[EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/20/15

[Rick Hasen]

    “Seeing Crowd, G.O.P. Donors Holding Back”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74431>

Posted onJuly 20, 2015 11:32 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74431>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/us/seeing-crowd-gop-donors-holding-back.html?ref=politics&_r=0>:

    Despite a wealth of choices in a crowded primary field, the vast
    majority of high-level Republican donors and fund-raisers have not
    yet backed any candidate financially, magnifying the importance of
    the coming debates as the presidential hopefuls seek to impress
    potential backers.

    Only about a fifth of the 1,000 or so fund-raisers and their spouses
    who rallied aroundMitt Romney
    <http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/r/mitt_romney/background/index.html?inline=nyt-per>,
    the Republican nominee in 2012, have given money to any of the 2016
    candidates, according to a New York Times review of fund-raising
    records reported by the candidates last week.

    Those who remain uncommitted — hundreds of volunteer “bundlers” who
    could collect contributions from their friends and business
    associates — represent a huge pool of untapped campaign cash,
    potentially hundreds of millions of dollars, that could remake the
    primary campaign.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74431&title=%E2%80%9CSeeing%20Crowd%2C%20G.O.P.%20Donors%20Holding%20Back%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    “Now for the Hard Part: Redistricting”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74429>

Posted onJuly 20, 2015 11:29 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74429>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The /Daily Business Review / 
<http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/id=1202732566380/Now-for-the-Hard-Part-Redistricting?slreturn=20150620142040>on 
what’s next in FL.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74429&title=%E2%80%9CNow%20for%20the%20Hard%20Part%3A%20Redistricting%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


    “Jeb Bush says he would make it harder for lawmakers to become
    lobbyists” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74427>

Posted onJuly 20, 2015 11:19 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74427>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Wapo reports. 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/20/jeb-bush-says-he-would-make-it-harder-for-lawmakers-to-become-lobbyists/>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74427&title=%E2%80%9CJeb%20Bush%20says%20he%20would%20make%20it%20harder%20for%20lawmakers%20to%20become%20lobbyists%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inlobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>


    “Why don’t Americans vote? We’re ‘too busy.'”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74425>

Posted onJuly 20, 2015 11:15 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74425>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo reports 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/17/why-dont-americans-vote-were-too-busy/?wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74425&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20don%E2%80%99t%20Americans%20vote%3F%20We%E2%80%99re%20%E2%80%98too%20busy.%27%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>


    Justice Alito on Citizens United, Redistricting in Bill Kristol
    Interview <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74423>

Posted onJuly 20, 2015 11:14 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74423>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Transcript 
<http://conversationswithbillkristol.org/transcript/samuel-alito-transcript/>(video 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd2VzBmr6YM>):

    KRISTOL: And I read somewhere that [your father] sort of personally
    had to do the redistricting of the legislative district after the
    Supreme Court insisted on one man, one vote.

    ALITO: I remember lying in bed listening to this clanking of a
    mechanical – it’s hard to believe – a mechanical adding machine. He
    was downstairs, and he was drawing maps to try to produce districts
    for the Senate and for the Assembly that were as close as possible
    to equal in population just using a mechanical adding machine….

    ALITO: It was happening a lot. People were making up, you know,
    claiming to have won the Congressional Medal of Honor, that’s what
    this Mr. Alvarez did, said, “Well, I won the Congressional Medal of
    Honor.” Well, he had done no such thing.

    And the Court struck down that statue six to three. But I think what
    – those cases involve a diversion, I think, of attention from the
    core, from what is most important about the guarantee of freedom of
    speech.

    I think freedom of speech protects and serves many purposes, but I
    believe and I think the Court has said that at the core, whatever
    other purposes it may serve, it is vitally important for democratic
    self-government. If people cannot debate public issues, if they
    cannot debate the relative merits of political candidates, then
    democracy is basically impossible. So I think that is the core of
    the protection. These cases involving depictions of animal videos,
    depictions of animal cruelty, the protest at military funerals,
    flashy claiming to have won the Congressional Medal of Honor don’t
    involve anything like that.

    And if we lose focus on what is at the core of the free-speech
    protection by concentrating on these peripheral issues, I think,
    there’s a real danger that our free-speech cases will go off in a
    bad direction. In the cases that we’ve had that I think involve core
    free speech, the example, the chief example that I would give from
    my time on the court is the/Citizens United/case. The Court has –
    now that came out five to four, protecting the right to freedom of
    speech, but it was five to four. And it remains very controversial.

    My former colleague John Paul Stevens has written a book
    recommending a number of constitutional amendments to correct the
    decisions he really disagreed with during his time on the Court and
    that’s one of them. He wants an amendment to the First Amendment,
    which is pretty remarkable, to overrule the decision in /Citizens
    United/./Citizens United/, I think, is core political speech. It is
    a video about a candidate for the Presidency of the United States.
    If that’s not protected by First Amendment free speech, by the First
    Amendment free speech guarantee, I don’t know what is.

    So on things that are at the core, the Court has been shakier than
    it has been on these things that are at the periphery.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74423&title=Justice%20Alito%20on%20Citizens%20United%2C%20Redistricting%20in%20Bill%20Kristol%20Interview&description=>
Posted incampaign finance 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,redistricting 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>


    “Delayed FEC Cases Match Romney Super PAC Complaints”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74421>

Posted onJuly 20, 2015 11:00 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74421>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bloomberg BNA: 
<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=72985529&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0h0c0c1d1&split=0>

    The Federal Election Commission apparently has struggled for nearly
    four years to decide what to do about allegations that millions of
    dollars in contributions to Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign
    super PAC violated rules against making contributions under another
    name.
    Paul S. Ryan, an attorney with the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center
    (CLC), helped draft three FEC complaints filed in August 2011
    involving the super PAC supporting Romney, who became the Republican
    nominee in 2012. The Romney super PAC was known as Restore Our Future.
    The complaints were filed by CLC and Democracy 21, another nonprofit
    that supports strong campaign finance regulation.
    Ryan told Bloomberg BNA that these three complaints appeared to
    match the three oldest pending enforcement matters listed on
    amemorandum and chart
    <http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2015/documents/mtgdoc_15-41-a.pdf>presented
    by FEC Commissioner Steven Walther July 16 and detailing the FEC’s
    current enforcement backlog (4053 Money & Politics Report, 7/17/15
    <http://news.bna.com/mpdm/display/link_res.adp?fedfid=72985529&fname=a0h0a9y2x2&vname=mpebulallissues>).

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74421&title=%E2%80%9CDelayed%20FEC%20Cases%20Match%20Romney%20Super%20PAC%20Complaints%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>


    “John Doe ruling fuels call to punish prosecutors”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74419>

Posted onJuly 20, 2015 10:57 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74419>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Wisconsin State Journal 
<http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_d93ecc75-faff-5680-8130-5d813461369a.html>:

    The director of a conservative group targeted in the John Doe probe
    the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently shut down is saying Gov. Scott
    Walker will be asked to fire the elected district attorney who
    started the investigation and that lawyers who participated in it
    should be disbarred.

    But a former state Supreme Court justice said such threats are
    “shocking and outrageous,” and she blamed members of the current
    court majority with fueling such talk by including overheated
    rhetoric and “very strange” citations from magazine, newspaper and
    Internet articles in the ruling announced Thursday….

    The John Doe special prosecutor, Schmitz, wouldn’t discuss his
    timetable for deciding whether he would ask the U.S. Supreme Court
    to consider an appeal, or say when he planned to comply with
    thestate court’sorder to return confiscated property and destroy
    copies of records gathered in the investigation.

    However, Schmitz issued a statement saying that some justices
    ignored his responses denying certain allegations. “There has been
    no fact-finding hearing conducted at any level establishing, for
    example, that search warrants were executed unprofessionally,”
    Schmitz said in the statement. “It is wrong for the court to accept
    as true the information alleged by some of the Unnamed Movants
    (plaintiffs and other interested parties) and their media outlets.

    Schmitz also disputed the court’s reasoning in declaring the state
    campaign finance law unconstitutional, noting outside groups don’t
    need to disclose donors, leaving the public in the dark about who
    funds politicians.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74419&title=%E2%80%9CJohn%20Doe%20ruling%20fuels%20call%20to%20punish%20prosecutors%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


    Charlie White to Try #SCOTUS After Losing in Indiana High Court
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74417>

Posted onJuly 20, 2015 10:54 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74417>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NWI.com. 
<http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/indiana-high-court-denies-charlie-white-appeal/article_00d786c2-380e-5937-82dc-a54bfbadf2c4.html>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74417&title=Charlie%20White%20to%20Try%20%23SCOTUS%20After%20Losing%20in%20Indiana%20High%20Court&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,SOS White 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=13>


    Bauer Sees More Heat than Light in John Doe Debate
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74415>

Posted onJuly 20, 2015 10:52 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74415>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Here 
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2015/07/campaign-finance-states-fight-wisconsin/>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74415&title=Bauer%20Sees%20More%20Heat%20than%20Light%20in%20John%20Doe%20Debate&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>


    Doonesbury on CJ Roberts and the Voting Wars
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74413>

Posted onJuly 20, 2015 10:50 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74413>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

See here. <http://doonesbury.washingtonpost.com/strip/archive/2015/7/19>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74413&title=Doonesbury%20on%20CJ%20Roberts%20and%20the%20Voting%20Wars&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting 
Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,Voting Rights Act 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>


    “Senators resist the Internet, leave voters in the dark”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74411>

Posted onJuly 20, 2015 10:49 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74411>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CPI reports 
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/07/20/17690/senators-resist-internet-leave-voters-dark>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74411&title=%E2%80%9CSenators%20resist%20the%20Internet%2C%20leave%20voters%20in%20the%20dark%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal 
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>


    Scott Walker Wants to Replace Nonpartisan WI Election Administration
    Agency with Partisans <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74409>

Posted onJuly 20, 2015 10:48 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74409>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Ugh: 
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walker-signs-bill-banning-abortions-after-20-weeks-b99540949z1-317539131.html>

    Also Monday, Walker argued for replacing the state Government
    Accountability Board, which is run by retired judges and oversees
    state elections and ethics laws. The board has taken criticism from
    conservatives on a number of issues including its participation into
    an investigation into Walker’s campaign that was halted last week by
    the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

    Walker didn’t rule out the possibility that the judges now on the
    board would be replaced by partisan appointees in a replacement agency.

    “It’s appropriate to just get rid of it and replace it with
    something that’s ultimately accountable and fair to the people of
    the state of Wisconsin,” Walker said.

    Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) criticized Walker’s
    statement Monday, saying that those changes sought by Republicans
    would make the board less fair and accountable, not more.

    “Clearly they want to have not election watchdogs. They want to have
    election lap dogs,” Barca said.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D74409&title=Scott%20Walker%20Wants%20to%20Replace%20Nonpartisan%20WI%20Election%20Administration%20Agency%20with%20Partisans&description=>
Posted inelection administration 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>


-- 
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/20150720/c1ac23c7/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/20150720/c1ac23c7/attachment.png>