[EL] smith on cu

Fri Apr 3 19:31:31 PDT 2015

Practical example: California enacted contribution limits in Prop. 208. Only
one election was held under that law before the court invalidated it. In
that election - a special election for state assembly - the IEs for the
winning candidate totaled more than the budgets for all the other five
candidates combined. The next election cycle was after 208 was invalidated.
With no contribution limits, there was not a single IE for any statewide or
legislative office. Then the state enacted contribution limits in Prop. 34.
In the next election cycle there were IEs everywhere in the state and they
have been in growing numbers and influence ever since.

Practical example 2: There never had been an IE in the history of Los
Angeles electoral politics until after the city adopted contribution limits.
In the next election there emerged an ad hoc IE, which I put together to
help a friend who was running for city council. By the next election cycle
there were multiple IEs playing in races all over the city.

Final thought: It is just plain silly to think IEs are buffers against
special interests influencing candidates and in turn elected officials.
Because of contribution limits on candidates and the absence of limits on
IEs, the IEs have distorted the electoral process and become more of an
influencing factor than direct contributions. Candidates have become
dependent on IEs and afraid of them going the other way. This is not
academic or legal theory. This is fact from the field of every day
observation of how candidates behave and campaigns are run. 

Larry

From: Justin Levitt [mailto:levittj at lls.edu] 
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 6:29 PM
To: larrylevine at earthlink.net; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] smith on cu

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>
[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
<mailto: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:  <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>
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:  <mailto:law-election at uci.edu> 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-Lo
oms-Over-Menendez-Indictment> reports for NLJ.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog
.org%2F%3Fp%3D71516
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D71516&title=%E2%80%9CTed%20Stevens%20Case%20Looms%20Over%20Menendez%2
0Indictment%E2%80%9D&description=>
&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
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/upshot/what-ted-cruzs-early-fund-raising-
means-and-doesnt.html?ref=politics&abt=0002&abg=1> &abt=0002&abg=1>
>>>>
>>>>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog
.org%2F%3Fp%3D71514
<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%20Ra
ised%20Big%20Money%20From%20Small%20Donors%E2%80%9D&description=>
&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20a%20Short%20Time%2C%20Ted%20Cruz%20Has%20Raised%20Big%2
0Money%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
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D71512&title=%E2%80%9CInterim%20Report%20on%20Voting%20Equipment%20Per
formance%2C%20Usage%20%26%20Certification%E2%80%9D&description=>
&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.ht
ml> NYT letter to the editor.
>>>>
>>>>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog
.org%2F%3Fp%3D71510
<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&descript
ion=> &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-coordinati
on-rules/> on Brickner on Gilbert.
>>>>
>>>>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog
.org%2F%3Fp%3D71508
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D71508&title=%E2%80%9CFresh%20Questions%20About%20%E2%80%98Coordinatio
n%E2%80%99%20Rules%E2%80%9D&description=>
&title=%E2%80%9CFresh%20Questions%20About%20%E2%80%98Coordination%E2%80%99%2
0Rules%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-indictme
nt-points-to-corrupting-potential-of-super-pacs.html?hp
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/us/politics/robert-menendez-indictment-po
ints-to-corrupting-potential-of-super-pacs.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homep
age&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1>
&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=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
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=08-
205> &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
<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%20Sa
id%20It%20Dep%E2%80%99t&description=>
&title=%23SCOTUS%20Didn%E2%80%99t%20Mean%20It%20When%20They%20Said%20It%20De
p%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-criticis
m-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
<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=>
&title=%E2%80%9CGov.%20Scott%E2%80%99s%20criticism%20of%20online%20voter%20r
egistration%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-exp
oses-supreme-court-naivete> for TNR.
>>>>
>>>>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog
.org%2F%3Fp%3D71502
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D71502&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Menendez%20Case%20Proves%20the%20Supreme%2
0Court%20Was%20Naive%20About%20Campaign%20Finance%20Laws%E2%80%9D&descriptio
n=>
&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-indic
tment-points-to-corrupting-potential-of-super-pacs.html?hp
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/us/politics/robert-menendez-indictment-po
ints-to-corrupting-potential-of-super-pacs.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homep
age&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0>
&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT
.nav=top-news&_r=0>
>>>>
>>>>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog
.org%2F%3Fp%3D71500
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D71500&title=%E2%80%9CRobert%20Menendez%20Indictment%20Points%20to%20C
orrupting%20Potential%20of%20Super%20PACs%E2%80%9D&description=>
&title=%E2%80%9CRobert%20Menendez%20Indictment%20Points%20to%20Corrupting%20
Potential%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
<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=>
&title=Michael%20Boos%20on%20%4099Rise%3A%20%E2%80%9CDo%20As%20I%20Say%2C%20
Not%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-s
olve-the-dark-money-problem/> at Reuters.
>>>>
>>>>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog
.org%2F%3Fp%3D71496
<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%20wi
th%20a%20pen.%E2%80%9D&description=>
&title=%E2%80%9CDon%E2%80%99t%20like%20%E2%80%98dark%20money%E2%80%99%20in%2
0your%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
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F
%3Fp%3D71494&title=%E2%80%9CA%20compromise%20in%20Connecticut%3B%20Registrar
s%20and%20Merrill%20reach%20consensus%20on%20reform%20legislation%E2%80%9D&d
escription=>
&title=%E2%80%9CA%20compromise%20in%20Connecticut%3B%20Registrars%20and%20Me
rrill%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-ob
ama-the-new-world-of-campaign-finance-is-unlimited-and-undisclosed?cmpid=BBD
040215
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-02/thanks-to-obama-the-n
ew-world-of-campaign-finance-is-unlimited-and-undisclosed?cmpid=BBD040215&ut
m_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=The%20Brief&utm_campaign=Politic
s%20Newsletter%20-%20April%202%2C%202015>
&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=The%20Brief&utm_campaign=Poli
tics%20Newsletter%20-%20April%202%2C%202015>
>>>>
>>>>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog
.org%2F%3Fp%3D71492
<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&descripti
on=>
&title=%E2%80%9CThanks%20to%20Obama%2C%20the%20New%20World%20of%20Campaign%2
0Finance%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-an
d-talks-like-a-candidate-/2015/03/31/87a91a14-d490-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_st
ory.html>
>>>>
>>>>
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog
.org%2F%3Fp%3D71490
<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%20
mean%20you%20can%20avoid%20campaign%20finance%20rules%E2%80%9D&description=>
&title=%E2%80%9CDelaying%20your%20candidacy%20doesn%E2%80%99t%20mean%20you%2
0can%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
<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%2
0problem%3A%20How%20big%20money%20poisons%20politics%20%E2%80%94%20and%20how
%20it%20can%20be%20fixed%E2%80%9D&description=>
&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
<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%20possib
ly%20corrupt%2C%20definitely%20bad%20at%20using%20AmEx%20reward%20points%E2%
80%9D&description=>
&title=%E2%80%9CSenator%20Robert%20Menendez%20%E2%80%94%20possibly%20corrupt
%2C%20definitely%20bad%20at%20using%20AmEx%20reward%20points%E2%80%9D&descri
ption=>
>>>> 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

  _____  

<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09ObtoPqg&m=704fbbe219ad&
t=20150403&c=s> Spam

<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09ObtoPqg&m=704fbbe219ad&
t=20150403&c=n> Not spam

<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09ObtoPqg&m=704fbbe219ad&
t=20150403&c=f> Forget previous vote

_______________________________________________
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/20150403/84b7ba2d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9617 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150403/84b7ba2d/attachment.png>