[EL] The apocalypse

Fri Sep 19 09:37:46 PDT 2014

Thanks for the partial explanation of what is "dark money," but I would  
appreciate it if someone would givie those of us, who were not invited to the  
secret meeting of "reform" groups when this phrase was invented, a more 
complete  explanation.

Does "dark money" included federal IEs and ECs - where donors are required  
to be reported under proper circumstances?  Does it include Super PACs or  
other 527s who report all their donors, but some of the donors are 
corporate? Or  does it only included issue advocacy by c4, and c6s?  Or is there 
something  else?  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 9/19/2014 2:14:04 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
tyler at rethinkmedia.org writes:

Ilya, I know you know all of this, but dark money generally  refers to 
undisclosed by donor not by expenditure, though some groups that do  not 
disclose donors also avoid disclosing expenditures by running issue ads  that are 
not reported to FEC. It's true a small handful of journalists are  finding 
creative ways to uncover dark money expenditures (eg FCC data) and  sometimes 
dark money donors (eg IRS and Department of Labor data) but its hard  to say 
this patchwork system that is only accessible to the very few who know  how 
to navigate it is anything close to the transparency voters want and  
deserve.

Tyler Creighton | _tyler at rethinkmedia.org_ (mailto:tyler at rethinkmedia.org)  
 |  Media  Associate

_ReThink Media_ (http://rethinkmedia.org/)  | (202) 449-6960  office | 
(925) 548-2189 mobile 
_ at ReThinkDemocrcy_ (https://twitter.com/rethinkdemocrcy)  | 
_ at ReThink_Media_ (https://twitter.com/rethink_media)  | _ at TylerCreighton_ 
(http://www.twitter.com/tylercreighton) 

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Ilya Shapiro <_IShapiro at cato.org_ 
(mailto:IShapiro at cato.org) > wrote:

If we know how much various groups spend, how is any of this money  "dark"? 
(Regardless of whether you think it's too much -- whatever "too  much" 
political speech means.)

Clearly the goal isn't to "disclose" but to chill/restrict, because  
government knows better than civil society who should speak, how much, and  on 
what subjects. 

Quel horreur indeed!

Ilya Shapiro  
Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies
Cato Institute
1000 Mass. Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001
Tel. _202-218-4600_ (tel:202-218-4600) 
Cel. _202-577-1134_ (tel:202-577-1134) 
_www.cato.org/people/shapiro.html_ 
(http://www.cato.org/people/shapiro.html) 
_twitter.com/ishapiro_ (http://twitter.com/ishapiro) 

On Sep 18, 2014, at 8:35 PM, "Tyler Creighton" <_tyler at rethinkmedia.org_ 
(mailto:tyler at rethinkmedia.org) >  wrote:

As Robert Maguire at the Center for Responsive Politics is keen to  point 
out, the vast majority of dark money is spent in a handful of  competitive 
races, and therefore, the informative comparison is dark money  to total 
spending in these particular races, not dark money to all  election spending in 
the cycle. In 2012, dark money made up around 5% of  total cycle spending but 
was closer to _20% in the most competitive Senate races_ 
(http://www.commoncause.org/states/massachusetts/issues/money-in-politics/plea-for-a-pledge/ove
rview.html)  (except  Massachusetts where the People's Pledge largely kept 
dark money out). By  Election Day the percentages this year in AK, AR, LA, 
NC, etc. will likely  be similar meaning dark money will play a big role in 
determining control  of the Senate even if their spending is only 4% of 
spending across all  races.

On its own, the Koch's network of dark money groups is responsible  for 
funding _one out of every 10 TV ads in all Senate races_ 
(http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/09/04/15459/gop-s-senate-hopes-energized-koch-network-ad-blitz
) . And on  the left the dark money group _Patriot Majority USA accounts 
for_ 
(http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/09/03/15436/can-dark-money-group-help-democrats-keep-senate)  about one out of every  nine ads aired in the 
Arkansas Senate race, one of every eight in  Louisiana and one of every 13 in 
North Carolina. Add it all up and yes you  do get horror.

Tyler Creighton | _tyler at rethinkmedia.org_ (mailto:tyler at rethinkmedia.org)  
 |  Media Associate

_ReThink Media_ (http://rethinkmedia.org/)  | _(202) 449-6960_ 
(tel:(202)%20449-6960)  office | _(925) 548-2189_ (tel:(925)%20548-2189)  mobile 
_ at ReThinkDemocrcy_ (https://twitter.com/rethinkdemocrcy)  | 
_ at ReThink_Media_ (https://twitter.com/rethink_media)  | _ at TylerCreighton_ 
(http://www.twitter.com/tylercreighton) 

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Smith, Brad <_BSmith at law.capital.edu_ 
(mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu) > wrote:

_“Five Signs the Dark-Money Apocalypse Is Upon Us”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65617) 

Posted  on _September 18, 2014 7:18 am_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65617)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3) 

_Andy Kroll _ 
(http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/dark-money-2014-elections-house-senate) for Mother  Jones: 
A  milestone passed in late August: According to the _Center for Responsive 
Politics_ 
(http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/08/dark-money-hits-50-million-most-still-to-come/) , dark-money  groups—nonprofits created under the 
_501(c)(4)_ 
(http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Other-Non-Profits/Social-Welfare-Organizations)  and _(c)(6)_ 
(http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Other-Non-Profits/Business-Leagues)  sections of the US tax code—had 
by then  surpassed $50 million on elections. 

That is about 3.7% of political money this cycle, through September  9. Oh, 
the horror!

Bradley A. Smith 
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault 
Professor of Law 
Capital University Law School 
303 E. Broad St. 
Columbus, OH 43215 
_614.236.6317_ (tel:614.236.6317)  
http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx

____________________________________

From:  _law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_ 
(mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu)  
[_law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_ (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu) ] on  behalf 
of Rick Hasen [_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) ]
Sent: Thursday,  September 18, 2014 6:11 PM
To: _law-election at UCI.edu_ (mailto:law-election at UCI.edu) 
Subject: [EL] KSSEN  breaking news/much more news

_Breaking: In #KSSEN, Court Rules Taylor Off the Ballot:  Analysis_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65645) 

Posted  on _September 18, 2014 2:43 pm_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65645)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3) 

You  can read the opinion _here_ 
(http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/SupCt/2014/20140918/112431.pdf) . Here are my thoughts: 
1.  This is a unanimous, per curiam (unsigned) opinion from the Court  
holding that Democrat Chad Taylor’s name will not be on the ballot in  the 
Kansas Senate race. This has political implications, as it will  likely cause 
more Democrats to vote for independent Greg Orman instead  of incumbent 
Republican Pat Roberts. It puts the seat, and perhaps the  Senate, up for grabs. 
But there’s a wrinkle. There is still possible  Court action now to force 
Democrats to name a new candidate to replace  Taylor on the ballot. 
2.  The Court took the narrowest path to reach this decision.  Despite 
_many  arguments_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65498)  offered _by the  
partie_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65459) s,  the court took a very narrow 
textual approach. It  found that Taylor’s letter complied with the literal 
requirement of the  statute, because he said he was withdrawing “pursuant to” 
the relevant  section. The court concluded he “incorporated by reference” 
the standard  that he was incapable of serving. 
3.  In ruling this way, the court avoided a _messy factual  dispute _ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65309) over whether Taylor was promised by  
election officials that his letter was sufficient.  The court also  sidestepped 
some uncertain legislative history as well as uncertain  application of the 
doctrine of substantial compliance. It was about as  simple and 
straightforward a way to decide the case as one could  imagine. But… 
4.  If the court was going to issue such a simple, straightforward 
unanimous  ruling, why did it take so long?  No doubt more was going on behind  the 
scenes than this simple ruling.  We probably will never know  what was going 
on in judicial chambers. A cynic suggested to me the  court delayed so much 
so there would be no time to litigate over whether  Democrats have to name 
a replacement on the ballot. 
5.  The big unanswered question is what happens to the other statute which  
appears to require Democrats to replace a withdrawn candidate on the  
ballot. The court totally sidesteps the issue, noting that “Nor do we  need to 
act on Kobach’s allegation that a ruling for Taylor would  require the Kansas 
Democratic Party State Committee to name his  replacement nominee per K.S.A. 
25-3905. The Kansas Democratic Party is  not a party to this original 
action, and this court does not issue  advisory opinions.” 
6.  This leaves the ball in Kobach’s court. He can sue the Democrats to try 
 to force them to name someone. But how could he sue and have Democrats  
hold a convention within the day before ballots are to be printed.  It will be 
hard for Kobach to say the printing can wait.  In  this way we have the 
ideal situation for the Democrats, what I’ve termed  the “_Reverse  
Torricelli:_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65319) ” Democrats get to have the 
candidate they want removed  from the ballot without having to name a replacement. 
It is sure to  infuriate Republicans. 
7.  This whole mess could have been avoided if Taylor would have done a  
better job with his letter, or if Kobach did not push the issue—and the  
evidence that his office had accepted non-complying letters before was  damning 
to his case. The Court noted that Kobach submitted those letters  after the 
deadline for filings, but seemed to praise him for doing it  out of an “
ethical obligation” to the court. In other words, if he just  sat on letters his 
office just found which showed the inconsistent  treatment of withdrawal 
letters in the past, it would have been  deceptive to the court. 
8.  So what happens next depends upon Kobach’s next move.  He has said  he 
would sue Democrats to get them to name a replacement, but given the  time 
frame now, and the fact that it may not be in Republicans’  political 
interests to let this fester any more, this may be the end.  [Update:  Byran Lowry 
_reports_ (https://twitter.com/BryanLowry3/status/512723360870981632) : 
"Kobach says Dem chair has been informed that  she has 8 days to select a 
replacement candidate. _#ksleg_ (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ksleg?src=hash)  
_#KSSen_ (https://twitter.com/hashtag/KSSen?src=hash)  _#kseln_ 
(https://twitter.com/hashtag/kseln?src=hash) ."  It is not clear how the 8 days fits  into 
the existing ballot printing timeframe.]  [Second update:  Kobach is _moving 
the mailing to 8/27_ 
(https://twitter.com/BryanLowry3/status/512722314765406209) .  What does this say  about what he represented to court about 
deadlines? Wow wow  wow.]

_<share_save_171_16.png>_ 
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65645&title=Breaking:%20In%20#KSSEN,%20Court%20Rules%20
Taylor%20Off%20the%20Ballot:%20Analysis&description=) 

Posted  in _Uncategorized_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1) 
_On  7th Cir WI Voter ID: “Down to the Haywire in the Badger State”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65643) 

Posted  on _September 18, 2014 2:35 pm_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65643)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3) 

_Jon Sherman_ 
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-sherman/down-to-the-haywire-in-th_b_5845630.html) : 
The  court, however, was completely mistaken when it wrote that Wisconsin’s 
 voter ID law is “materially identical” to the Indiana law upheld by  the 
Supreme Court in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. This is  wrong in 
four ways. 
First,  Indiana’s ID law only applies to in-person voting, while Wisconsin’
s  applies to in-person and absentee ballots. In November 2012, 664,597  
Wisconsin voters (21.57%) cast absentee ballots. Alabama is the only  other 
state that requires photo ID from absentee voters; even Texas’s  draconian 
voter ID law does not. 
Second,  Indiana accepts any photo ID that contains a name, bears an 
expiration  date, and was issued by the U.S. or Indiana, while Wisconsin only  
accepts a Wisconsin driver’s license or ID card, military ID, U.S.  Passport, 
certificate of naturalization which is no more than 2 years  old, tribal ID, 
and certain student ID cards. 
Third,  Indiana permits indigent voters to sign an affidavit instead of  
presenting an ID. 
Finally,  Wisconsin only accepts student IDs if they contain a signature, 
an  issuance date, and an expiration date no later than two years after  the 
election. While the University of Wisconsin System has taken steps  to have 
their schools issue separate voting IDs to students, it is  unclear whether 
other private and technical colleges have taken  similar steps. In Indiana, 
a student ID only needs to have an  expiration date. 
Not  only is Indiana’s ID law more lenient than Wisconsin’s, but the  
Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford did not address the same legal  issues. 
There was no Voting Rights Act claim in Crawford. Moreover,  the Crawford 
plaintiffs’ counsel had assembled almost zero evidence of  actual harm to voters, 
whereas the plaintiffs here have assembled an  extensive record documenting 
ID-less voters who cannot vote or will  experience great difficulty in 
obtaining this license to vote. What  the record does not contain is any 
evidence that the DMV’s untested  birth verification procedure will work. The 
plaintiffs needed to show  copious evidence to win their injunction, but the 
state secured this  win on the court’s blind faith.

_<share_save_171_16.png>_ 
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65643&title=On%207th%20Cir%20WI%20Voter%20ID:%20“
Down%20to%20the%20Haywire%20in%20the%20Badger%20State”&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) 
_#KSSEN Decision to Be Released Around 5 PM Kansas  Time_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65641) 

Posted  on _September 18, 2014 2:04 pm_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65641)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3) 

Stay  tuned…. 

_<share_save_171_16.png>_ 
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65641&title=#KSSEN%20Decision%20to%20Be%20Released%20Ar
ound%205%20PM%20Kansas%20Time&description=) 

Posted  in _Uncategorized_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1) 
_“Voter Registration Modernization Bill Would Improve  Outdated Election 
System”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65638) 

Posted  on _September 18, 2014 11:08 am_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65638)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3) 

_Press release_ 
(http://www.brennancenter.org/press-release/voter-registration-modernization-bill-would-improve-outdated-election-system) : “U.S. Sen. 
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)  today introduced the Voter Registration 
Modernization Act, which would  provide national standards for secure and 
accessible online registration  and help bring America’s election system into the 
21st century.” 
Did  I ever mention I went to law school with the Senator?  I don’t  think I
’ve seen her since law school graduation (1991). 

_<share_save_171_16.png>_ 
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65638&title=“
Voter%20Registration%20Modernization%20Bill%20Would%20Improve%20Outdated%20Election%20System”&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) 
_Brennan Center Files 4th Cir. Amicus Brief in NC Voting  Case_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65636) 

Posted  on _September 18, 2014 11:06 am_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65636)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3) 

_Here_ 
(http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/North_Carolina_Amicus_Brief_091714.pdf) . 

_<share_save_171_16.png>_ 
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65636&title=Brennan%20Center%20Files%204th%20Cir.%20Ami
cus%20Brief%20in%20NC%20Voting%20Case&description=) 

Posted  in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) 
_“Insider Traders in Congress May Soon Be Revealed by the  Bipartisan ‘
Political Intelligence Transparency Act’”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65634) 

Posted  on _September 18, 2014 10:37 am_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65634)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3) 

_Craig Holman statement_ 
(http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=4287)  at Public  Citizen. 

_<share_save_171_16.png>_ 
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65634&title=“
Insider%20Traders%20in%20Congress%20May%20Soon%20Be%20Revealed%20by%20the%20Bipartisan%20‘
Political%20Intelligence%20Transparency%20Act’”&description=) 

Posted  in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) 
_“Why Does Georgia Keep Going After Black Voters?”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65632) 

Posted  on _September 18, 2014 10:24 am_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65632)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3) 

_Spencer Woodman writes _ 
(http://www.vice.com/read/why-does-the-state-of-georgia-keep-going-after-black-voters-918) for  VICE. 

_<share_save_171_16.png>_ 
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65632&title=“
Why%20Does%20Georgia%20Keep%20Going%20After%20Black%20Voters?”&description=) 

Posted  in _election administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18) , 
_The  Voting Wars_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60) 
_Controversial CO SOS Gessler Complains of Partisanship,  Gridlock in 
Election Administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65630) 

Posted  on _September 18, 2014 10:16 am_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65630)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3) 

_This Electionline Weekly_ 
(http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly)  interview  is sure to get some attention: 
What  was the most difficult time/issue you have faced (elections wise of  
course) as secretary? 
As  our states’ chief election officials, secretaries of state enforce  
election laws. We’re tasked with ensuring only eligible voters cast  ballots, 
and the eligibility requirements are few: citizens, 18 or  older, and 
Colorado residents. Instead of relying on a loose honor  system, we decided to 
verify citizenship, just like we check against  the other two requirements. But 
the gridlock, partisanship, and  hysteria surrounding this issue is 
disappointing. Just getting the  federal government to comply with federal law and 
provide us with the  information we needed was a big challenge. We got the 
runaround from  various levels of the federal bureaucracy for over a year 
before we  finally worked out an agreement to verify citizenship data. This  
helped pave the way for other states to also verify data. But it  amazes me 
that certain partisans continue to oppose enforcement of  basic, 
uncontroversial laws that protect election integrity. 
It  also disappointing that people frequently throw common sense out the  
door when it comes to election integrity. During the 2012 election  cycle, a 
reporter from Mexico City interviewed me. When he  disapprovingly focused on 
election integrity issues like photo  identification and citizenship, I 
told him that I merely wanted to  implement something like the Mexican system 
in Colorado. Mexico has  strong integrity protections, which have helped 
improve the fairness  and integrity of its elections. But he thought that 
Hispanic voters  were fundamentally different than Mexican voters, and that while 
photo  identification was fine for Mexico, it was somehow terrible in the  
United States. I strongly disagreed — fair and honest voting systems  are a 
universal aspiration, regardless of race, ethnicity, or country  of origin. 
Protecting  the sanctity of our voter rolls shouldn’t be a wedge issue. In 
fact,  what we’ve seen is that when voters trust the system and trust the  
results, turnout and participation improves. That should be our goal.  If 
voters don’t trust the system, it makes little difference how easy  it is to 
get a ballot.

_<share_save_171_16.png>_ 
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65630&title=Controversial%20CO%20SOS%20Gessler%20Compla
ins%20of%20Partisanship,%20Gridlock%20in%20Election%20Administration&descrip
tion=) 

Posted  in _election administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18) , 
_The  Voting Wars_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60) 
_“Less than 1 percent of voter registration forms turned in  by a Georgia 
group accused of fraud are actually fraudulent”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65627) 

Posted  on _September 18, 2014 8:53 am_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65627)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3) 

_WaPo_ 
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/09/18/less-than-1-percent-of-voter-registration-forms-turned-in-by-a-georgia-group-accused-o
f-fraud-are-actually-fraudulent/) : 
Less  than 1 percent of voter registration forms turned in by a Georgia  
group accused of voter fraud are actually fraudulent, the Georgia’s  secretary 
of state’s office announced Wednesday. 
There  were 25 confirmed forgeries found in voter registration documents,  
Jared Thomas, spokesman for Secretary of State Brian Kemp (R), told  The 
Washington Post. That’s out of more than 85,000 voter registration  forms 
turned in by the New Georgia Project and Third Sector  Development. 
“We  believe we’ve identified 25 felonies, and we take that very  
seriously,” Thomas said. 
State  Rep. Stacey Abrams (D) who heads New Georgia Project said the  group 
flagged potential forms that were not completed, but was  required by law 
to turn in every form someone worked on. “We don’t get  to decide if 
something is good or bad,” she _told The Post last week_ 
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/09/10/georgias-gop-secretary-of-state-investigates
-allegations-of-voter-fraud-by-democrat-led-group/) .

_<share_save_171_16.png>_ 
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65627&title=“
Less%20than%201%20percent%20of%20voter%20registration%20forms%20turned%20in%20by%20a%20Georgia%20group%20accused%20of%
20fraud%20are%20actually%20fraudulent”&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) 
_“Overtime: Five Reasons Senate Control Might Not Be  Decided on Election 
Day”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65625) 

Posted  on _September 18, 2014 8:50 am_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65625)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3) 

_Oh boy_ 
(http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/overtime-five-reasons-senate-control-might-not-be-decided-on-election-day/) . 

_<share_save_171_16.png>_ 
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65625&title=“
Overtime:%20Five%20Reasons%20Senate%20Control%20Might%20Not%20Be%20Decided%20on%20Election%20Day”&description=) 

Posted  in _campaigns_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59) , _recounts_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=50) 
_“McDonnell Appeal Begs Question: What Is  Corruption?”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65623) 

Posted  on _September 18, 2014 8:48 am_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65623)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3) 

_Important piece_ 
(http://blogs.rollcall.com/beltway-insiders/gov-mcdonnell-appeal-begs-question-what-is-corruption/)  from Eliza Newlin  Carney. 

_<share_save_171_16.png>_ (htt
ps://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65623&title=“
McDonnell%20Appeal%20Begs%20Question:%20What%20Is%20Corruption?”&description=) 

Posted  in _bribery_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54) , _campaign 
finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) , _chicanery_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12) 
_“35 Groups Write to House Leadership for Debate/Vote on  Democracy for All 
Amendment”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65621) 

Posted  on _September 18, 2014 8:13 am_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65621)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3) 

_Read_ 
(http://www.commoncause.org/policy-and-litigation/letters-to-government-officials/National-091714-letter-to-house-leaders.pdf) . 

_<share_save_171_16.png>_ 
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65621&title=“
35%20Groups%20Write%20to%20House%20Leadership%20for%20Debate/Vote%20on%20Democracy%20for%20All%20Amendment”
&description=) 

Posted  in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) 
_“With mayor’s race looming, Philly ethics board takes on  big spenders”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65619) 

Posted  on _September 18, 2014 7:34 am_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65619)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3) 

_News_ 
(http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/item/72883-mayors-race-looms-ethics-board-takes-on-big-spenders?linktype=hp_topstory)  
_Draft regulations_ 
(http://www.phila.gov/ethicsboard/PDF/BOERegNo1_CampaignFinance_ProposedAmendmentPostedRecordsDept_7.17.14.pdf)  
_Adam Bonin comment_ 
(http://www.scribd.com/doc/240169517/Comments-to-Proposed-Regulation-No-1-9-17-2014) s. 

_<share_save_171_16.png>_ 
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65619&title=“With%20mayor’
s%20race%20looming,%20Philly%20ethics%20board%20takes%20on%20big%20spenders”&description=) 

Posted  in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) 
_“Five Signs the Dark-Money Apocalypse Is Upon Us”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65617) 

Posted  on _September 18, 2014 7:18 am_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65617)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3) 

_Andy Kroll _ 
(http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/dark-money-2014-elections-house-senate) for Mother  Jones: 
A  milestone passed in late August: According to the _Center for Responsive 
Politics_ 
(http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/08/dark-money-hits-50-million-most-still-to-come/) , dark-money  groups—nonprofits created under the 
_501(c)(4)_ 
(http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Other-Non-Profits/Social-Welfare-Organizations)  and _(c)(6)_ 
(http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Other-Non-Profits/Business-Leagues)  sections of the US tax code—had 
by then  surpassed $50 million on elections. These groups, unlike political 
 action committees and candidates’ campaigns, do not have to disclose  
their donors. So some of the key players looking to sway election  results 
remain in the shadows. This was a new record  and seven times the amount of dark 
money spent by the same point  on House and Senate elections in 2010. And 
this week, dark-money  spending for the 2014 cycle reached $63 million—just 
shy of the $69  million in dark money spent during the entire 2008  
presidential election.

_<share_save_171_16.png>_ 
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65617&title=“
Five%20Signs%20the%20Dark-Money%20Apocalypse%20Is%20Upon%20Us”&description=) 

Posted  in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) 
_“5  States Put Voting Reform to the Voters”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65615) 

Posted  on _September 18, 2014 7:14 am_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65615)  by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3) 

_Governing reports_ 
(http://www.governing.com/topics/elections/gov-election-reform-ballot-measures.html) . 

_<share_save_171_16.png>_ 
(https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65615&title=“
5%20States%20Put%20Voting%20Reform%20to%20the%20Voters”&description=) 

Posted  in _election administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18) 
_“Native Voting Rights”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65613) 

...

[Message  clipped]  

_______________________________________________
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/20140919/8a3e3852/attachment.html>