[EL] dark money
Trevor Potter
tpotter at capdale.com
Sat Oct 11 06:17:55 PDT 2014
As Jim is aware from countless previous List Serve altercations ( no doubt thoroughly boring to everyone by now) CLC discloses ALL of its donors...
It was Jim's incorrect formulation that CLC " discloses some of its corporate donors" ( by which he is presumably referring to 501 c 3 charitable foundations)
Further, CLC does not run campaign ads-- or even " issue ads" featuring federal candidates...
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 11, 2014, at 1:05 AM, "JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>" <JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>> wrote:
Regarding:
about independent expenditures being entitled to constitutional protection from limitation by virtue of being non-corrupting because they are “totally”, “wholly” and “completely” independent of parties and candidates??
The "independent expenditures" needs to be independent, and the groups are independent, ie, not administer, controlled, etc by candidates or parties. So there just cannot be coordination with a candidate or party regarding the "expenditure" itself ie the communication.
This is really Campaign Finance Law 101.
Also, finally someone has inadvertently answered one of my question about what "dark money" is. Trevor says it does not include a group that reports some of their donors. Well it is really being widely misused then. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 10/10/2014 6:10:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, tpotter at capdale.com<mailto:tpotter at capdale.com> writes:
I guess Jim’s logic function is on the blink as a result of jet lag –CLC cannot be both a “dark money” group AND “reveal some of its corporate donors”.
So maybe we could go back to the law and the Constitution—specifically the point I was making about what the Supreme Court has said about independent expenditures being entitled to constitutional protection from limitation by virtue of being non-corrupting because they are “totally”, “wholly” and “completely” independent of parties and candidates??
From: JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> [mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com]
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 1:20 PM
To: Trevor Potter; sandler at sandlerreiff.com<mailto:sandler at sandlerreiff.com>; holman at aol.com<mailto:holman at aol.com>; Tom at tomcares.com<mailto:Tom at tomcares.com>; Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] dark money
I am in Europe with little time so I had a modest goal in my post, to point out what some are calling "hypocrisy" with the Dem's position on this issue. See
Click here: Big donor secrecy: ‘Irony, but it’s not hypocrisy’ - Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO.com<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/big-donor-secrecy-campaigns-fundraising-democrats-106186.html>
But on the merits of this, neither the FEC nor the courts have agreed with Trevor that politician fundraising for SuperPACs and other independent groups means that their independent expenditures are inherently "coordinated" with candidates so as to be deemed a contribution to them.
Trevor is just trotting out the old "gratitude" form of "corruption," which he and his group doesn't really believe in anyway. The Campaign Legal Center gave millions of dollars of free legal services to Senator McCain, by representing him as an intervenor in McConnell v. FEC, as well as to Rep Van Hollen and others in other cases. I bet those politicians have fallen all over themselves with gratitude to this "dark money" group. And so as to spread this gratitude around, the CLC does reveal some of their corporate donors, in order, I guess, for these politicians to also be grateful to them as well.
But gratefulness is just an unlimited concept that would allow the "reformers" to get government to crack down on all political speech and involvement, including newspaper editorials, etc, etc.
Fortunately, this Court has rejected that approach. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 10/10/2014 12:43:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, tpotter at capdale.com<mailto:tpotter at capdale.com> writes:
So the fact that both parties have supposedly independent SuperPacs and non-profits that hold meetings with candidates, officeholders and “fat cat donors” , thereby providing an opportunity for candidates to know who the funders are of even non-disclosing groups, and for candidates/officeholders to express their gratitude, simply means that the problem is bipartisan. Glad Jim has pointed that out.
The problem, of course, is that such close contact between “independent” spending groups, their major donors, and the officeholders and candidates they support provides many of the ingredients for corruption that the Supreme Court has claimed would be absent from independent expenditure activities “wholly” totally” completely” independent of parties and candidates..
Trevor Potter
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 JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 12:33 PM
To: sandler at sandlerreiff.com<mailto:sandler at sandlerreiff.com>; holman at aol.com<mailto:holman at aol.com>; Tom at tomcares.com<mailto:Tom at tomcares.com>; Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] dark msoney
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<mailto: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-exclusive )
.
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> [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<mailto:Tom at tomcares.com>; Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto: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<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] on behalf of Justin Levitt [levittj at lls.edu<mailto: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-dashboards.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-4-2014-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/2014/09/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-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-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%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66562&title=Theory%20to%20Practice%3A%20The%20Democracy%20Facts%20Label%20Goes%20Live&description=><https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66562&title=Theory%20to%20Practice%3A%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%2Felectionlawblog.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%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66559&title=10%2F9%20FEC%20Meeting%3A%20Citizens%20United%2C%20McCutcheon%20%26%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=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><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-finance-argument-convention-financing-matter-fec/><http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2014/10/facts-theories-campaign-finance-argument-convention-financing-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%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66554&title=On%20Party%20Fundraising%20for%202016%20Conventions&description=><https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66554&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%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66552&title=%E2%80%9CRules%20for%20Provisional%20Ballots%20All%20Over%20the%20Map%E2%80%9D&description=><https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66552&title=%E2%80%9CRules%20for%20Provisional%20Ballots%20All%20Over%20the%20Map%E2%80%9D&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.pdf><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%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66549&title=Right%20Questions%2C%20Wrong%20Answers%20in%20Voter%20ID%20Decision&description=><https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66549&title=Right%20Questions%2C%20Wrong%20Answers%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-111721.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-youth-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%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66547&title=Roundup%20on%20the%20GAO%20Report%20on%20Voter%20ID&description=><https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66547&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%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66545&title=Redistricting%20Made%20Simple&description=><https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66545&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%2Felectionlawblog.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%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66543&title=%E2%80%9CDark%20Money%20Still%20a%20Bit%20Player%E2%80%9D&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%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66540&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Campaign%20Finance%20Laws%20Make%20Florida%20Governor%E2%80%99s%20Race%20Unique%E2%80%9D&description=><https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66540&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Campaign%20Finance%20Laws%20Make%20Florida%20Governor%E2%80%99s%20Race%20Unique%E2%80%9D&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%3cmailto: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<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
<image001.png>
<114101018105104951>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141011/dd11b16c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 9617 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141011/dd11b16c/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 114101109175902911
Type: image/png
Size: 9617 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141011/dd11b16c/attachment.png>
View list directory