[EL] Public funding/unrestricted contributions/etc was: Re: smith on cu

[Thomas J. Cares]

I don't understand.

Let's take Congress as an example, as to not bore noncalifornians on this
list (Though I think a better example could be done with our legislature).

Let's say the federal government gave every registered voter a 25 dollar
voucher, every election, which they could give to their favorite House
candidate in their district; and did the same for the Senate.

Now if I had to negotiate, I'd trade unrestricted private money for this.

I would be concerned though that special interest money would fund
candidates early who would then win the campaigns to get the vouchers,
having no effect on special interest dependency, but I would give it a try.

Here, the first amendment issues seem fine.

I wonder, at the very least, if the gov could ask candidates to pledge not
take more than x private dollars. If the candidate declines, then when
voters give them voucher dollars they also have to acknowledge that they
understand this particular candidate declined to pledge to accept no more
than x private dollars. The idea is to make it ***possible*** to have
candidates whose electoral success did not depend on financial support from
moneyed interest.

Better, I'd prefer eligibility requirements for accepting vouchers that are
based on not accepting more than x private dollars. I believe things like
that have been challenged, though not exactly that (anyone want to take a
guess if that would be upheld? I believe the Arizona case involved giving
more $ when one has a well-funded opponent. I'm not proposing that, but
rather just eligibility requirements to take the vouchers).

But I still think such a voucher system without those caveats, even with
unrestricted private money, would be a tremendous improvement. I believe
Lessig started proposing something like this, but where it's given to
parties. If I understand his position correctly, I strongly question his
faith in partisan machinery, not to mention the proliferation of decline to
state and independent voters who, in California, outnumber Republicans.


Thomas Cares

Sent from my iPhone

On Saturday, April 4, 2015, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net> wrote:

> As you probably guessed, I disagree. I did an article for the Columbia
> Journalism Review in 1972. The premise was that full public funding was the
> answer to the ills – perceived and real – in campaign finance. But I
> concluded it wouldn’t work because of “that pesky first amendment.” This
> was before the first IE appeared on the scene. Without knowing it, I was
> anticipating what eventually happened. Public funding is its own form of
> contribution and spending limit. As we have seen from the last 40 years,
> private money is going to find a way into the electoral process no matter
> what you do. It’s still that pesky first amendment. I wish there was a way
> to implement full public financing, but not at the cost of the first
> amendment. So, let’s just open the doors and let the money flow directly to
> the candidates. Let them report the contributions and expenditures in a
> timely manner. Let’s enforce the laws against personal use of the money.
> And then let the voters be the judge.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> *From:* tomjcares at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tomjcares at gmail.com');> [mailto:
> tomjcares at gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tomjcares at gmail.com');>]
> *On Behalf Of *Thomas J. Cares
> *Sent:* Friday, April 03, 2015 10:17 PM
> *To:* larrylevine at earthlink.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','larrylevine at earthlink.net');>
> *Cc:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election at department-lists.uci.edu');>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] smith on cu
>
>
>
> To Larry's points about contribution limits and IEs
>
>
>
> 1. Maybe you can get rid of contribution limits if you have a public
> funding scheme that makes available, in every election, ad amount that
> works out to 4 times the campaign funds currently typically spent by
> winners (meaning you can have 4 competing candidates not relying on special
> interests), ideally through some kind of voucher system, and also have
> disclosure and transparency.
>
>
>
> 2. I still contend that contributions invite more corruption than IEs
> because they are more necessary, useful, and can also be used for junkets
> and other luxuries as well as unnecessary campaign salaries for your best
> buddies, particularly useful for corrupting your common entrenched
> incumbent who doesn't really need funds for effective campaigning/messaging.
>
>
>
> (But yea, back to 1, I think I lot of reformers would support that package
> deal. I've always felt strongly that good public financing was our only
> good remedy to 'ills' caused by Citizens United, though I advocated for
> voucher systems before CU. The candidate with x public/voucher dollars will
> typically beat the special interest candidate with 1.5x dollars. If you
> flood elections with clean cash, special interest cash just becomes a
> poison pill. You solve the whole corruption/dependency issue without
> tinkering with free speech rights/limits).
>
>
>
>
>
> Thomas Cares
>
>
> On Saturday, April 4, 2015, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','larrylevine at earthlink.net');>> wrote:
>
> None of that was so before the enactment of contribution limits. I agree
> those groups have become accustomed to the way of life you describe. The
> NRA, Right to Life and other similar groups use their involvement in
> political campaigns to raise money. But I think in a short time the
> businesses that fund IEs will want the one-on-one relationships that come
> from delivering a big check at lunch. I don’t propose that IEs would go
> away overnight. But I think we would see them begin to fade almost
> immediately and ultimately vanish.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> *From:* Sal Peralta [mailto:oregon.properties at yahoo.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 03, 2015 8:48 PM
> *To:* larrylevine at earthlink.net
> *Cc:* Trevor Potter; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] smith on cu
>
>
>
> Not necessarily.  IEs are also used for negative attacks so they cannot be
> attributed to the candidate.  They are also used by issues groups like the
> NRA or Right to Life that prefer to control their own message.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On Apr 3, 2015, at 7:37 PM, "Larry Levine" <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> It wouldn’t happen as a matter of law. It would happen as a natural
> by-product of the political process and human nature. (See practical
> examples given in previous email.) If an interest group or person wants
> influence with a candidate/elected official reason dictates they would
> rather hand a check to that candidate at lunch than have it bundled among a
> number of checks in an IE committee. IEs exist only because the money
> cannot go directly to the candidate.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> *From:* Trevor Potter [mailto:tpotter at capdale.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 03, 2015 7:03 PM
> *To:* <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
> *Cc:* Justin Levitt; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] smith on cu
>
>
>
> And how would that happen- legally- if there were no contribution limits?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 3, 2015, at 9:26 PM, Larry Levine <
> larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>> 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<http://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&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&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&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&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 <949.824.3072>><
> tel:949.824.3072<tel:949.824.3072 <949.824.3072%3ctel:949.824.3072>>> -
> office
> >>>> 949.824.0495<tel:949.824.0495 <949.824.0495>><
> tel:949.824.0495<tel:949.824.0495 <949.824.0495%3ctel: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 <949.824.3072>><
> tel:949.824.3072<tel:949.824.3072 <949.824.3072%3ctel:949.824.3072>>> -
> office
> >> 949.824.0495<tel:949.824.0495 <949.824.0495>><
> tel:949.824.0495<tel:949.824.0495 <949.824.0495%3ctel: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
> <image001.png>
>
> ________________________________
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> <image001.png>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> --
>


--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150404/46ac04b9/attachment.html>