[EL] The apocalypse

[Bill Maurer]

The stuff about Saturday Night Live came up during the discussion of Senate Joint Resolution 19.  Just out of curiosity, what part of SJR 19 would prevent the government from fining or imprisoning the personnel of Saturday Night Live?  The amendment gives the government the power to “prohibit[]” “corporations or other artificial entities created by law” “from spending money to influence elections.”  Why would not Congress and the states have that power under that “campaign finance rule[]”?

Also, regarding the 80%, first, I’d be curious as to how the question was asked, and second, even if the public thinks that, the issue is far down, if not absent altogether, from the list of voters’ priorities.

http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

I find that a rather weak reed to support restricting political speech and, regardless, the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to prevent fundamental freedoms from being affected by the vagaries of public opinion.

I make these statements from my office about 3000 miles outside the Beltway, just FYI.

Bill



From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Tyler Creighton
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 4:22 AM
To: Smith, Brad
Cc: law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] The apocalypse

You're calling the +80% of Americans who want commonsense contribution and expenditure limits "the censors" and you're the one complaining there is not a rational debate on the issue?

Whether spending by the Chamber should be considered dark or not isn't even close to making the cut for things preventing a rational debate (i.e. scaring people into thinking campaign finance rules will put the SNL cast in jail, saying the money in politics amendment repeals the 1st Amendment, claiming the rights of middle class voters are expanded by billionaires spending unlimited sums in elections, claiming unlimited spending does not lead to corruption, the list goes on). Get outside the Beltway. You'll quickly find you're the one everybody thinks is being irrational.

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
@ReThinkDemocrcy<https://twitter.com/rethinkdemocrcy> | @ReThink_Media<https://twitter.com/rethink_media> | @TylerCreighton<http://www.twitter.com/tylercreighton>

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>> wrote:
Isn't it at least a little disingenuous to call spending "dark money" when the spender is in plain site, and is frequently a well-known political entity?

Wouldn't it help a rational debate along if we avoided such loaded terms? oh, yes, it would. Which explains why many insist on calling it "dark money."

Bradley Smith
Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 18, 2014, at 9:26 PM, "Tyler Creighton" <tyler at rethinkmedia.org<mailto:tyler at rethinkmedia.org>> wrote:
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<tel:%28202%29%20449-6960> office | (925) 548-2189<tel:%28925%29%20548-2189> mobile
@ReThinkDemocrcy<https://twitter.com/rethinkdemocrcy> | @ReThink_Media<https://twitter.com/rethink_media> | @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/overview.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:%28202%29%20449-6960> office | (925) 548-2189<tel:%28925%29%20548-2189> mobile
@ReThinkDemocrcy<https://twitter.com/rethinkdemocrcy> | @ReThink_Media<https://twitter.com/rethink_media> | @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%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D65645&title=Breaking%3A%20In%20%23KSSEN%2C%20Court%20Rules%20Taylor%20Off%20the%20Ballot%3A%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%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D65643&title=On%207th%20Cir%20WI%20Voter%20ID%3A%20%E2%80%9CDown%20to%20the%20Haywire%20in%20the%20Badger%20State%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
#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%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D65641&title=%23KSSEN%20Decision%20to%20Be%20Released%20Around%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%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D65638&title=%E2%80%9CVoter%20Registration%20Modernization%20Bill%20Would%20Improve%20Outdated%20Election%20System%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter registration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>
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%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D65636&title=Brennan%20Center%20Files%204th%20Cir.%20Amicus%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%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D65634&title=%E2%80%9CInsider%20Traders%20in%20Congress%20May%20Soon%20Be%20Revealed%20by%20the%20Bipartisan%20%E2%80%98Political%20Intelligence%20Transparency%20Act%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&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%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D65632&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20Does%20Georgia%20Keep%20Going%20After%20Black%20Voters%3F%E2%80%9D&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%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D65630&title=Controversial%20CO%20SOS%20Gessler%20Complains%20of%20Partisanship%2C%20Gridlock%20in%20Election%20Administration&description=>
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-of-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%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D65627&title=%E2%80%9CLess%20than%201%20percent%20of%20voter%20registration%20forms%20turned%20in%20by%20a%20Georgia%20group%20accused%20of%20fraud%20are%20actually%20fraudulent%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter registration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>
“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%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D65625&title=%E2%80%9COvertime%3A%20Five%20Reasons%20Senate%20Control%20Might%20Not%20Be%20Decided%20on%20Election%20Day%E2%80%9D&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><https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D65623&title=%E2%80%9CMcDonnell%20Appeal%20Begs%20Question%3A%20What%20Is%20Corruption%3F%E2%80%9D&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%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D65621&title=%E2%80%9C35%20Groups%20Write%20to%20House%20Leadership%20for%20Debate%2FVote%20on%20Democracy%20for%20All%20Amendment%E2%80%9D&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%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D65619&title=%E2%80%9CWith%20mayor%E2%80%99s%20race%20looming%2C%20Philly%20ethics%20board%20takes%20on%20big%20spenders%E2%80%9D&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%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D65617&title=%E2%80%9CFive%20Signs%20the%20Dark-Money%20Apocalypse%20Is%20Upon%20Us%E2%80%9D&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%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D65615&title=%E2%80%9C5%20States%20Put%20Voting%20Reform%20to%20the%20Voters%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“Native Voting Rights”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65613>
...

[Message clipped]


________________________________

Spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04MQXng6Q&m=cea276907839&t=20140919&c=s>
Not spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04MQXng6Q&m=cea276907839&t=20140919&c=n>
Forget previous vote<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04MQXng6Q&m=cea276907839&t=20140919&c=f>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140919/36c5d92b/attachment.html>