[EL] Animals, androids, space aliens, ghosts or rocks
Schultz, David A.
dschultz at hamline.edu
Mon Sep 22 12:08:08 PDT 2014
There is no such thing as a free market in terms of how so many
conceptualize it. All markets require regulation, even Milton Friedman
recognized the need to protect from force and fraud. Thus, I think the
question as you pose it is wrongly stated. The issue is not whether to
regulate or not but what type of regulation, when, and for what purposes.
I would do minimal regulation in terms of voter registration and
qualifications and with the exception of fraud, the same with political
speech. There, I have stated in two places where I stand and you have
stated where you stand. I need to run off to teach before my students run
off! Interesting conversation that I hope others learned from.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:
> I think my general position is known. I'm not going to try to cover
> every scenario, just as you refuse to. Jamie is just baiting. That's why
> you won't answer the same question from the other side - when would you not
> allow regulation? There are more factual possibilities out there than we
> care to consider. I think it is pretty clear that given the apparent
> alternatives, I think limits are generally wrong - harmful to democracy,
> overall; a dangerous to grant government; and contrary to the best
> interpretation of the Constitution. Nothing new here.
>
> One billion dollars is one of many positions I could adopt. I used that
> here simply because it was so obvious. The point was pretty simple - as the
> limits on contributions or spending rise, they become less burdensome, and
> at least arguably the state gains a greater interest. So if you want to
> offer me $1 billion as a limit, this wouldn't be a dominant interest of
> mine. I might take a lot less. You seem to want a much more ideological
> answer, but those of us on the deregulatory side are, I think, generally
> pretty pragmatic. Our oppositions comes from seeing regulation in action
> (used primarily to attack and silence disfavored speakers), and seeing the
> unquenchable thirst of the regulators. As I note in the link I just posted
> http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2014/04/22/disclosure-hypocrisy-and-hyperbole-in-campaign-finance/
> :
>
> In my experience, most Americans are not constitutional absolutists – at
> least not at first. They are willing to recognize, or at least concede,
> some infringements on constitutionally guaranteed liberties. They become
> absolutists when the regulators abuse the reasonable trust they have been
> given – i.e., when it becomes apparent that the regulators have an
> uncompromising idea of what is “reasonable regulation.” The NRA became a
> lobbying force, for example, and a strong Second Amendment theory came to
> the fore, only when it became apparent in the 1970s that the gun-control
> lobby – or at least a large segment of it- wanted much more than reasonable
> regulation – they wanted the guns, period. Similarly, *Citizens United *was
> the only choice the Supreme Court really had when faced with a law that
> prohibited even 1 penny of corporate spending on an election
>
> This is why it would be, in my opinion, wise for people like you and
> Jamie to think a lot more about where you would draw your line, rather than
> demanding silly statements from the rest of us. Because if you have no end
> game for regulation, nothing that is off-the-table, then you present the
> courts with a binary choice and they will have little choice but to rule
> against you. The purpose of the Constitution was to take some things
> off-the-table. If the regulatory impulse says nothing is off-the-table, I
> think you will continue to lose over time in court, because that cannot be
> a correct reading of the First Amendment; and you will continue to undercut
> your political argument, because people won't trust regulators to limit
> themselves responsibly, with a reasonable respect for the rights of others.
>
> But I don't suppose you want my opinion on your intellectual strategy,
> so I apologize for such a gratuitous paragraph.
>
>
> *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 <614.236.6317>*
>
> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
> <http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx>*
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Schultz, David A. [dschultz at hamline.edu]
> *Sent:* Monday, September 22, 2014 2:26 PM
> *To:* Smith, Brad
> *Subject:* RE: [EL] Animals, androids, space aliens, ghosts or rocks
>
> Alas we may agree that we are not absolutists but that still brings us
> back to Raskin's query to ask under what conditions if at all you support
> limits on contributions or disclosure of them or expenditures? Am I to take
> $1 billion as jest or your real position?
> On Sep 22, 2014 1:12 PM, "Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:
>
>> I was not referring to two writings but to one of two explanations.
>>
>> But here is a short response to your now repeated charges of hypocrisy.
>> http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2014/04/22/disclosure-hypocrisy-and-hyperbole-in-campaign-finance/
>>
>> On the bigger question, I from your answers to my questions (the mirror
>> image of yours) that you, too, find the type of questions you originally
>> posed, along with a grossly oversimplified summary of your intellectual
>> adversaries' arguments and a gauntlet-tossing "fess up," are not terribly
>> helpful.
>>
>> *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 <614.236.6317>*
>>
>> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
>> <http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx>*
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Schultz, David A. [dschultz at hamline.edu]
>> *Sent:* Monday, September 22, 2014 1:48 PM
>> *To:* Smith, Brad
>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Animals, androids, space aliens, ghosts or rocks
>>
>> What two writings of yours are you referring to? I suspect I have
>> read way more of your scholarship than you have of mine.
>>
>> I start from a very different perspective. I do not believe that the
>> First Amendment should protect the right of individuals to expend money for
>> political purposes. Having said that, my basic position is that the
>> economic resources that one acquires in the economic marketplace should not
>> influence or determine the allocation of political power or choices made in
>> the political marketplace. Does that mean individuals should not be
>> allowed to give money for political purposes? There are nice policy
>> reasons to why we may want to allow this but I do not think that that this
>> is Free Speech.
>>
>> I am not sure who should be allowed to give or expend money for
>> political purposes. I wrestle with this question in my book. There are
>> lots of ways to participate and some we may want to limit to some people or
>> entities. Voting is a form of participation that citizens should be
>> allowed to engage in but not corporations or other organizations. Maybe it
>> makes sense to also allow resident aliens to vote and arguments can be made
>> for that. I am very sympathetic to that position.
>>
>> Third, I generally believe in more transparency than less. A republic is
>> a res publica, a public thing (to quote Latin), and therefore as much as
>> possible should be disclosed so that the people and the public can make
>> judgements about how the government and those that seek to influence it
>> operate. In some cases privacy limits access to information (who we are
>> voting for) but efforts to effect legislation or who is elected should be
>> disclosed.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've pointed out to you before, David, that you have failed to read or
>>> to understand (one of the two) my prior writings.
>>>
>>> You want answers to things you won't answer yourself. Meanwhile, I
>>> have answered your questions, but you refuse to accept the answer.
>>>
>>> I agree with you that in election law, there are many competing
>>> values.
>>>
>>> But because I'm a good sport, I'll try again:
>>>
>>> Question 1: Should any entity or person that wants to donate or expend
>>> money for political purposes be able to do so in any amount they want? In
>>> effect, regardless of whether something is a person, should any entity be
>>> able to convert its entire economic resources into political donations or
>>> expenditures without limit?
>>>
>>> Answer: I don't know. Generally, yes, but there are many exceptions.
>>> Exceptions for certain time/place/manner restrictions make sense. There is
>>> a strong argument for an exception for foreign actors as outlined in the
>>> Court of Appeals decision in Blumen. It's also worth noting that I'm not
>>> really big on absolutes. If you want to restrict contributions to $1
>>> billion, I could live with that.
>>>
>>> Qustion 2. Should any entity or person that wants to donate or expend
>>> money for political purposes be able to do so without having to disclose
>>> it?
>>>
>>> Answer: It depends on what you mean by "political purposes."
>>> Generally, I am for maximizing freedom (including the freedom to speak or
>>> engage in any other political activity without being forced to report it to
>>> government or reveal it to your neighbors under compulsion of law). But of
>>> course I have and continue to support some compulsory disclosure rules.
>>>
>>> Question 3. I trust you have read my book by now?
>>>
>>> Answer: No, I have not.
>>>
>>>
>>> Your turn.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *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 <614.236.6317>*
>>>
>>> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
>>> <http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx>*
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* Schultz, David A. [dschultz at hamline.edu]
>>> *Sent:* Monday, September 22, 2014 12:55 PM
>>> *To:* Smith, Brad
>>> *Cc:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Animals, androids, space aliens, ghosts or rocks
>>>
>>> Brad:
>>>
>>> I am not playing law professor/student with you in terms of hiding the
>>> ball. I asked two questions--answer them or not it is your call. But then
>>> I asked a third whether you have read my book, so now you have three
>>> questions you can choose to answer or avoid.
>>>
>>> Telling me what your position used to be does not tell me what your
>>> position is now. At one point in print you argued against all limits on
>>> contributions and expenditures--or at least it appeared to do so--but
>>> defended (or appeared to do so) unlimited or expanded disclosure. Now I
>>> see you arguing against many forms of disclosure. Maybe you have changed
>>> your views, maybe your disclosure-only stance was a Trojan Horse, or maybe
>>> you are hiding your real views. But whatever they may be I just want to
>>> see you, Roland, Bopp, Samples, and others be honest in your positions.
>>>
>>> In terms of where I am, I have no simple-minded solution to how to
>>> address money in politics but arguing an absolutist position on anything.
>>> Democratic theory and practice has many competing values that must be
>>> examined together. My core argument in my book is that the field of
>>> election law is devoid of a broader conception of democracy that seeks to
>>> understand the competing values and tries to weave them together.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "I have never hidden from my views and I have an entire book that
>>>> articulates my position. I trust you have read my book by now?"
>>>>
>>>> Ditto. Of course, I was, when I was serving on the FEC, regularly
>>>> asked how far I would go in deregulating. I used to note then that the same
>>>> reporters never asked other commissioners how far they would go in
>>>> regulating.
>>>>
>>>> So go to my second answer: "you give this a little more thought, and
>>>> get back to me with how you think the people you wish to address would
>>>> respond. Then we can discuss it at length. That will help your learning a
>>>> lot more than me giving the answer."
>>>>
>>>> *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 <614.236.6317>*
>>>>
>>>> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
>>>> <http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx>*
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> *From:* Schultz, David A. [dschultz at hamline.edu]
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, September 22, 2014 12:28 PM
>>>> *To:* Smith, Brad; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Animals, androids, space aliens, ghosts or rocks
>>>>
>>>> No Brad, I asked you first so you answer first. I have never hidden
>>>> from my views and I have an entire book that articulates my position. I
>>>> trust you have read my book by now?
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> First, let me ask the opposite question:
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it your position that the legislature can place limits on any
>>>>> amount of speech by any entity or person? What lines would you draw? May a
>>>>> legislature prohibit Ken Burns' series on the Roosevelts on the grounds
>>>>> that it will build public support for the type of big government solutions
>>>>> that both TR and FDR favored (not because the legislature disagrees, to be
>>>>> clear, but because that makes it inherently "political," allowing extra
>>>>> influence to Mr. Burns and others, in part because of their access to
>>>>> money)?
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. In effect, regardless of whether something is a person, should
>>>>> the legislature be able to enact whatever rules it favors to limit speech
>>>>> that may tend to influence political views?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Is it your position that a person should never be able to keep
>>>>> his or her political activity private?
>>>>>
>>>>> Show me the courage of your convictions. If what you are really
>>>>> advocating is no clearly demarcated limits on what is regulated, then say
>>>>> so. Fess up!
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, this is not, and should not be, a one way question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, my general answer to some of Jamie's questions:
>>>>>
>>>>> Strong arguments can be made (see e.g. Blumen) for limiting
>>>>> contributions by foreign nationals. Similarly, strong arguments can be made
>>>>> for limiting contributions by corporations. Strong arguments can be made
>>>>> for limiting expenditures by corporations. And by unions. And by college
>>>>> professors. Now, this is just me, but androids, rocks, animals and space
>>>>> aliens engaging in political speech just doesn't worry me. Anyone who is
>>>>> really concerned by that is, I think, off his rocker (that rocker's speech
>>>>> rights being another thing that doesn't concern me in the least). Arguments
>>>>> can also be made for sound time/place/manner restrictions. I believe in
>>>>> appropriate limits. The arguments made for limiting contributions by
>>>>> foreign nationals, for example, are quite different than the arguments for
>>>>> limiting speech by incorporated associations of U.S. citizens. The
>>>>> arguments for most time/place/manner restrictions (such as sound trucks in
>>>>> residential neighborhoods late at night) are quite different from the
>>>>> arguments for broad limits on campaign spending regardless of the time,
>>>>> place, and manner, and the arguments for the former often don't apply at
>>>>> all to the arguments for the latter. Although these are often difficult
>>>>> constitutional questions, they are not new, and it has long been
>>>>> recognized, even by ardent supporters of campaign regulation on the Court,
>>>>> that they can and probably ought to be treated differently.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if this is a rhetorical question, I'll pass. If this is a serious
>>>>> question, I'll do what I sometimes do with students in a variety of
>>>>> subjects - "you give this a little more thought, and get back to me with
>>>>> how you think the people you wish to address would respond. Then we can
>>>>> discuss it at length. That will help your learning a lot more than me
>>>>> giving the answer." (it also saves me time, but I don't usually say that!).
>>>>>
>>>>> *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 <614.236.6317>*
>>>>>
>>>>> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
>>>>> <http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx>*
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
>>>>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Schultz,
>>>>> David A. [dschultz at hamline.edu]
>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, September 22, 2014 11:59 AM
>>>>> *To:* Jamin Raskin
>>>>> *Cc:* Election Law
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Animals, androids, space aliens, ghosts or rocks
>>>>>
>>>>> I second Professor Raskin's call for honesty here. My
>>>>> Constitution Day talk was all about the tortured and conceptually muddled
>>>>> constitutional examination of who or what is a person over time. But given
>>>>> Roland's comments they lead me to ask a few questions of those on this
>>>>> listserv who seem to support less restrictions or regulation of money in
>>>>> politics.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Should any entity or person that wants to donate or expend
>>>>> money for political purposes be able to do so in any amount they want? In
>>>>> effect, regardless of whether something is a person, should any entity be
>>>>> able to convert its entire economic resources into political donations or
>>>>> expenditures without limit?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Should any entity or person that wants to donate or expend money
>>>>> for political purposes be able to do so without having to disclose it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay folks, to paraphrase Justice Roberts's comments during orals
>>>>> over the constitutionality of the ACA, show me the courage of your
>>>>> convictions. If what you are really advocating is complete deregulation
>>>>> with no disclosure and no limits on who or what gives and how much, then
>>>>> say so. For people like Roland who seem to be both libertarian free
>>>>> marketers and so-called free speech absolutists, this is the logic of your
>>>>> position. Fess up.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Jamin Raskin <raskin at wcl.american.edu
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> “And the Citizens United decision had nothing to do with them being
>>>>>> a corporation. The First Amendment bars restrictions on speech and press,
>>>>>> no matter who or what the speaker or publisher might be. There is no
>>>>>> specification that it s only the speech or publication by human
>>>>>> individuals. It could be by animals, androids, space aliens, ghosts, or
>>>>>> rocks.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I read this post correctly, Jon Roland is saying that not only do
>>>>>> domestic corporations, animals, androids, space aliens, ghosts, and rocks
>>>>>> have an absolute right to spend money promoting or maligning candidates in
>>>>>> our federal political campaigns, but so also do: foreign corporations,
>>>>>> foreign governments and spy agencies, state governments and municipal
>>>>>> corporations and counties, federal agencies like HUD, the Department of
>>>>>> Labor and the CIA, narco-traffickers and drug money launderers, three-year
>>>>>> olds and newborns, and churches and charities and other entities holding
>>>>>> tax-exempt status, to name just a few entities and human beings whose money
>>>>>> has been kept at bay by the law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is your position, as suggested by your admirably candid post, really
>>>>>> that anything goes in campaign spending, “no matter who or what the speaker
>>>>>> or publisher might be,” because it all adds to the overall quantity of
>>>>>> speech? (If not, why not?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
>>>>>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jon
>>>>>> Roland
>>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, September 22, 2014 10:08 AM
>>>>>> *To:* Sal Peralta
>>>>>> *Cc:* Election Law
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] The apocalypse
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Money is mostly not speech. It is mostly press.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Campaign donations made to support marketing of a candidate is
>>>>>> "press" rather than "speech" in the strict use of those words. The donor is
>>>>>> contracting with the campaign to publish something he wants published, even
>>>>>> if he does not specify the exact message. He is delegating the composition
>>>>>> of the message to the campaign. Campaigns do use part of their donations
>>>>>> for other things, like transportation and salaries of campaign workers, but
>>>>>> almost all of that is in support of marketing. That is what makes it a
>>>>>> matter of the First Amendment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jurisprudence got off on a track of decisions about "speech" and to
>>>>>> follow precedent, has tried to cram everything into the "speech"
>>>>>> pigeonhole, but this is really "press", that is, publication. The Citizens
>>>>>> United decision was about press, because publishing is what Citizens United
>>>>>> was doing by putting out a movie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Voters have just as much a right to choose what marketing messages
>>>>>> they will heed as which candidate to vote for. If they heed the wrong
>>>>>> messages, that is their choice, it is not ours to try to compel that choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the Citizens United decision had nothing to do with them being a
>>>>>> corporation. The First Amendment bars restrictions on speech and press, no
>>>>>> matter who or what the speaker or publisher might be. There is no
>>>>>> specification that it s only the speech or publication by human
>>>>>> individuals. It could be by animals, androids, space aliens, ghosts, or
>>>>>> rocks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 09/22/2014 08:51 AM, Sal Peralta wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if you would agree to use the word "money" instead of "speech"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Constitution Society http://constitution.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 13359 N Hwy 183 #406-144 twitter.com/lex_rex
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Austin, TX 78750 512/299-5001 jon.roland at constitution.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Law-election mailing list
>>>>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>>>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> David Schultz, Professor
>>>>> Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
>>>>> Hamline University
>>>>> Department of Political Science
>>>>> 1536 Hewitt Ave
>>>>> MS B 1805
>>>>> St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
>>>>> 651.523.2858 (voice)
>>>>> 651.523.3170 (fax)
>>>>> http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
>>>>> http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
>>>>> http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
>>>>> Twitter: @ProfDSchultz
>>>>> My latest book: Election Law and Democratic Theory, Ashgate Publishing
>>>>> http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754675433
>>>>> FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> David Schultz, Professor
>>>> Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
>>>> Hamline University
>>>> Department of Political Science
>>>> 1536 Hewitt Ave
>>>> MS B 1805
>>>> St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
>>>> 651.523.2858 (voice)
>>>> 651.523.3170 (fax)
>>>> http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
>>>> http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
>>>> http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
>>>> Twitter: @ProfDSchultz
>>>> My latest book: Election Law and Democratic Theory, Ashgate Publishing
>>>> http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754675433
>>>> FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> David Schultz, Professor
>>> Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
>>> Hamline University
>>> Department of Political Science
>>> 1536 Hewitt Ave
>>> MS B 1805
>>> St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
>>> 651.523.2858 (voice)
>>> 651.523.3170 (fax)
>>> http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
>>> http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
>>> http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
>>> Twitter: @ProfDSchultz
>>> My latest book: Election Law and Democratic Theory, Ashgate Publishing
>>> http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754675433
>>> FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Schultz, Professor
>> Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
>> Hamline University
>> Department of Political Science
>> 1536 Hewitt Ave
>> MS B 1805
>> St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
>> 651.523.2858 (voice)
>> 651.523.3170 (fax)
>> http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
>> http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
>> http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
>> Twitter: @ProfDSchultz
>> My latest book: Election Law and Democratic Theory, Ashgate Publishing
>> http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754675433
>> FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
>>
>
--
David Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
Hamline University
Department of Political Science
1536 Hewitt Ave
MS B 1805
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858 (voice)
651.523.3170 (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
Twitter: @ProfDSchultz
My latest book: Election Law and Democratic Theory, Ashgate Publishing
http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754675433
FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140922/c0362706/attachment.html>
View list directory