[EL] ELB News and Commentary 1/13/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue Jan 13 07:50:00 PST 2015
Blackmailing Scalise” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69616>
Posted onJanuary 13, 2015 7:46 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69616>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Roger Clegg fights back
<http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/396228/blackmailing-scalise-roger-clegg>against
attempts to use the Scalise controversy to reinvigorate the attempts to
fix and amend the Voting Rights Act.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69616&title=%E2%80%9CBlackmailing%20Scalise%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inVRAA <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=81>
“No, national vote shares don’t much matter for the Senate. But the
House is different.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69614>
Posted onJanuary 13, 2015 7:41 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69614>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
FairVote.
<http://www.fairvoteblog.com/2015/01/no-national-vote-shares-dont-much.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69614&title=%E2%80%9CNo%2C%20national%20vote%20shares%20don%E2%80%99t%20much%20matter%20for%20the%20Senate.%20But%20the%20House%20is%20different.%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inalternative voting systems
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>,legislation and legislatures
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>
“Liberal ‘dark money’ group could face IRS fine”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69612>
Posted onJanuary 13, 2015 7:40 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69612>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
CPI reports.
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/01/13/16576/liberal-dark-money-group-could-face-irs-fine>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69612&title=%E2%80%9CLiberal%20%E2%80%98dark%20money%E2%80%99%20group%20could%20face%20IRS%20fine%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Court Coy on Marriage; Rebuffs Political Money Appeals”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69610>
Posted onJanuary 13, 2015 7:30 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69610>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Marcia Coyle reports
<http://www.nationallawjournal.com/home/id=1202714860202?kw=Court%20Coy%20on%20Marriage%3B%20Rebuffs%20Political%20Money%20Appeals&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&cn=20150113&src=EMC-Email&pt=Daily%20Headlines&slreturn=20150013102906>for
the NLJ.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69610&title=%E2%80%9CCourt%20Coy%20on%20Marriage%3B%20Rebuffs%20Political%20Money%20Appeals%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“High Court Won’t Eye Challenges To Federal, State PAC Regulations”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69608>
Posted onJanuary 12, 2015 7:36 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69608>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bloomberg BNA
<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=61458335&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0g1e7t6m4&split=0>:
The Supreme Court has let stand federal and state rules for
political action committees, which faced new challenges in the wake
of recent court decisions that rolled back other campaign finance
regulations.
The move made it less likely the high court will make major changes
in campaign finance law in the near future.
The justices Jan. 12 denied petitions for certiorari filed by two
nonprofit organizations and their PACs: Vermont Right to Life
Committee (Vermont Right to Life Comm. Inc. v. Sorrell,U.S., No.
14-380, cert. denied 1/12/15) and Stop This Insanity Inc. (Stop This
Insanity Inc. v. FEC,U.S., No. 14-391, cert. denied 1/12/15).
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69608&title=%E2%80%9CHigh%20Court%20Won%E2%80%99t%20Eye%20Challenges%20To%20Federal%2C%20State%20PAC%20Regulations%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“26 voted twice in November but only counted once”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69606>
Posted onJanuary 12, 2015 7:31 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69606>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
News from Ohio
<http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/01/12/voted-twice-november-election/21643387/>:
At least 26 Hamilton County voters cast two ballots in the November
election, but no extra votes were actually counted.
Elections officials say they caught the double votes and are
investigating why they happened. If voters intentionally cast more
than one ballot, they will be referred to prosecutors for possible
criminal prosecution.
In most cases, though, investigators believe the votes were cast in
error. They say several ballots involved elderly people who sent in
absentee ballots and later cast provisional ballots at their polling
place.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69606&title=%E2%80%9C26%20voted%20twice%20in%20November%20but%20only%20counted%20once%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“California launches ethics inquiry of NOM and its major donors”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69604>
Posted onJanuary 12, 2015 7:30 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69604>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
San Diego Gay and Lesbian News reports.
<http://sdgln.com/news/2015/01/12/california-launches-ethics-inquiry-nom-and-its-major-donors#sthash.JfGeiVS3.dpbs>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69604&title=%E2%80%9CCalifornia%20launches%20ethics%20inquiry%20of%20NOM%20and%20its%20major%20donors%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
Breaking: SCOTUS Denies Review in Campaign Finance Case Approving
Some Limits on Independent Expenditures
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69601>
Posted onJanuary 12, 2015 7:04 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69601>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
This morning the Supreme Courtdenied cert.
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011215zor_3e47.pdf>inVermont
Right to Life v. Sorrell
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/vermont-right-to-life-committee-inc-v-sorrell/>,
out of the Second Circuit. I thought there was areasonable chance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62973>the Court would take the case.Here
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62960>is how I described the Second
Circuit opinion when it was issued:
Today a unanimous Second Circuit panel issued an 84-page opinion
inVermont Right to Life, Inc. v. Sorrell
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/12-2904_opn.pdf>.
Most of the opinion is devoted tor rejecting a number of arguments
raised against Vermont disclosure rules applied to independent
groups. This is quite consistent with the rulings of other courts
since/Citizens United//: /most disclosure challenges have failed.
But the most interesting part of the decision comes in the last 22
pages or so. As I understand it, Vermont Right to Life had two
committees, one which made only independent expenditures (what we
would now generally call a Super PAC) and another which made
contributions to candidates. The Second Circuit agreed that if there
were just the Super PAC, it would be unconstitutional to limit
contributions to the group (following the Citizens United-SpeechNow
line of cases). But VRTL did not dispute that the two different
groups were “enmeshed” with one another, and the Second Circuit held
that the overlap between the two groups provided a basis for
limiting contributions to/both/of them. A separate bank account is
not enough according to the Second Circuit, although it seems to be
enough in other circuits (CORRECTION: the Carey v. FEC case from a
federal D.C. court [this post originally mistakenly said Carey was a
D.C. Circuit case]). This sets up a Circuit split and the potential
for either en banc review in the Second Circuit or Supreme Court review.
Here is the relevant language about enmeshment beginning on page 68:
Although some courts have held that the creation of separate bank
accounts is by itself sufficient to treat the entity as an
independent‐expenditure‐only group, see, e.g.,Emily’s List v. Fed.
Election Comm’n, 581 F.3d 1, 12 (D.C. Cir. 2009),21 we do not
believe that is 1 enough to ensure there is a lack of
““prearrangement and coordination.” A separate bank account may be
relevant, but it does not prevent coordinated expenditures – whereby
funds are spent in coordination with the candidate. See Stop This
Insanity, Inc. Emp. Leadership Fund v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 902 F.
Supp. 2d 23, 43 (D.D.C. 2012). Nor is it enough to merely state in
organizational documents that a group is an
independent‐expenditure‐only group. Some actual organizational
separation between the groups must exist to assure that the
expenditures are in fact uncoordinated. We therefore decline to
adopt the reasoning of the Fourth Circuit in NCRL III. There, the
Fourth Circuit rejected North Carolina’s argument that NCRL‐FIPE (a
similar organization to VRLC‐FIPE) was “not actually an independent
expenditure committee because it [was] ‘closely intertwined’” with
NCRL and NCRL‐PAC, two organizations (similar to VRLC and VRLC‐PC)
that did not limit their activities to independent expenditures.
NCRL III, 525 F.3d at 294 n.8. The Fourth Circuit concluded based
only on NCRL‐FIPE’s organizational documents that the group was
“independent as a matter of law.”22 Id. We do not agree that
organizational documents alone satisfy the anti‐corruption concern
with coordinated expenditures that may justify contribution limits.
There is little guidance from other courts on examining coordination
of expenditures, but we conclude that, at a minimum, there must be
some organizational separation to lessen the risks of coordinated
expenditures. Separate bank accounts and organizational documents do
not ensure that “information [] will only be used for independent
expenditures.” Catholic Leadership Coal. of Tex. v. Reisman, No.
A‐12‐CA‐566‐SS, 2013 WL 2404066, at *177 (W.D. Tex. May 30, 2013)
(emphasis added) (“The informational wall [that plaintiff] asserts
it can raise to keep its independent expenditure activities entirely
separate from its direct campaign contribution activities is thin at
best. This triggers the precise dangers of corruption, and the
appearance of corruption, which motivated the Court in Buckley to
uphold the challenged contribution limits.”). As discussed below,
whether a group is functionally distinct from a
non‐independent‐expenditure‐only entity may depend on factors such
as the overlap of staff and resources, the lack of financial
independence, the coordination of activities, and the flow of
information between the entities.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69601&title=Breaking%3A%20SCOTUS%20Denies%20Review%20in%20Campaign%20Finance%20Case%20Approving%20Some%20Limits%20on%20Independent%20Expenditures&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
--
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/20150113/fe6e1679/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/20150113/fe6e1679/attachment.png>
View list directory