[EL] Judge Randa Does It Again

[Steve Klein]

This is a separate suit on the same issue--coordination of issue advocacy--
untangled from the ongoing O'Keefe / Club For Growth / et al. state
case. The anti-injunction principles don't apply.

As for the First Amendment merits of this case (and the O'Keefe case), I
think we have different definitions of "smack down." As for Purcell
principle... a group will speak out on its own terms during the election.
Be still my heart.

Nicely done by CRGA.

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>    Judge Randa Does It Again <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66874>
> Posted on October 14, 2014 3:07 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66874>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Via the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
> <http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/judge-says-election-officials-prosecutor-cant-stop-campaign-collaboration-b99371223z1-279187051.html> comes
> news that Judge Randa has issued an order and opinion
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/CRG-v-Barland-14C1222.pdf>allowing
> coordination between an outside group and a campaign on First Amendment
> grounds.
>
> I expect this ruling will not stand. To begin with, the last time one of
> Judge Randa’s extremely deregulatory campaign finance opinions got to the
> Seventh Circuit, the appellate court smacked down Judge Randa’s reading
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65859>of the First Amendment rules for
> campaigns and coordination:
>
> The Supreme Court has yet to determine what “coordination” means. Is the
> scope of permissible regulation limited to groups that advocate the
> election of particular candidates, or can government also regulate
> coordination of contributions and speech about political issues, when the
> speakers do not expressly advocate any person’s election? What if the
> speechimplies, rather than expresses, a preference for a
> particular candidate’s election? If regulation of coordination about pure
> issue advocacy is permissible, how tight must the link be between the
> politician’s committee and the advocacy group? Uncertainty is a powerful
> reason to leave this litigation in state court, where it may meet its end
> as a matter of state law without any need to resolve these
> constitutional questions….
>
> The Supreme Court regularly decides campaign finance issues by closely
> divided votes. No opinion issued by the Supreme Court, or by any court
> of appeals, establishes (“clearly” or otherwise) that the First Amendment
> forbids regulation of coordination between campaign committees and
> issue-advocacy groups—let alone that the First Amendment forbids even an
> inquiry into that topic. The district court broke new ground. Its views may
> be vindicated, but until that day public officials enjoy the benefit of
> qualified immunity from liability in damages.
>
> Further, we might invoke the Purcell principle
> <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/10/supreme_court_voting_rights_decisions_contradictions_in_wisconsin_ohio_north.html>even
> here: Judge Randa is changing the rules very close to an election, with the
> risk of confusion about what’s legal and the risk of undermining the
> interests in preventing corruption that undergird anti-coordination
> requirements.
>  [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66874&title=Judge%20Randa%20Does%20It%20Again&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://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
>



-- 
Steve Klein
Staff Attorney & Research Counsel*
Wyoming Liberty Group
www.wyliberty.org

**Licensed to practice law in Illinois. Counsel to the Wyoming Liberty
Group pursuant to Rule 5.5(d) of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141014/7aa5375e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141014/7aa5375e/attachment.png>