[EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/13/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Mon Apr 13 08:00:58 PDT 2015
Walker’s past campaign ideas go against present GOP orthodoxy”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71698>
Posted onApril 13, 2015 7:59 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71698>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Fascinating Patrick Marley piece
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/walkers-past-campaign-ideas-go-against-present-gop-orthodoxy-b99478610z1-299521731.html>for
the /Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:/
As a state legislator nearly 20 years ago,Gov. Scott Walker
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walker-290106981.html>proposed
a restructuring of campaign finance laws that goes against today’s
Republican orthodoxy and includes provisions that would now be
considered unconstitutional.
His proposals from the late 1990s could provide fodder for his GOP
opponents who want to blunt the momentum of hisall-but-certain
presidential campaign
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walker-david-clarke-to-address-nra-convention-b99478924z1-299344221.html>.
The ideas offer a contrast to Walker’s current views and the way he
has conducted his recent campaigns.
Walker’s campaign hasfaced an investigation
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/wisconsin-john-doe-investigations-271412751.html>for
how it worked with independent groups; the probe has been stalled
for more than a year and the state Supreme Court is expected to rule
this year on whether it can continue or will be ended for good.
In 1995, Walker was the lead sponsor of asweeping bill
<http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/1995/proposals/ab37>that would have
required independent groups to provide scripts of their ads to the
government 24 hours before running them; prohibited political action
committees from transferring more than $5,000 to one another; and
lifted spending limits for candidates who took public money for
campaigns if they came under attack from outside groups.
“It’s not the kind of thing I’d suspect Gov. Walker proposing or
supporting today,” saidRick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/>, an
election law professor at the University of California, Irvine.
“I’d also point out that people have the right to change their minds
over 20 years.”
Some provisions of Walker’s package would be widely considered
unconstitutional today because of court rulings, said James Bopp, an
Indiana attorney who has won a series of cases broadening political
speech rights. Bopp has backed Walker and conservative groups in the
campaign financeinvestigation
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/wisconsin-john-doe-investigations-271412751.html>they
have faced.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71698&title=%E2%80%9CWalker%E2%80%99s%20past%20campaign%20ideas%20go%20against%20present%20GOP%20orthodoxy%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Why Hillary Clinton Can’t Win the Fundraising Expectations Game”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71696>
Posted onApril 13, 2015 7:53 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71696>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bloomberg reports.
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-13/why-hillary-clinton-can-t-win-the-fundraising-expectations-game>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71696&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20Hillary%20Clinton%20Can%E2%80%99t%20Win%20the%20Fundraising%20Expectations%20Game%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“SuperPACS Are Back And They Are More Powerful Than Ever”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71694>
Posted onApril 13, 2015 7:49 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71694>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Peter Overby reports
<http://www.npr.org/2015/04/13/399292658/superpacs-are-back-and-they-are-more-powerful-than-ever>for
NPR.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71694&title=%E2%80%9CSuperPACS%20Are%20Back%20And%20They%20Are%20More%20Powerful%20Than%20Ever%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Keep Shining the Light on ‘Dark Money’”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71692>
Posted onApril 13, 2015 7:46 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71692>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bob Bauer and Sam Issacharoff opinion piece
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/keep-shining-the-light-on-dark-money-116901.html#.VSvWrdzF98F>in
/Politico./
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71692&title=%E2%80%9CKeep%20Shining%20the%20Light%20on%20%E2%80%98Dark%20Money%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Inside The Dark-Money Consortium Backing Hillary Clinton”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71690>
Posted onApril 13, 2015 7:46 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71690>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Paul Jossey
<http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/13/inside-the-dark-money-consortium-backing-hillary-clinton/>at
The Federalist.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71690&title=%E2%80%9CInside%20The%20Dark-Money%20Consortium%20Backing%20Hillary%20Clinton%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Presupposing Corruption: Access, Influence, and the Future of the
Pay-to-Play Legal Framework” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71688>
Posted onApril 12, 2015 9:09 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71688>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Allison Davis has posted a draft ofthis student note
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2593608>(forthcoming
/William & Mary Business Law Review/) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Political spending, in all of its various permutations, lies at the
nexus between campaign finance law and pay-to-play law. Both of
these legal doctrines seek to minimize the corrupting effects of
money upon elected officials and candidates, and both impose various
caps and restrictions on political contributions in order to do so.
Over the past half-century, however, the Supreme Court has struggled
to define what sort of activity constitutes “corruption” in the
political sphere. In light of its decisions in 2010’s Citizens
United v. FEC and 2014’s McCutcheon v. FEC—two seminal cases that
dramatically altered campaign finance regulation—the Court now
appears to recognize that access and influence do not constitute
quid pro quo corruption or the appearance thereof. Consequently,
this view has led to deregulation of the legal framework of campaign
finance in recent years. Furthermore, presupposing corruption on the
part of elected officials or candidates may not always be a lawful
assumption upon which regulation can be based. It thus follows that
the corruption-based rationale at the heart of certain federal,
state, and local pay-to-play laws may also be subject to challenge.
This Note examines the Court’s shifting views on corruption, applies
it to various pay-to-play laws currently in effect, and ultimately
concludes that the legal and constitutional framework for much of
pay-to-play law as it currently stands rests on shaky ground.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71688&title=%E2%80%9CPresupposing%20Corruption%3A%20Access%2C%20Influence%2C%20and%20the%20Future%20of%20the%20Pay-to-Play%20Legal%20Framework%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Democrats Keep Lead in Party Identification”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71686>
Posted onApril 12, 2015 8:45 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71686>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Nate Cohn
analysis<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/upshot/democrats-keep-lead-in-party-identification.html?ref=politics&abt=0002&abg=0>at
NYT’s The Upshot.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71686&title=%E2%80%9CDemocrats%20Keep%20Lead%20in%20Party%20Identification%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inpolitical parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,political polarization
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>
“Group Spells Out 5-Year Plan to Build Liberal ‘Infrastructure’”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71684>
Posted onApril 12, 2015 8:35 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71684>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT.
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/12/group-spells-out-5-year-plan-to-build-liberal-infrastructure/?ref=politics>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71684&title=%E2%80%9CGroup%20Spells%20Out%205-Year%20Plan%20to%20Build%20Liberal%20%E2%80%98Infrastructure%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Wealthy donors on left launch new plan to wrest back control in the
states” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71682>
Posted onApril 12, 2015 6:29 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71682>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Another Matea Gold must-read.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/wealthy-donors-on-left-launch-new-plan-to-wrest-back-control-in-the-states/2015/04/12/ccd2f5ee-dfd3-11e4-a1b8-2ed88bc190d2_story.html?postshare=1141428887934565>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71682&title=%E2%80%9CWealthy%20donors%20on%20left%20launch%20new%20plan%20to%20wrest%20back%20control%20in%20the%20states%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Opinion: Fayette at-large voting discriminates”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71680>
Posted onApril 12, 2015 1:28 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71680>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Leah Aden oped in the AJC
<http://www.naacpldf.org/news/leah-aden-writes-how-large-voting-discriminates-fayette-county-georgia>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71680&title=%E2%80%9COpinion%3A%20Fayette%20at-large%20voting%20discriminates%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Do the Facts of Voting Rights Support Chief Justice Roberts’s
Opinion in Shelby County?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71678>
Posted onApril 12, 2015 1:26 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71678>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Looks likea major empirical paper out
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2592829>from Morgan
Kousser (forthcoming, /Transatlanica/). Here is the abstract:
In June, 2013, a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court brought to
an abrupt and likely permanent end the most important provision of
the most successful civil rights law in U.S. history. Initially
passed in 1965, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required “covered
jurisdictions,” at first in the Deep South and later extended to
Texas, Arizona, Alaska, and certain counties and townships in other
states, to “pre-clear” any changes in their election laws with the
Justice Department or the District Court of the District of Columbia
before putting them into effect. Laws that changed the political
structure – for instance, redistricting laws, annexations, and
shifts from district to “at-large” elections for local governments –
were restricted, as well as provisions and practices that directly
affected individuals’ rights to vote. While acknowledging the
success of the law in greatly increasing the number of
African-American and Latino elected officials, Chief Justice John
Roberts contended in his majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder
that the problems of 2013 were much less grave than the
“pervasive…flagrant…widespread…rampant” voting discrimination of
1965 and that the coverage formula was outmoded because “today’s
statistics tell an entirely different story.”
Neither the Chief Justice nor any scholars or civil rights
proponents or opponents have systematically examined the evidence on
the entire pattern of proven voting rights violations over time and
space. Was the Chief Justice correct in asserting that such
violations no longer tracked the coverage scheme in Section 4 of the
Act – that, as he put it, the relationship of the formula to
problems of vote dilution was purely “fortuitous”? Had the number of
violations diminished so much in the years leading up to the 2006
renewal of Section 5 that Congress should have ended preclearance
altogether because discrimination had basically disappeared? If the
number of voting rights lawsuits has diminished, why is that so?
Based on the largest database of voting rights “events” – successful
lawsuits, Section 5 Justice Department objections and “more
information requests,” and consent decrees or settlements out of
court that led to pro-minority changes – ever compiled, this paper
provides a unique overview of the history of U.S. voting rights from
1957, when the first U.S. civil rights law in 82 years passed,
through 2013. It shows that the Chief Justice’s factual assertions
were incorrect, that the coverage formula was still congruent with
proven violations, and that to the extent that recorded violations
had decreased, that was not because problems had ended, but because
the Supreme Court had made it more difficult to win lawsuits.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D71678&title=%E2%80%9CDo%20the%20Facts%20of%20Voting%20Rights%20Support%20Chief%20Justice%20Roberts%E2%80%99s%20Opinion%20in%20Shelby%20County%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
--
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 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150413/cceeff89/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150413/cceeff89/attachment.png>
View list directory