[EL] ELB News and Commentary 1/14/15

Rick Hasen rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Jan 14 07:16:56 PST 2015 

    “Groups Have Deep Ties to Campaigns and Parties They Support,
    Discrediting Key Assumption in Supreme Court’s Citizens United
    Decision” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69635>

Posted onJanuary 14, 2015 7:06 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69635>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Release <http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=4371>:

    Single-candidate super PACs represented 45 percent of all super PACs
    that spent at least $100,000 during this election cycle, a newPublic
    Citizen report shows <http://www.citizen.org/superconnected>.

    The report is the latest installment in a series Public Citizen
    began in October 2012 critiquing the assumption by the U.S. Supreme
    Court in its landmark 2010/Citizens United v. Federal Election
    Commission/decision that outside spending groups are by their nature
    independent of candidates and political parties.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69635&title=%E2%80%9CGroups%20Have%20Deep%20Ties%20to%20Campaigns%20and%20Parties%20They%20Support%2C%20Discrediting%20Key%20Assumption%20in%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%99s%20Citizens%20United%20Decision%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme 
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Election Spending 2014: Outside Spending in Senate Races Since
    ‘Citizens United'” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69633>

Posted onJanuary 14, 2015 7:03 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69633>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

New Brennan Center report 
<http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/election-spending-2014-outside-spending-senate-races-citizens-united>:

    *Key findings include:*

    /Outside spending by a tiny number of mega-rich donors has played an
    increasingly important role in each federal election since Citizens
    United./

      * Outside spending on Senate elections has*more than doubled since
        2010, increasing to $486 million in 2014*. (As with any analysis
        based on FEC numbers, the totals we report underestimate
        spending, since they do not include amounts spent on sham issue
        ads that are not required to be reported.)
      * Outside groups spent more than candidates in 2014’s closest races.
          o Across the 10 competitive races that we have candidate
            spending data for,*outside groups accounted for the greatest
            share of spending, or 47 percent*. Candidates lagged behind
            with 41 percent, and parties accounted for 12 percent.
          o Candidates were outspent by outside groups and parties
            together in eight of the 10 races. In four of the contests
            (Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, and North Carolina), candidates
            made only a third or less of the total expenditures.
          o Nonparty groups alone spent more than the candidates in
            seven of the 10 states.
      * Super PACs are funded by an exclusive few.
          o Of the 10 highest-spending super PACs in the most
            competitive Senate races in 2014,*all but two got less than
            one percent of their individual contributions from small
            donors of $200 or less*. Average contributions from donors
            of more than $200 were in the five- and six-figure range.
          o Across all federal elections since/Citizens United/was
            decided in 2010, there has been more than $1 billion in
            super PAC spending. Just 195 individuals and their spouses
            gave almost 60 percent of that money — more than $600 million.

    /The wealthy have used single-candidate groups to support candidates
    far in excess of federal contribution limits./

      * In the 11 competitive Senate races in 2014, 16
        candidate-specific groups each spent more than $1 million in
        Senate elections, twice as many as in the last election. Five of
        these groups spent more than $3 million; three of them beat the
        previous cycle’s record high of $5.9 million.
      * Single-candidate groups depend heavily on donors who have
        donated the legal limit to the favored candidate — several get
        all or almost all of their contributions from these
        double-dipping donors. Together, the 2014 buddy groups in
        toss-up races took in $14.2 million from individuals, of
        which*$9.2 million came from people who maxed out to the favored
        candidate*with either $2,600 (the limit for one election) or
        $5,200 (the limit for giving to both a candidate’s primary and
        general election campaigns).
      * The biggest double-dipping donors gave half a million dollars to
        single-candidate groups — almost 100 times the limit for
        candidate contributions.

    /Dark money played a critical role in funding a new Senate./

      * *Dark money in Senate elections has more than doubled since
        2010*, from $105 million in inflation-adjusted dollars, to $226
        million in 2014.
      * Almost half of the $1 billion in 2014 dollars that outside
        spenders plowed into Senate elections over the last three
        cycles, $485 million, was dark money.
      * In the 11 most competitive races in 2014,*dark money comprised
        59 percent of nonparty outside spending*. In the 10 competitive
        races that we have candidate spending data for, dark money
        comprised 28 percent of total spending (candidate, party, and
        outside group).
      * *The winners in the 11 most competitive races in 2014 together
        had more than $131 million in dark money supporting them*— 71
        percent of the nonparty outside spending in their favor.


Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69633&title=%E2%80%9CElection%20Spending%202014%3A%20Outside%20Spending%20in%20Senate%20Races%20Since%20%E2%80%98Citizens%20United%27%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme 
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “New conservative group aims to build GOP support for reducing
    influence of big donors” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69631>

Posted onJanuary 14, 2015 7:02 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69631>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo reports. 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-conservative-group-aims-to-build-gop-support-for-reducing-influence-of-big-donors/2015/01/13/3fc5e0b8-9b3f-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69631&title=%E2%80%9CNew%20conservative%20group%20aims%20to%20build%20GOP%20support%20for%20reducing%20influence%20of%20big%20donors%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


    “Houston Has a Problem: The Constitutional Problems with Temporal
    Bans on Contributions” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69629>

Posted onJanuary 14, 2015 7:00 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69629>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bauer blogs. 
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2015/01/houston-problem-constitutional-problems-temporal-bans-contributions/>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69629&title=%E2%80%9CHouston%20Has%20a%20Problem%3A%20The%20Constitutional%20Problems%20with%20Temporal%20Bans%20on%20Contributions%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


    “Will Won’t? Illinois County Plans to Fight Same-Day Registration”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69627>

Posted onJanuary 14, 2015 6:58 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69627>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

A Chapinblog. 
<http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/electionacademy/2015/01/will_wont_illinois_county_plan.php>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69627&title=%E2%80%9CWill%20Won%E2%80%99t%3F%20Illinois%20County%20Plans%20to%20Fight%20Same-Day%20Registration%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>


    “5 Years After ‘Citizens United,’ SuperPACs Continue To Grow”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69625>

Posted onJanuary 13, 2015 8:54 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69625>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Peter Overby reports 
<http://www.npr.org/2015/01/13/377024687/five-years-after-citizens-united-superpacs-continue-to-grow>for 
NPR.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69625&title=%E2%80%9C5%20Years%20After%20%E2%80%98Citizens%20United%2C%E2%80%99%20SuperPACs%20Continue%20To%20Grow%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme 
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “In campaign finance case, city to argue against its own rules”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69623>

Posted onJanuary 13, 2015 8:49 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69623>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Houston Chronicle 
<http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/houston/article/In-campaign-finance-case-city-to-argue-against-6010768.php?t=9ef8cd41cccf61987c&cmpid=twitter-premium&utm_content=buffer27215&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer>: 
“City officials will argue that the city’s election ordinance is 
unconstitutional as part of a strategy to strengthen their position in a 
lawsuit that could shape the early stages of this year’s mayor’s race.”

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69623&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20campaign%20finance%20case%2C%20city%20to%20argue%20against%20its%20own%20rules%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>


    “Watchdogs Urge New Jersey Ethics Commission to Investigate Gov.
    Christie’s Free Flights & Tickets to Cowboys Games”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69621>

Posted onJanuary 13, 2015 11:47 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69621>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

See here 
<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2752:january-13-2015-watchdogs-urge-new-jersey-ethics-commission-to-investigate-gov-christies-free-flights-a-tickets-to-cowboys-games&catid=63:legal-center-press-releases&Itemid=61>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69621&title=%E2%80%9CWatchdogs%20Urge%20New%20Jersey%20Ethics%20Commission%20to%20Investigate%20Gov.%20Christie%E2%80%99s%20Free%20Flights%20%26%20Tickets%20to%20Cowboys%20Games%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inconflict of interest laws <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>


    “Selma recollections from one who was there”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69618>

Posted onJanuary 13, 2015 8:38 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69618>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Must-read Brian Landsberg. 
<http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/california-forum/article5593257.html>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D69618&title=%E2%80%9CSelma%20recollections%20from%20one%20who%20was%20there%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


    “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>

-- 
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
http://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/20150114/616c05c1/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/20150114/616c05c1/attachment.png>

View list directory