[EL] smith on cu

Sat Apr 4 13:39:37 PDT 2015

Actually I would take a completely different approach and this is what I
argue in my ELECTION LAW AND DEMOCRATIC THEORY.  My argument is simple:  We
should not conflate economic and political marketplaces and while money may
be a great way to allocate sailboats  it has no business being the
allocative criteria for political power or legitimacy.  I am strict
believer in the separation of capitalism and democracy and do not think
that the Constitution embodies an economic theory that recognizes market
individualism.  I am constantly perplexed by others who simply accept as
given that capitalism is the reigning political ideology that structures
interpretations of the Constitution.

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 10:41 AM, 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 [mailto:tomjcares at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Thomas
> J. Cares
> *Sent:* Friday, April 03, 2015 10:17 PM
> *To:* larrylevine at earthlink.net
> *Cc:* 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>
> 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
>
>
>
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
David Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
Hamline University
Department of Political Science
1536 Hewitt Ave
MS B 1805
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858 (voice)
651.523.3170 (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
Twitter:  @ProfDSchultz
My latest book:  Election Law and Democratic Theory, Ashgate Publishing
http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754675433
FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150404/b229e808/attachment.html>