[EL] ELB News and Commentary 5/17/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Thu Jul 16 20:02:16 PDT 2015
Quick Blog Break…. <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74400>
Posted onJuly 16, 2015 8:00 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74400>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Back Monday. Have a great weekend.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74400&title=Quick%20Blog%20Break%E2%80%A6.&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
Conservative Echo Chamber in WI John Doe Case
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74398>
Posted onJuly 16, 2015 4:37 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74398>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Brendan Fischer
<http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/07/12887/five-things-know-about-scott-walker-john-doe-ruling>:
5) Justices jumped right into the right-wing echo chamber
The legal issues before the Court involved the scope of Wisconsin
campaign finance law and procedural issues surrounding the John Doe.
Although right-wing media outlets have hyperventilated for months
about the “paramilitary style raids” allegedly used in the
investigation, WiCFG director Eric O’Keefe and others that filed
the barrage of lawsuits against the investigation never challenged
the methods used in executing the search warrants.
Former prosecutors and law enforcement professionalshave said
<http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/04/12816/scott-walker-GOP-prosecutor-john-doe> that
the methods used were not abnormal for investigating white-collar crime.
Yet the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s right-wing justices couldn’t help
but repeat inflated claims made by right-wing media outlets. Justice
Gableman denounced the “pre-dawn, armed, paramilitary-style raids in
which bright floodlights were used to illuminate the targets’
homes.” Justice Annette Ziegler devoted her entire concurrence to
opining about the constitutionality of the alleged tactics used in
executing search warrants, even though the Court never conducted any
factual findings about the matter and never held oral arguments
where the issue might have been addressed.
“I was denied the opportunity to appropriately respond to the
campaign of misinformation about how and why the investigation was
conducted,” Schmitz said in a statement. “All of these search
warrants were audio-recorded and it is wrong for the court to accept
as true the information alleged by some of the Unnamed Movants and
their media outlets.”
In the absence of a genuine factual record, Ziegler and Gableman
instead relied on highly-conflicted right-wing news outlets for
their “facts.”
Perhaps the most extraordinary example was the Court’s multiple
citations to the Franklin Center for Government and Public
Integrity’s “Wisconsin Watchdog” website. That outlet has produced
222 stories attacking the John Doe but without routinely disclosing
that it was launched and funded by Eric O’Keefe, WiCFG’s director
and the chief plaintiff in the lawsuits challenging the probe.
Franklin Center’s president Jason Stverak used to work for
O’Keefe. Its Director of Special Projects, John Connors, is also
president of Citizens for a Strong America, another group involved
in the investigation and which is funded entirely by WiCFG.
Additionally, Franklin Center/Wisconsin Watchdog’s funding has come
in large part from the Bradley Foundation, which is led by Walker
campaign chair Michael Grebe. The Court also cited a
sensational/National Review/ article on the John Doe “raids” by
David French, the past president of the Foundation on Individual
Rights in Education (FIRE), which received more than $1.3 million
from the Bradley Foundation since 1999.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74398&title=Conservative%20Echo%20Chamber%20in%20WI%20John%20Doe%20Case&description=>
Posted inchicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
“First on CNN: Cruz super PAC’s plan to win presidency”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74396>
Posted onJuly 16, 2015 4:24 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74396>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Teddy Scheifer for CNN
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/16/politics/ted-cruz-super-pac-plan/index.html>:
The $38 million super PAC supporting Ted Cruz plans to highlight
polarizing issues as part of a full-throttle plan to turn out the
white evangelical voters that can power him to victory, a new
document reveals.
Keep the Promise, whose strategy is detailed in a 51-slide
PowerPoint presentation titled “Can He Win?” recently posted to the
organization’s website, mercilessly attacks 2012 presidential
candidate Mitt Romney as unable to elevate “wedge issues,” or
divisive social issues that polarize voters, to the forefront of the
Republican debate. Calling Romney a “terrible candidate with a
terrible campaign,” the slides pillory him as a Republican who
managed to squander winnable states just like every other “loser”
moderate candidate….
The motivation for posting the plan was unclear. Dathan Voelter, the
treasurer of the super PAC, did not immediately respond to a request
for comment Thursday afternoon.
The slides, which say they were authored by a person named Chris
Sipes and last edited on Sunday, come days after Cruz’s campaign
posted hours of unscored B-roll footage to an old YouTube account.
The super PAC, which can’t legally coordinate with the campaign,
originally called on Cruz to upload exactly that. Sipes could not
immediately be reached for comment.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74396&title=%E2%80%9CFirst%20on%20CNN%3A%20Cruz%20super%20PAC%E2%80%99s%20plan%20to%20win%20presidency%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Rep. King Carries Acorn in Pocket to Remember Taking Group’s “Scalp”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74394>
Posted onJuly 16, 2015 4:20 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74394>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico on the Planned Parenthood controversy
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/republicans-planned-parenthood-abortion-push-120263.html>ends
with this note:
While abortion issues can be sensitive for moderate Republicans, the
GOP is betting the video will turn off many voters, allowing them to
press their case without political blowback.
And conservatives are betting the organization will take a financial
hit. King, for example, was one of the first lawmakers to urge the
defunding of low-income housing group ACORN, which went belly up
following similar undercover videos suggesting criminal activity.
To this day, he keeps a tiny acorn in his pocket to remember his
crusade. Now, he’s got his eyes on another organization.
“This represents ACORN’s scalp,” King said off the House floor
Thursday, pulling the acorn out of his pocket. “Ask me after the
appropriations cycle and see if I have a talisman in my pocket for
Planned Parenthood’s.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74394&title=Rep.%20King%20Carries%20Acorn%20in%20Pocket%20to%20Remember%20Taking%20Group%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%9CScalp%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“The Case Against the Case for Earmarks”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74392>
Posted onJuly 16, 2015 2:34 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74392>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Smart Mark
Schmitt<http://www.vox.com/2015/7/15/8959731/earmarks-congress>at Vox.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74392&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Case%20Against%20the%20Case%20for%20Earmarks%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“The debate over state polarization and campaign finance laws
continues” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74390>
Posted onJuly 16, 2015 2:33 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74390>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Lee Drutman:
<http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2015/07/16-state-polarization-campaign-finance-drutman>
One of the fundamental arguments in the “Political Realism” debate
is whether or not strong political parties could make government
work better. One way to assess party strength is to look at how much
money parties can raise and spend.
In this vein, political scientistsRay LaRaja and Brian Schaffner
have claimed
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/07/21/want-to-reduce-polarization-give-parties-more-money/>that
removing limits on party funding activity would make politics less
polarized. I’ve been skeptical of this claim. In fact, in a short
analysis,I found that the opposite
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/06/23/can-unlimited-contributions-to-political-parties-really-reduce-polarization/>is
more likely the case—that states with limits on party fundraising
appear to be/less/polarized, though I cautioned against inferring
too much from this pattern.
LaRaja and Schaffner havenow responded
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/07/08/unlimited-party-fundraising-and-spending-gives-you-less-polarized-legislatures-discuss/>and
previewed their forthcoming book/, Campaign Finance and Political
Polarization: When Purists Prevail/, which will be out this fall
from the University of Michigan Press. So, a response to their
response is now in order.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74390&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20debate%20over%20state%20polarization%20and%20campaign%20finance%20laws%20continues%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,political
parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,political polarization
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>
“Expert: High turnout not evidence that North Carolina’s law isn’t
burdensome for black voters” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74388>
Posted onJuly 16, 2015 2:14 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74388>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Winston-Salem Journal reports
<http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/expert-high-turnout-not-evidence-that-north-carolina-s-law/article_79586890-2be1-11e5-bb62-471f7cfa0fac.html>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74388&title=%E2%80%9CExpert%3A%20High%20turnout%20not%20evidence%20that%20North%20Carolina%E2%80%99s%20law%20isn%E2%80%99t%20burdensome%20for%20black%20voters%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Former majority leader lobbying for online gambling opponents”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74386>
Posted onJuly 16, 2015 1:26 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74386>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Hill reports.
<http://thehill.com/policy/technology/247994-former-majority-leader-lobbying-for-online-gambling-opponents>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74386&title=%E2%80%9CFormer%20majority%20leader%20lobbying%20for%20online%20gambling%20opponents%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,lobbying
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
“Voting Information Project makes official data available wherever
voters look for it – online” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74384>
Posted onJuly 16, 2015 12:46 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74384>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Electionline <http://www.electionline.org/index.php/electionline-weekly>:
In 2008,The Pew Charitable Trusts
<http://www.pewtrusts.org/en>andGoogle
<https://www.google.com/>realized voters were having trouble finding
accurate voting information. Millions of people were looking for
answers to three main questions: “Where do I vote?”, “What’s on my
ballot?”, and “How do I navigate the election process?” but no
standardized, reliable, and official source for this information
existed.
Pew partnered with Google and the states to address the issue by
creating the Voting Information Project (VIP). Pew works on VIP with
state election officials to develop cutting-edge solutions to
standardize and publish the data, and Google and other partners have
ensured that voters find data where they’re looking for it most —
online. The results of this partnership have been dramatic.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74384&title=%E2%80%9CVoting%20Information%20Project%20makes%20official%20data%20available%20wherever%20voters%20look%20for%20it%20%E2%80%93%20online%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“Delaware wins appeal, can enforce law on election advertising”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74382>
Posted onJuly 16, 2015 10:57 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74382>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Reuters
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/16/us-usa-politics-delaware-disclosures-idUSKCN0PQ24420150716>:
A federal appeals court said Delaware may enforce a state election
law requiring advocacy groups that run political advertising to
reveal their donors.
Thursday’s 3-0 decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Philadelphia reversed a lower court ruling that had favored Delaware
Strong Families, a conservative-leaning group that publishes “voter
guides” ahead of elections.
The group objected to a 2013 state law requiring third-party
advertisers to reveal their donors’ identities if they spend more
than $500 in an election cycle on ads that refer to specific
candidates, even if they do not recommend how to vote.
You can read the Third Circuit’s opinionhere
<http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/141887p.pdf>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74382&title=%E2%80%9CDelaware%20wins%20appeal%2C%20can%20enforce%20law%20on%20election%20advertising%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Depositions show Florida GOP push for favorable Senate lines;
Consultants drew maps, recruited advocates for public hearings
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74380>
Posted onJuly 16, 2015 10:38 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74380>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/depositions-show-florida-gop-push-for-favorable-senate-lines-120235.html>:
On Nov. 29, the same day Krames sent out the updated list, he also
sent an email to Wiggins, a state G.O.P. staffer, to keep him
updated on the covert public relations campaign to push the maps
they supported.
“Andrew, for your reference here are the goals we have set for this
portion of the campaign,” he wrote.
The goals included distributing “all comment in support of proposed
maps” by Dec. 5, 2011 and making a minimum of 100 emails, and 50
phone calls to lawmakers and the creation of 10 YouTube videos,
according to emails.
Months before the push to support the already-submitted maps, Jones,
the leader of the Alachua County G.O.P., drew up talking points and
“roles” people were to play at a July 2011 redistricting public
hearing held in Gainesville.
As they prepared to redraw the state political lines, lawmakers on
redistricting committees held 26 public hearings across the state to
seek input on how the lines should change. They used the meetings to
tout the 2012 redistricting process as the most transparent in state
history.
The day of the July 13 hearing, Jones sent him a set of talking
points that indicated he was supposed to play the role of someone
confused by Fair District amendments.
“Dick, why do I have to be the confused guy?” Patton jokingly
responded in July 2011.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74380&title=%E2%80%9CDepositions%20show%20Florida%20GOP%20push%20for%20favorable%20Senate%20lines%3B%20Consultants%20drew%20maps%2C%20recruited%20advocates%20for%20public%20hearings&description=>
Posted inchicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>,redistricting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
Statement from Prosecutor in John Doe Case: Facts of Raids are
Disputed, Case Will Hurt Wisconsin Voters
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74378>
Posted onJuly 16, 2015 10:27 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74378>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here’s the statement:
From:*Francis Schmitz*
Date: Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:17 PM
Subject: Statement regarding Wisconsin Supreme court ruling
To:
I am disappointed with today’s ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme
Court and respectfully disagree with the conclusions drawn by the
majority which end the investigation. The decision represents a loss
for all of the citizens of Wisconsin — independents, Democrats and
Republicans alike. It defies common sense that a Wisconsin resident
of average means who gives $25 to a campaign has his or her name
publicly reported under the law but, according to this decision,
someone who gives, for example*,*$100,000 to a group which closely
coordinates with the same campaign can remain anonymous. The
United States Supreme Court has fittingly characterized such
donations as “disguised contributions” to the candidate. As stated
in Wisconsin Statute 11.001, “[w]hen the true source of support or
extent of support is not fully disclosed, or when a candidate
becomes overly dependent upon large private contributors, the
democratic process is subjected to a potential corrupting influence.”
Particular justices assert as fact many allegations that I
specifically denied in my response materials. There has been no
fact-finding hearing conducted at any level establishing, for
example, that search warrants were executed unprofessionally or that
persons were denied an opportunity to contact their attorneys. All
of these search warrants were audio-recorded and it is wrong for the
court to accept as true the information alleged by some of the
Unnamed Movants and their media outlets.
It is also unfortunate that the citizens of Wisconsin will not have
the benefit of a public discussion of the facts and the law because
the court decided not to allow oral argument. Consequently, I was
denied the opportunity to appropriately respond to the campaign of
misinformation about how and why the investigation was conducted.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74378&title=Statement%20from%20Prosecutor%20in%20John%20Doe%20Case%3A%20Facts%20of%20Raids%20are%20Disputed%2C%20Case%20Will%20Hurt%20Wisconsin%20Voters&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
--
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/20150716/6b6ce520/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/20150716/6b6ce520/attachment.png>
View list directory