[EL] smith on cu
Justin Levitt
levittj at lls.edu
Fri Apr 3 18:29:03 PDT 2015
Even if I agreed with the premise, what I don't understand is how
getting rid of contribution limits eliminates IEs.
If there are incentives for private actors to pursue IEs (even without
contribution limits), and incentives for candidates to want money to
flow to IEs (even without contribution limits), and constitutional
protections for IEs (with or without contribution limits), then I don't
understand what would cause them to go away.
On 4/3/2015 6:25 PM, Larry Levine wrote:
>
> Let’s talk not of the interests of those who fund the IEs and talk
> instead of the public interest. IEs are counter to every public
> interest. They shield contributions, give candidates deniability for
> things for which they otherwise would be held accountable, operate
> with not responsibility to meet standards of integrity. The first goal
> of reform should be to eliminate IEs and that cannot happen as long as
> there are contribution limits.
>
> Larry
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of
> *Justin Levitt
> *Sent:* Friday, April 03, 2015 6:06 PM
> *To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] smith on cu
>
> I keep hearing this argument, but I don't understand it.
>
> IEs provide an avenue for individuals or groups to promote their own
> messages in ways that get them power and attention, which may serve
> the interest of some individuals or groups far better than a
> contribution. And IEs also provide an avenue for negative ads that
> give candidates plausible deniability, which may serve the interest of
> some candidates far better than a contribution.
>
> Even if it were true that contribution limits gave life to IEs (there
> are no IEs in Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska,
> North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, or Virginia?), now
> that IEs are here, I can't imagine why they would suddenly vanish if
> contribution limits went away.
>
> --
> 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
>
> On 4/3/2015 5:52 PM, Larry Levine wrote:
>
> Imagine how simple life would be if we repealed all contribution
> limits. Two industries would collapse – the reform industry and
> the lawyering industry that tries to deal with those reforms.
> Imagine, no IEs, no super PACs, just contributions to candidates
> and reporting of those contributions. Imagine, more transparency,
> less obfuscation. Imagine, one half the annual postings on this
> list would vanish.
>
> Larry
>
> *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 *Bill Maurer
> *Sent:* Friday, April 03, 2015 10:34 AM
> *To:* Steve Hoersting; Trevor Potter
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] smith on cu
>
> On a more fundamental level, then, isn’t this just another example
> of artificial restrictions on political activity producing a
> bizarre and unnecessarily complicated regulatory regime (you can
> only contribute X amount of money to a candidate, so if you want
> to support a candidate more than that, you can’t speak to him) and
> then reformers point out the situation they caused as yet another
> problem that needs to be fixed with more regulation (we need to
> police supporters not speaking to the candidates even more than
> before), which will probably create new and unforeseen crimes?
> Same thing with the complaint against the non-candidate candidates
> for president, who have to play a stupid game of not-so-subtle
> hints and forming “policy” organizations to ensure that they do
> not become candidates “too soon.” Same with candidates spending
> all their time dialing for dollars because they have to raise
> relatively small amounts of money from hundreds of people instead
> of relatively larger amounts of money from a somewhat smaller
> group of people. I could go on.
>
> If you make certain political activity illegal, people will always
> try to push the envelope and—boom—you end up with the
> McCain-Feingold and the FEC’s section of the CFR, as the
> government furiously scribbles new laws and regulations to keep up
> with the creativity of people wanting to be involved in politics
> on their own terms. One nice thing about freedom—it’s relatively
> simple to police.
>
> Also, I would note that, with regard to Senator Menendez, I would
> hope the government will be very careful to ensure that what he is
> accused of doing is actually a crime (h/t John Edwards, Tom DeLay,
> Rick Perry) and that it does not manipulate the process to ensure
> a conviction (h/t Ted Stevens).
>
> Bill
>
> *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 *Steve Hoersting
> *Sent:* Friday, April 03, 2015 10:20 AM
> *To:* Trevor Potter
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] smith on cu
>
> Thanks for the reminder.
>
> The words remain a car onto which reformers will try to define
> independence out of existence, by regulation or enforcement matter.
>
> Some Justices will go along. Others will call a halt to freighting
> of that car; to the constitutional endrun.
>
> Plus ca change....
>
> Steve
>
> On Apr 3, 2015 1:12 PM, "Trevor Potter" <tpotter at capdale.com
> <mailto:tpotter at capdale.com>> wrote:
>
> No, they date back to the Court's first discussion of the issue in
> Buckley.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 3, 2015, at 1:04 PM, Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com
> <mailto:hoersting at gmail.com><mailto:hoersting at gmail.com
> <mailto:hoersting at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>
> Am I remembering correctly that "completely" and "wholly"
> independent are J. Breyer's words for the Court in McConnell?
>
> Have those words been adopted elsewhere? I don't remember.
>
> Those words connote that any sanctuary for IEs is mostly a trap
> for the unwary, for Breyer and his allies.
>
> Those words, however, will not carry the same freight for Justices
> who understand that independence is a valid concept -- it creates
> room to speak -- it is a workable construct; a concept that exists.
>
> Best,
> Steve
>
> On Apr 3, 2015 12:54 PM, "Trevor Potter" <tpotter at capdale.com
> <mailto:tpotter at capdale.com><mailto:tpotter at capdale.com
> <mailto:tpotter at capdale.com>>> wrote:
> Of course, the Court was explicitly talking about " independent
> expenditures"-- which it has repeatedly defined as " completely",
> " wholly" separate from any candidate or political party. That is
> what insulates them from corruption and the appearance of
> corruption. That does not describe the Super Pacs we routinely see
> today-including " Sen . Reid's Senate Majority PAC"...
>
> Trevor Potter
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Apr 3, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu
> <mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu><mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu
> <mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>>> wrote:
> >
> > See, this is what I mean. I've
> >
> > Bradley Smith got a couple hundred pages, plus thousands more in
> other writings. Rick takes 5 words and thinks he's nailed my
> philosophy.
> >
> > By the way, if look at the part if CU that Rick quotes, what
> does the Court say? It says that there is "scant evidence" that
> IEs create undue gratitude, and that in any case, that is not
> sufficient to justify regulation. Which was my point.
> >
> > When I teach I try to point out to my students that they must
> try to understand what the Court is doing as the Court understands
> it. Otherwise, they will fail to understand what is going on and
> fail to make arguments that persuade the court.
> >
> > When you look at what the court is doing, I think my quote is a
> pretty good 50 word summary of what the court is doing, and I'm
> disappointed that ricks response was to impugn my intellectual
> integrity.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On Apr 3, 2015, at 12:14 PM, "Rick Hasen" <rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>> wrote:
> >>
> >> I get an even greater kick of an argument against literalism in
> campaign finance law interpretation when this critique comes from
> a person who ends his book on campaign finance ("Unfree Speech")
> by reminding us that the First
> >> Amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law . . . ”
> >>
> >>> On 4/3/15 8:10 AM, Smith, Brad wrote:
> >>> I get a kick out of the stubborn obtuseness and literalism of
> people who refuse to understand the court's decisions o. The
> court's terms.
> >>>
> >>> Bradley Smith
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>
> >>>> On Apr 3, 2015, at 10:51 AM, "Rick Hasen" <rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> “Ted Stevens Case Looms Over Menendez
> Indictment”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71516>
> >>>> Posted on April 3, 2015 7:49
> am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71516> by Rick
> Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike
> Sacks<http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202722424024/Ted-Stevens-Case-Looms-Over-Menendez-Indictment>
> reports for NLJ.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71516&title=%E2%80%9CTed%20Stevens%20Case%20Looms%20Over%20Menendez%20Indictment%E2%80%9D&description=>
> >>>> Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>,
> direct democracy<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>
> >>>> “In a Short Time, Ted Cruz Has Raised Big Money From Small
> Donors”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71514>
> >>>> Posted on April 3, 2015 7:44
> am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71514> by Rick
> Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> >>>>
> >>>> NYT’s The Upshot
> reports.<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/upshot/what-ted-cruzs-early-fund-raising-means-and-doesnt.html?ref=politics&abt=0002&abg=1>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71514&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20a%20Short%20Time%2C%20Ted%20Cruz%20Has%20Raised%20Big%20Money%20From%20Small%20Donors%E2%80%9D&description=>
> >>>> Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> >>>> “Interim Report on Voting Equipment Performance, Usage &
> Certification”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71512>
> >>>> Posted on April 3, 2015 7:33
> am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71512> by Rick
> Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> >>>>
> >>>> From
> Virginia<http://elections.virginia.gov/WebDocs/VotingEquipReport/1.pdf>
> (more here)<http://elections.virginia.gov/webdocs/VotingEquipReport/>.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71512&title=%E2%80%9CInterim%20Report%20on%20Voting%20Equipment%20Performance%2C%20Usage%20%26%20Certification%E2%80%9D&description=>
> >>>> Posted in election
> administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, voting
> technology<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40>
> >>>> “A Skewed Electoral Field”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71510>
> >>>> Posted on April 3, 2015 7:29
> am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71510> by Rick
> Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> >>>>
> >>>> Rob
> Richie<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/opinion/a-skewed-electoral-field.html>
> NYT letter to the editor.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71510&title=%E2%80%9CA%20Skewed%20Electoral%20Field%E2%80%9D&description=>
> >>>> Posted in electoral college<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=44>
> >>>> “Fresh Questions About ‘Coordination’
> Rules”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71508>
> >>>> Posted on April 3, 2015 7:28
> am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71508> by Rick
> Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> Bauer<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2015/04/fresh-questions-coordination-rules/>
> on Brickner on Gilbert.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71508&title=%E2%80%9CFresh%20Questions%20About%20%E2%80%98Coordination%E2%80%99%20Rules%E2%80%9D&description=>
> >>>> Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> >>>> #SCOTUS Didn’t Mean It When They Said It
> Dep’t<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71506>
> >>>> Posted on April 3, 2015 7:25
> am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71506> by Rick
> Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> >>>>
> >>>> Brad
> Smith<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/us/politics/robert-menendez-indictment-points-to-corrupting-potential-of-super-pacs.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1>
> trying to recast the holding of Citizens United in the NYT:
> >>>>
> >>>> “The court’s position is pretty simple, and it is not that
> independent expenditures can never create gratitude in an
> officeholder,” said Bradley A. Smith, a professor of law at
> Capital University Law School. “Rather it is that as a
> constitutional matter, they do not pose a threat of corruption
> sufficient to justify the invasions of First Amendment rights that
> the ‘reformers’ crave.”
> >>>>
> >>>> Here’s what the Court actually said in Citizens
> United<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=08-205>:
> >>>>
> >>>> The McConnell record was “over 100,000 pages” long, McConnell
> I, 251 F. Supp. 2d, at 209, yet it “does not have any direct
> examples of votes being exchanged for . . . expenditures,” id., at
> 560 (opinion of Kollar-Kotelly, J.). This confirms Buckley‘s
> reasoning that independent expenditures do not lead to, or create
> the appearance of,quid pro quo corruption. In fact, there is only
> scant evidence that independent expenditures even ingratiate. See
> 251 F. Supp. 2d, at 555-557 (opinion of Kollar-Kotelly, J.).
> Ingratiation and access, in any event, are not corruption.
> >>>>
> >>>> I explain how the Court significantly narrowed the definition
> of corruption in Citizens United in my Michigan Law Review
> article, Citizens United and the Illusion of
> Coherence<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1620576>.
> It is a trend that was extended from expenditures to contributions
> in last year’s McCutcheon case.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71506&title=%23SCOTUS%20Didn%E2%80%99t%20Mean%20It%20When%20They%20Said%20It%20Dep%E2%80%99t&description=>
> >>>> Posted in campaign
> finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
> Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
> >>>> “Gov. Scott’s criticism of online voter registration angers
> counties”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71504>
> >>>> Posted on April 2, 2015 4:17
> pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71504> by Rick
> Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> News<http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/scotts-criticism-of-online-voter-registration-angers-elections-officials/2223877>
> from FL.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71504&title=%E2%80%9CGov.%20Scott%E2%80%99s%20criticism%20of%20online%20voter%20registration%20angers%20counties%E2%80%9D&description=>
> >>>> Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
> >>>> “The Menendez Case Proves the Supreme Court Was Naive About
> Campaign Finance Laws”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71502>
> >>>> Posted on April 2, 2015 4:10
> pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71502> by Rick
> Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> >>>>
> >>>> Christian Farias
> writes<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121446/menedez-corruption-case-exposes-supreme-court-naivete>
> for TNR.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71502&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Menendez%20Case%20Proves%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20Was%20Naive%20About%20Campaign%20Finance%20Laws%E2%80%9D&description=>
> >>>> Posted in campaign
> finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
> Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
> >>>> “Robert Menendez Indictment Points to Corrupting Potential of
> Super PACs”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71500>
> >>>> Posted on April 2, 2015 4:09
> pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71500> by Rick
> Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> >>>>
> >>>> NYT
> reports.<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/us/politics/robert-menendez-indictment-points-to-corrupting-potential-of-super-pacs.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71500&title=%E2%80%9CRobert%20Menendez%20Indictment%20Points%20to%20Corrupting%20Potential%20of%20Super%20PACs%E2%80%9D&description=>
> >>>> Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> >>>> Michael Boos on @99Rise: “Do As I Say, Not As I
> Do”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71498>
> >>>> Posted on April 2, 2015 4:07
> pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71498> by Rick
> Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> >>>>
> >>>> The following is a guest post from Michael Boos, Vice
> President and General Counsel of the group Citizens United:
> >>>>
> >>>> The group 99Rise made headlines earlier this week when
> several of its members disrupted proceedings at the U.S. Supreme
> Court in a protest over the Supreme Court’s recent campaign
> finance law rulings, including Citizens United v. FEC. This wasn’t
> the first time, the group disrupted the Supreme Court. Last year,
> several of its members, including co-founder Kai Newkirk, pulled
> off a similar stunt. There’s even of videotape of Newkirk yelling:
> “Money is not speech. Corporations are not people.” 99Rise’s
> anti-corporate theme appears throughout its promotional materials,
> including on its website, where it calls for a constitutional
> amendment to “ensure that neither private wealth nor corporate
> privilege could be used to exercise undue influence over elections
> and policy making.”
> >>>>
> >>>> While 99Rise and its spokespersons rail against corporations,
> nowhere on its website or in its promotional materials does the
> group or its leaders disclose a critical fact – 99Rise is the very
> embodiment of the corporate form that it so readily condemns.
> According to filings with the California Secretary of State’s
> office, 99Rise is a consortium of two corporate entities – 99Rise
> National Support Center, which was incorporated on August 7, 2014,
> and 99Rise Action, which was incorporated on October 14, 2014. And
> both corporate entities share the same registered agent – Noah Kai
> Newkirk – the anti-corporate protester who disrupted the Supreme
> Court.
> >>>>
> >>>> But there’s more. 99Rise solicits contributions on its
> website, where the contribution page tells would be contributors:
> “Contributions are tax-deductible.” This, of course, implies the
> group is a California charity. Nevertheless, according to the
> California Attorney General’s charities website, none of the
> 99Rise organizations are registered with that office to solicit
> contributions for charitable purposes
> >>>>
> >>>> 99Rise, a group that’s clearly the personification of “Do As
> I Say, Not As I Do.”
> >>>>
> >>>> Michael Boos
> >>>>
> >>>> Vice President & General Counsel
> >>>>
> >>>> Citizens United
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71498&title=Michael%20Boos%20on%20%4099Rise%3A%20%E2%80%9CDo%20As%20I%20Say%2C%20Not%20As%20I%20Do%E2%80%9D&description=>
> >>>> Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> >>>> “Don’t like ‘dark money’ in your politics? This guy could
> help stop it with a pen.”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71496>
> >>>> Posted on April 2, 2015 10:05
> am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71496> by Rick
> Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> >>>>
> >>>> Michael Keegan
> oped<http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/04/01/how-obama-could-help-solve-the-dark-money-problem/>
> at Reuters.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71496&title=%E2%80%9CDon%E2%80%99t%20like%20%E2%80%98dark%20money%E2%80%99%20in%20your%20politics%3F%20This%20guy%20could%20help%20stop%20it%20with%20a%20pen.%E2%80%9D&description=>
> >>>> Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> >>>> “A compromise in Connecticut; Registrars and Merrill reach
> consensus on reform legislation”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71494>
> >>>> Posted on April 2, 2015 9:31
> am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71494> by Rick
> Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> >>>>
> >>>> That’s the lead story in this week’s Electionline
> Weekly<http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly>.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71494&title=%E2%80%9CA%20compromise%20in%20Connecticut%3B%20Registrars%20and%20Merrill%20reach%20consensus%20on%20reform%20legislation%E2%80%9D&description=>
> >>>> Posted in election
> administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
> >>>> “Thanks to Obama, the New World of Campaign Finance Is
> Unlimited and Undisclosed”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71492>
> >>>> Posted on April 2, 2015 8:53
> am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71492> by Rick
> Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> >>>>
> >>>> Bloomberg
> Politics.<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-02/thanks-to-obama-the-new-world-of-campaign-finance-is-unlimited-and-undisclosed?cmpid=BBD040215&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=The%20Brief&utm_campaign=Politics%20Newsletter%20-%20April%202%2C%202015>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71492&title=%E2%80%9CThanks%20to%20Obama%2C%20the%20New%20World%20of%20Campaign%20Finance%20Is%20Unlimited%20and%20Undisclosed%E2%80%9D&description=>
> >>>> Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> >>>> “Delaying your candidacy doesn’t mean you can avoid campaign
> finance rules”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71490>
> >>>> Posted on April 2, 2015 8:53
> am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71490> by Rick
> Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> >>>>
> >>>> FEC Chair Ann Ravel
> oped.<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-it-walks-like-a-candidate-and-talks-like-a-candidate-/2015/03/31/87a91a14-d490-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71490&title=%E2%80%9CDelaying%20your%20candidacy%20doesn%E2%80%99t%20mean%20you%20can%20avoid%20campaign%20finance%20rules%E2%80%9D&description=>
> >>>> Posted in campaign
> finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, federal election
> commission<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
> >>>> “America’s ‘Menendez’ problem: How big money poisons politics
> — and how it can be fixed”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71488>
> >>>> Posted on April 2, 2015 8:52
> am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71488> by Rick
> Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> >>>>
> >>>> Stephen Spauling
> oped<http://www.salon.com/2015/04/02/americas_menendez_problem_how_big_money_poisons_politics_and_how_it_can_be_fixed/>
> in Salon.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71488&title=%E2%80%9CAmerica%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%98Menendez%E2%80%99%20problem%3A%20How%20big%20money%20poisons%20politics%20%E2%80%94%20and%20how%20it%20can%20be%20fixed%E2%80%9D&description=>
> >>>> Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> >>>> “Senator Robert Menendez — possibly corrupt, definitely bad
> at using AmEx reward points”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71486>
> >>>> Posted on April 2, 2015 8:42
> am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71486> by Rick
> Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> >>>>
> >>>> LOL.<http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8333447/menendez-amex>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> [Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71486&title=%E2%80%9CSenator%20Robert%20Menendez%20%E2%80%94%20possibly%20corrupt%2C%20definitely%20bad%20at%20using%20AmEx%20reward%20points%E2%80%9D&description=>
> >>>> Posted in chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Rick Hasen
> >>>> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> >>>> UC Irvine School of Law
> >>>> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> >>>> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> >>>> 949.824.3072 <tel:949.824.3072><tel:949.824.3072
> <tel:949.824.3072>> - office
> >>>> 949.824.0495 <tel:949.824.0495><tel:949.824.0495
> <tel:949.824.0495>> - fax
> >>>> rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>>
> >>>> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> >>>> http://electionlawblog.org
> >>>> <share_save_171_16.png>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Law-election mailing list
> >>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
> >>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> >>
> >> --
> >> Rick Hasen
> >> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> >> UC Irvine School of Law
> >> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> >> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> >> 949.824.3072 <tel:949.824.3072><tel:949.824.3072
> <tel:949.824.3072>> - office
> >> 949.824.0495 <tel:949.824.0495><tel:949.824.0495
> <tel:949.824.0495>> - fax
> >> rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
> >> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> >> http://electionlawblog.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > Law-election mailing list
> > Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
> > http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> >
>
>
> <115040312511304325>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
> from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any
> disclosure, copying, future distribution, or use of this
> communication is prohibited. If you have received this
> communication in error, please advise us by return e-mail, or if
> you have received this communication by fax advise us by telephone
> and delete/destroy the document
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Spam
> <https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09ObtoPqg&m=704fbbe219ad&t=20150403&c=s>
> Not spam
> <https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09ObtoPqg&m=704fbbe219ad&t=20150403&c=n>
> Forget previous vote
> <https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09ObtoPqg&m=704fbbe219ad&t=20150403&c=f>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150403/46f2668a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 9616 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150403/46f2668a/attachment.png>
View list directory