmakers of the political spending
decisions of a corporation, union or other organization is part and parcel
of what us lobbyists do.
Unfortunately, as a lobbyist for Public Citizen, this type of leverage is
not so readily available to me.
Craig Holman, Ph.D.
Government Affairs Lobbyist
Public Citizen
215 Pennsylvania Avenue SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
T-(202) 454-5182
C-(202) 905-7413
F-(202) 547-7392
_Holman at aol.com_ (mailto:Holman at aol.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas J. Cares <_Tom at tomcares.com_ (mailto:Tom at tomcares.com) >
To: Election Law <_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu) >
Sent: Thu, Oct 9, 2014 5:21 pm
Subject: Re: [EL] dark money
Probably not the type of thing one could collect empirical data on, but -
if anyone thinks they have general insight - do you figure candidates are
generally cognizant of the original source of dark money?
The biggest harm with dark money would seem to be that the public can't
discover conflicts of interest.
I'm familiar with an instance where a legislator wouldn't support
something that was fairly popular with the overwhelming majority of those effected
as well as electeds in the effected city, because he feared it could have a
slight adverse effect on the value of real estate he owns.
At least I know that reason. At least the mayor of that city knows the
reason. We're not scratching our heads as to why he wouldn't support it, and
we can judge him for making that decision on that basis, and that's
appropriate.
But what if the reason was that a corporation who supported his election
with $100k in dark money might have their property value adversely effected,
and he knew that and wanted similar repeated support from that source for
reelection... But the public never knows it and is left to assume he had a
better-faith reason.
In the absence of laws mandating disclosure, might the next best thing be
a buildup of public intolerance for electeds who probably know the source
of dark money, but won't reveal it and therein make conflicts of interest
undetectable?
(But yes, for this reason, it seems a great shame that disclosure is not
more-thoroughly mandated by statute. If it averages 3%, that's not very
comforting - that's $60k out of every $2m, plenty to create a signficantly
harmful recurrence of unknown conflicts of interest throughout a legislative
body).
-Thomas Cares
On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Justin Levitt <_levittj at lls.edu_
(mailto:levittj at lls.edu) > wrote:
I'll see your "whoa" and raise you an "easy, easy."
I've made the same comment with respect to the estimates of pro-"reform"
groups too. The underlying piece I linked to is _here_
(http://summaryjudgments.lls.edu/2014/05/the-drunkards-search-for-money-in.html) . In it, I
explain the sort of money that's not included in either of these calculations
(from pro-reform groups or the CCP), as far as I can tell. "If an entity
does not have the election or defeat of candidates as its primary purpose,
spending that is neither expressing advocacy nor on the air as an election
approaches is entirely outside of the current electoral disclosure regime. .
. . Labor spends millions on pre-election canvassers to discuss candidates’
records on union pensions? A pro-choice group spends millions on
pre-election mailers touting candidates’ support for abortion? A conglomerate puts
up a TV ad 31 days before the primary railing against a candidate’s sexual
peccadilloes? For the FEC, this is terra incognita. Here be dragons."
Immediately after that, I say "To be clear, I am not advocating for full
disclosure of all of this activity. I am, however, advocating for more
frequent acknowledgment of these known unknowns, particularly in empirical
analysis of the changes that changes in the legal regime have wrought." Because
I thought that point might get lost in the morning's post, I said it
again: "That’s not itself an argument for disclosing all the rest." I'm not
sure how you can draw from that that I've "called for a more massive
expansion of the compulsory disclosure regime." I'm just pointing out the limits
of the numbers we have. -- for those who are quoting the size of spending
without disclosure, both from the reform community and not.
Finally, I agree with you that I'm not sure (as in, we just don't know)
about the size of the change ... my comment wasn't linked to any notion that
the number had changed. One of the things I've been pointing out is that
the "growth" of spending may be a result of the fact that definitions have
changed. Again, from the underlying piece: "Legal requirements for
reporting data with respect to [electioneering communications] only arose in 2002.
When you see a jump in the amount of electioneering communications in 2004,
that does not indicate a sudden appearance of brand-new
Levitt-hates-puppies ads. It meant that, for the first time, such ads fell under the
streetlight. How much spending was there on ads in 1998 or 2000 or 2002 that would
now meet the definition of 'electioneering communications'? FEC data leave
no idea."
So please understand, my comment was meant to say only what it actually
said: that we really don't know that over 95% of campaign spending is funded
by groups that publicly disclose their donor information. That's different
from saying that we should know about some or all of the rest, or that the
number has gotten relatively bigger over time.
--
Justin Levitt
Professor of Law
Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
919 Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA 90015
213-736-7417
_justin.levitt at lls.edu_ (mailto:justin.levitt at lls.edu)
_ssrn.com/author=698321_ (http://ssrn.com/author=698321)
On 10/9/2014 4:55 AM, Smith, Brad wrote:
Justin writes:
"CCP in The Hill_<http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/219926-
dark-money-still-a-bit-player>_
(http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/219926-dark-money-still-a-bit-player) : What would you call an election
in which over 95 percent of campaign spending is funded by groups that
publicly disclose the names and addresses of their donors to the Federal Election
Commission, along with information on donors’ employers and occupations?
"Though the point is valid, this op-ed assumes that spending disclosed to
the FEC is the relevant denominator, and focuses on the portion with (some)
donors disclosed. But remember, some campaign spending is not disclosed to
the FEC at
all_<http://summaryjudgments.lls.edu/2014/05/the-drunkards-search-for-money-in.html>_
(http://summaryjudgments.lls.edu/2014/05/the-drunkards-search-for-money-in.html) , and we have no idea whether that number is large
or small. That’s not itself an argument for disclosing all the rest. But it
’s important to keep in mind the spending nobody knows about before
trumpeting transparency based on what’s visible under the streetlight."
Whoa. Beep beep beep. Back up. We calculate these numbers by taking the
estimates of good pro-"reform" groups railing against "dark money," such as the
Center for Responsive Politics, as to the total amount of "dark money."
Then we divide by spending reported by the FEC.
To the extent that more money is spent that is not reported to the FEC,
that increases the denominator by one dollar for every such dollar spent. But
what money aren't the reform groups including in the numerator? Some of this
would appear to be money that is not reported to the FEC. If that is correct
(these organizations are quite thin about how they calculate the number,
witness James Bopp's recent exchange with the Wesleyan Project), then the
percentage of "dark money" is actually lower, not higher.
To the extent that "dark money" is not included in either the numerator or
the denominator, we don't know the ultimate change in its percentage of
political spending. But wait a minute - what spending is included as dark money
that is not reported to the FEC? It would have to be information that was
never reported to the FEC - that is, issue advocacy, but not including
electioneering communications. Is there any reason to believe that issue advocacy
that is not an electioneering communication is on the rise? No. In fact, it
is almost certainly in decline since organizations once restricted to issue
advocacy can now make independent expenditures and electioneering
communications. So if we want to include issue advocacy (and where, exactly, is the
line on what we would then call "dark money" - spending on research reports
(like Elizabeth Warren wants reported, at least if it doesn't support her ideas
of good public policy)? spending on TV documentaries like "The Roosevelts?"
S!
pending
on TV commercial programming like the upcoming Tea Leoni series about a
gutsy, heroic, (entirely fictional, no resemblance to any person living or dead
is intended) Secretary of State? Voter registration drives by c3
organizations such as Public Citizen?
To the extent Justin would include any of these things in "dark money," he
has just expanded the term beyond any prior definition I've heard of "dark
money," and called for a more massive expansion of the compulsory disclosure
regime than anything I've seen before.
In short, we use the definition used by the groups that are acting most
alarmed about so-called "dark money" as our numerator. Our denominator is, if
anything, too small, to the extent that some of what these groups call "dark
money" is not reported to the FEC.
Dark money? The hokum scare of our modern elections, and perhaps the single
biggest obstacle to serious discussion of disclosure reform.
Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
614.236.6317
http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
________________________________________
From: _law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu)
[law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Justin Levitt [levittj at lls.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 6:01 AM
To: _law-election at UCI.EDU_ (mailto:law-election at UCI.EDU)
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 10/9/14
Theory to Practice: The Democracy Facts Label Goes
Live_<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66562>_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66562)
Posted on October 9, 2014 2:56 am_<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66562>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66562) by Justin
Levitt_<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4)
Yesterday, Rick linked_<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66517>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66517) to a press release from the San Francisco Ethics
Commission, announcing the launch of a great new campaign finance
dashboard_<http://www.sfethics.org/ethics/2014/09/about-the-2014-campaign-finance-dashbo
ards.html>_
(http://www.sfethics.org/ethics/2014/09/about-the-2014-campaign-finance-dashboards.html) . The site has a few different tools to get
campaign finance information, and more important, to visualize it in different
ways so that the morass of data is more meaningful. There are maps for
contributions by
location_<http://www.sfethics.org/ethics/2013/12/board-of-supervisors-district-2-dashboard-november-4-2014-election.html>_
(http://www.sfethics.org/ethics/2013/12/board-of-supervisors-district-2-dashboard-november-4-20
14-election.html) !
, and c<
a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://www.sfethics.org/ethics/2014/09/general-purpose-committee-activity.html"><http://www.sfethics.org/ethics/20
14/09/general-purpose-committee-activity.html>harts for sorting big PACs
from small
ones_<http://www.sfethics.org/ethics/2014/09/general-purpose-committee-activity.html>_
(http://www.sfethics.org/ethics/2014/09/general-purpose-committee-activity.html) ; there are graphs for
lobbyist_<http://www.sfethics.org/ethics/2014/08/political-contributions-made-arranged-or-delivered-by-lo
bbyists-to-candidates-for-local-office-in-20.html>_
(http://www.sfethics.org/ethics/2014/08/political-contributions-made-arranged-or-delivered-by-lobbyi
sts-to-candidates-for-local-office-in-20.html)
contributions_<http://www.sfethics.org/ethics/2014/08/political-contributions-made-arranged-or-delivered
-by-lobbyists-to-candidates-for-local-office-in-20.html>_
(http://www.sfethics.org/ethics/2014/08/political-contributions-made-arranged-or-delivered-by-
lobbyists-to!%20-candidates-for-local-office-in-20.html) and infographics
of major
donors_<http://www.sfethics.org/ethics/2014/09/major-donors-2014.html>_ (http://www.sfethics.org/ethics/2014/09/major-donors-2014.html) .
[cid:part12.01070100.05000607 at lls.edu]_<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/
DemocracyFacts.jpg>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/archives/DemocracyFacts.jpg) But the piece I’m most proud of is the
interface_<http://www.sfethics.org/ethics/democracyfacts.html>_
(http://www.sfethics.org/ethics/democracyfacts.html) for quickly communicating information about the funding profile and
major funders of ballot measures. It’s modeled after my proposal for a “
Democracy Facts” label, described in this
paper_<http://ssrn.com/abstract=1676108>_ (http://ssrn.com/abstract=1676108) and highlighted in this blog
post_<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/017415.html>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/archives/017415.html) almost exactly 4 yea!
rs ago.
The idea is to borrow the familiar design of the Nutrition Facts labels,
focusing on the few most important campaign funding facts real people
actually might want to know, in readily digestible and comparable fashion.
The individual pieces of information on the label can be tailored to local
needs and desires; there are lots of potential variations. The San
Francisco Ethics Commission chose the info that suited them best.
And the technical wizards on the implementation team improved on the idea
in many different ways. Among the upgrades: given the web interface, each
individual major donor is clickable, and linked to a Google search providing a
bit more context about the person or entity involved. Community feedback,
I understand, has thus far been profoundly positive.
Last year, Heather Gerken_<http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/HGerken.htm>_
(http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/HGerken.htm) had the opportunity to see her
Democracy Index_<http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/democracyindex.htm>_
(http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/democracyindex.htm) come to life, when Pew
released its Elections Performance
Index_<http://www.pewstates.org/research/reports/elections-performance-index-85899445029>_
(http://www.pewstates.org/research/reports/elections-performance-index-85899445029) . She
wrote_<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47114>_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=47114) about
the experience of watching the real-life realization of her powerful policy
proposal to render information about the electoral environment more accessible
and relevant, and thereby more meaningful.
She was right. It feels great.
[Share]_<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblo
g.org%2F%3Fp%3D66562&title=Theory%20to%20Practice%3A%20The%20Democracy%20Fac
ts%20Label%20Goes%20Live&description=>_
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66562&title=Theory%20to%20Practice:%20The
%20Democracy%20Facts%20Label%20Goes%20Live&description=)
Posted in campaign finance_<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10)
Edit_<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=66562&action=edit>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=66562&action=edit)
10/9 FEC Meeting: Citizens United, McCutcheon &
More_<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66559>_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66559)
Posted on October 9, 2014 2:49 am_<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66559>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66559) by Justin
Levitt_<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4)
Late Wednesday, the FEC posted several drafts of rules to be considered at
a meeting Thursday. One of the
drafts_<http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2014/documents/mtgdoc_14-53-a.pdf>_
(http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2014/documents/mtgdoc_14-53-a.pdf) implements the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United,
removing prohibitions on labor and corporate spending on independent political
activity; it would also allow corporations and labor organizations to
contribute to others engaging in independent political activity, including
SuperPACs and regular PACs with separate independent-expenditure accounts.
Another_<http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2014/documents/mtgdoc_14-51-a.pdf>_
(http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2014/documents/mtgdoc_14-51-a.pdf) implements the
Supreme Court’s decision in McCutcheon, removing the aggregate limits on
contributing to candidates, party committees, and PACs. Still
another_<http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2014/documents/mtgdoc_14-52-a.pdf>_
(http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2014/documents/mtgdoc_14-52-a.pdf) announces an upcoming rulemaking to
consider further refinement in light of McCutcheon, including potential
adjustments to existing earmarking, affiliation, and disclosure rules to help
prevent circumvention of the existing base limits on contributions.
The FEC also released two draft advisory opinions. The first is an AO
requested by the DNC and RNC about whether they can fundraise separately for the
2016 presidential nomination conventions, in addition to limits on
donations to the party committees generally. Here’s the “yes”
option_<http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2014/documents/mtgdoc_14-50-b.pdf>_
(http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2014/documents/mtgdoc_14-50-b.pdf) ; here’s the “no”
option_<http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2014/documents/mtgdoc_14-50-a.pdf>_
(http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2014/documents/mtgdoc_14-50-a.pdf) .
The second is an AO requested by the two dueling Randolph-Macon College
professors looking to replace Eric Cantor, about whether the college can
continue paying fringe benefits while the candidates are on leave. For those
convinced that the FEC is hopelessly divided based on rank partisanship for
every possible issue (I’ve got doubts_<http://ssrn.com/abstract=2239491>_
(http://ssrn.com/abstract=2239491) ), I look forward to a 3-3 deadlock with the 3
Republican nominees voting to allow the college to pay the Republican
candidate, and a 3-3 deadlock with the 3 Democratic nominees voting to allow the
same college to pay the Democratic candidate.
[Share]_<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblo
g.org%2F%3Fp%3D66559&title=10%2F9%20FEC%20Meeting%3A%20Citizens%20United%2C%
20McCutcheon%20%26%20More&description=>_
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66559&title=10/9%20FEC%20Meeting:%20Citi
zens%20United,%20McCutcheon%20&%20More&description=)
Posted in campaign finance_<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) , federal election
commission_<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24)
Edit_<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=66559&action=edit>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=66559&action=edit)
On Party Fundraising for 2016
Conventions_<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66554>_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66554)
Posted on October 9, 2014 2:48 am_<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66554>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66554) by Justin
Levitt_<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4)
About those AOs up later today: the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21
have_<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=a
rticle&id=2628:october-8-2014-watchdogs-urge-fec-to-reject-rnc-a-dnc-request
-to-open-soft-money-loophole-for-convention-funds&catid=63:legal-center-pres
s-releases&Itemid=61>_
(http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2628:october-8-2014-watchdogs-urge-fec-to-reject
-rnc-a-dnc-request-to-open-soft-money-loophole-for-convention-funds&catid=63
:legal-center-press-releases&Itemid=61)
opinions_<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/images/CLC_D21_Comments_on_Draft_AO_2014_12.pdf>_
(http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/images/CLC_D21_Comments_on_Draft_AO_2014_12.pdf) .
Bauer_<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2014/10/facts-theories-campaign-f
inance-argument-convention-financing-matter-fec/>_
(http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2014/10/facts-theories-campaign-finance-argument-convention-fina
ncing-matter-fec/) does too, highlighting that the conventions are about
more than just the nominee. As every bar in the host city can confirm.
[Share]_<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblo
g.org%2F%3Fp%3D66554&title=On%20Party%20Fundraising%20for%202016%20Conventio
ns&description=>_
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66554&title=On%20Party%20Fundraising%20for%202016%20Conventions
&description=)
Posted in campaign finance_<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) , federal election
commission_<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24)
Edit_<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=66554&action=edit>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=66554&action=edit)
“Rules for Provisional Ballots All Over the Map”
_<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66552>_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66552)
Posted on October 9, 2014 2:46 am_<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66552>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66552) by Justin
Levitt_<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4)
Pam Fessler tries to make sense of the provisional ballot
landscape_<http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/10/09/354534487/rules-for-provisional-
ballots-all-over-the-map>_
(http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/10/09/354534487/rules-for-provisional-ballots-all-over-the-map) for NPR.
[Share]_<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblo
g.org%2F%3Fp%3D66552&title=%E2%80%9CRules%20for%20Provisional%20Ballots%20Al
l%20Over%20the%20Map%E2%80%9D&description=>_
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66552&title=“
Rules%20for%20Provisional%20Ballots%20All%20Over%20the%20Map”&description=)
Posted in provisional ballots_<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=67>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=67)
Edit_<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=66552&action=edit>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=66552&action=edit)
Right Questions, Wrong Answers in Voter ID
Decision_<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66549>_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66549)
Posted on October 9, 2014 2:46 am_<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66549>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66549) by Justin
Levitt_<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4)
Prof. Chris Elmendorf_<https://law.ucdavis.edu/faculty/elmendorf/>_
(https://law.ucdavis.edu/faculty/elmendorf/) , over at the Election Law @
Moritz_<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/election-law/article/?article=12965>_
(http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/election-law/article/?article=12965) site, dives
deep_<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/election-law/article/?article=12965>_
(http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/election-law/article/?article=12965) on the 7th Circuit’s WI voter ID
decision_<http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Frank72.p
df>_
(http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Frank72.pdf) . It begins:
Earlier this week Rick Hasen blasted Judge Easterbook’s opinion upholding
Wisconsin’s voter ID requirement as cavalier with the facts and “heartless
and dismissive” in tone. But in one respect the opinion is extremely helpful:
it asks the right questions.
Three questions foregrounded by Easterbook are particularly important to
the future of the Voting Rights Act:
What limiting principle keeps the Section 2 “results test” from obligating
every state to tinker with its election machinery until rates of voter
participation by race have been equalized? Insofar as Section 2 conditions state
obligations on past or present societal discrimination, how does this
square with the 14th and 15th Amendments, which by their terms reach only state
action? To what extent are the “fact” questions in Section 2 cases questions
that district judges should try to answer on the basis of expert testimony,
as opposed to questions of belief, faith, or policy that ought to be
settled by appellate courts as a matter of law?
As this post will explain, Judge Easterbook’s answers to these questions
are not convincing. But unless proponents of robust voting rights protections
come forth with better answers—answers that a conservative judge can
appreciate—Easterbook’s opinion is likely to prove a harbinger of things to come
at the Supreme Court.
[Share]_<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblo
g.org%2F%3Fp%3D66549&title=Right%20Questions%2C%20Wrong%20Answers%20in%20Vot
er%20ID%20Decision&description=>_
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66549&title=Right%20Questions,%20Wrong%20Answer
s%20in%20Voter%20ID%20Decision&description=)
Posted in election law and constitutional
law_<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=55>_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=55) , voter
id_<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9) , Voting Rights
Act_<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15)
Edit_<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=66549&action=edit>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=66549&action=edit)
Roundup on the GAO Report on Voter
ID_<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66547>_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66547)
Posted on October 9, 2014 2:44 am_<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66547>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66547) by Justin
Levitt_<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4)
Politico_<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/voter-id-laws-minorities-111
721.html>_
(http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/voter-id-laws-minorities-111721.html) , Natl
Journal_<http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/voter-id-laws-can-decrease-minority-and-youth-turnout-20141008>_
(http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/voter-id-laws-can-decrease-minority-and-yo
uth-turnout-20141008) , the Wall St.
Journal_<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/10/08/gao-study-finds-voter-id-laws-reduced-turnout-in-tennessee-kansas
/>_
(http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/10/08/gao-study-finds-voter-id-laws-reduced-turnout-in-tennessee-kansas/) , and the Washington
Times_<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/8/p!_
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/8/photo-id-laws-do-hurt-voter-turnout-study/)
_ hoto-id-_
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/8/photo-id-laws-do-hurt-voter-turnout-study/)
_laws-do-hurt-voter-turnout-study/>_
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/8/photo-id-laws-do-hurt-voter-turnout-study/) discuss the GAO
report; Sec. Kobach
responds_<http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article2629693.html>_
(http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article2629693.html) .
[Share]_<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblo
g.org%2F%3Fp%3D66547&title=Roundup%20on%20the%20GAO%20Report%20on%20Voter%20
ID&description=>_
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66547&title=Roundup%20on%20the%20GAO%20Report%20on%20Voter%20ID
&description=)
Posted in The Voting Wars_<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60) , voter id_<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9)
Edit_<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=66547&action=edit>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=66547&action=edit)
Redistricting Made Simple_<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66545>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66545)
Posted on October 9, 2014 2:43 am_<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66545>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66545) by Justin
Levitt_<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4)
Change IL_<http://www.changeil.org/>_ (http://www.changeil.org/) has a
great new animated digital
tool_<http://app.newsbound.com/stacks/redistrict/redistrict_il/public>_
(http://app.newsbound.com/stacks/redistrict/redistrict_il/public) explaining how redistricting works. Even those who don’t like
redistricting commissions have 18 slides to love.
[Share]_<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblo
g.org%2F%3Fp%3D66545&title=Redistricting%20Made%20Simple&description=>_
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlaw
blog.org/?p=66545&title=Redistricting%20Made%20Simple&description=)
Posted in redistricting_<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6)
Edit_<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=66545&action=edit>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=66545&action=edit)
“Dark Money Still a Bit Player”_<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66543>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66543)
Posted on October 9, 2014 2:43 am_<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66543>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66543) by Justin
Levitt_<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4)
CCP in The
Hill_<http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/219926-dark-money-still-a-bit-player>_
(http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/219926-dark-money-still-a-bit-player) : What would you call an election in
which over 95 percent of campaign spending is funded by groups that
publicly disclose the names and addresses of their donors to the Federal Election
Commission, along with information on donors’ employers and occupations?
Though the point is valid, this op-ed assumes that spending disclosed to
the FEC is the relevant denominator, and focuses on the portion with (some)
donors disclosed. But remember, some campaign spending is not disclosed to
the FEC at
all_<http://summaryjudgments.lls.edu/2014/05/the-drunkards-search-for-money-in.html>_
(http://summaryjudgments.lls.edu/2014/05/the-drunkards-search-for-money-in.html) , and we have no idea whether that number is large
or small. That’s not itself an argument for disclosing all the rest. But it’
s important to keep in mind the spending nobody knows about before
trumpeting transparency based on what’s visible under the streetlight.
[Share]_<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblo
g.org%2F%3Fp%3D66543&title=%E2%80%9CDark%20Money%20Still%20a%20Bit%20Player%
E2%80%9D&description=>_
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66543&title=“Dark%20Money%20Still%20a%20Bit%20Player”
&description=)
Posted in campaign finance_<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10)
Edit_<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=66543&action=edit>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=66543&action=edit)
“How Campaign Finance Laws Make Florida Governor’s Race Unique”
_<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66540>_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66540)
Posted on October 9, 2014 2:42 am_<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66540>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66540) by Justin
Levitt_<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4>_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=4)
On Miami public
radio_<http://wlrn.org/post/how-campaign-finance-laws-make-florida-governors-race-unique>_
(http://wlrn.org/post/how-campaign-finance-laws-make-florida-governors-race-unique) . According to the Campaign for
Public Integrity, the campaigns of Charlie Crist and Rick Scott are responsible
for about 3 percent of the spending in the race.
[Share]_<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblo
g.org%2F%3Fp%3D66540&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Campaign%20Finance%20Laws%20Make%2
0Florida%20Governor%E2%80%99s%20Race%20Unique%E2%80%9D&description=>_
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66540&title
=“How%20Campaign%20Finance%20Laws%20Make%20Florida%20Governor’
s%20Race%20Unique”&description=)
Posted in campaign finance_<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10)
--
Justin Levitt
Professor of Law
Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
919 Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA 90015
213-736-7417
_justin.levitt at lls.edu<mailto:justin.levitt at lls.edu_
(mailto:justin.levitt at lls.edu<mailto:justin.levitt at lls.edu) >
_ssrn.com/author=698321_ (http://ssrn.com/author=698321)
--
_______________________________________________
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/20141010/afb7c8bc/attachment.html>
View list directory