[EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/22/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Sun Jun 21 21:08:33 PDT 2015
Will #SCOTUS Hear Renzi “Speech or Debate” Case, Impacting Federal
Case of Congressional Corruption, Next Term?
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73655>
Posted onJune 21, 2015 8:35 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73655>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Courtmay not decide
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-1082.htm>what
to do with this case before the end of this term, butRenzi v. U.S
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/renzi-v-united-states-2/>.
presents a meaty Speech or Debate clause issue, andthe amicus brief of
Stanley
Brand<http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/14-1082-tsac-Brand-et-al.pdf>et
al. makes a compelling argument for the Court to take the case. Here is
the question presented:
(1) Whether legislative fact-finding by an individual Member of
Congress is a legislative act protected by the Speech or Debate
Clause; (2) whether a Member of Congress’ official actions to
develop, evaluate, and draft legislation that are undertaken prior
to the formal introduction of a bill are legislative acts protected
by the Speech or Debate Clause; and (3) whether a Member of Congress
can waive the protections of the Speech or Debate Clause only by
explicitly and unequivocally renouncing them.
At stake is how much the Speech or Debate clause limits prosecutions of
members of Congress for corrupt dealings by limiting proof of corruption
based on legislative acts.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73655&title=Will%20%23SCOTUS%20Hear%20Renzi%20%E2%80%9CSpeech%20or%20Debate%E2%80%9D%20Case%2C%20Impacting%20Federal%20Case%20of%20Congressional%20Corruption%2C%20Next%20Term%3F&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Lobbyists: Easy target, easy touch; Presidential candidates assail
lobbyists but also willingly take cash from them”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73653>
Posted onJune 21, 2015 4:28 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73653>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/lobbyists-easy-target-easy-touch-119263.html>:
Bush, whose closest advisers in recent months — including Mike
Murphy and Al Cardenas — have worked for lobbying firms, isn’t alone
in criticizing the industry. As presidential candidates look to
portray themselves as Washington outsiders, the lobbying industry
has emerged as a common, easy target.
Lobbying consistently ranks at the bottom of Gallup’s survey of the
most honest and ethical professions, highlighting voters’ distaste
for the industry. But lobbying firms rank high on the list of
fundraising stops for presidential hopefuls. Earlier this year, Bush
headlined fundraisers at lobby shop BGR Group and at the Washington
offices of trade group National Association of
Wholesaler-Distributors. In May, several lobbyists hosted a “Mojitos
with Marco” fundraiser for Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and Wisconsin
Gov. Scott Walker courted K Street donors at an event organized by
the American Beverage Association’s Kevin Keane and BGR Group’s Bob
Wood.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73653&title=%E2%80%9CLobbyists%3A%20Easy%20target%2C%20easy%20touch%3B%20Presidential%20candidates%20assail%20lobbyists%20but%20also%20willingly%20take%20cash%20from%20them%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,lobbying
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
“Influence of Money in Politics a Top Concern for Voters”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73651>
Posted onJune 21, 2015 4:18 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73651>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WSJ Wash. Wire
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/21/influence-of-money-in-politics-a-top-concern-for-voters/>:
Americans express far more alarm about the influence of money in
politics than the fact that another Bush and Clinton are running for
the White House, a newWall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-2016-hopefuls-carly-fiorina-ben-carson-mike-huckabee-gain-ground-in-wsj-nbc-news-poll-1434891601>.
Asked to rank their top concerns about the upcoming presidential
election, one-third of Americans pointed to the sway that companies
and wealthy individuals may have over the outcome, more than for any
of five other issues tested.
Democrats were most likely to cite the influence of corporations and
wealthy individuals as the top concern, with roughly half of
self-described liberals and Democratic primary voters ranking it as
their primary anxiety as the 2016 White House race gears up. Only
21% of core Republican voters said it was their top concern.
Republicans, meanwhile, are more worried about the tone of the
campaign, with a plurality of 37% saying they worry most about the
emphasis on negative advertising at the expense of more substantive
policy debates. The influence of wealthy donors was the primary
concern for independents, according to the survey, conducted June 14-18.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73651&title=%E2%80%9CInfluence%20of%20Money%20in%20Politics%20a%20Top%20Concern%20for%20Voters%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“What’s the Matter with Polling?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73649>
Posted onJune 21, 2015 4:16 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73649>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Cliff Zukin NYT oped
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/whats-the-matter-with-polling.html?ref=opinion> concludes:
We are less sure how to conduct good survey research now than we
were four years ago, and much less than eight years ago. And don’t
look for too much help in what the polling aggregation sites may be
offering. They, too, have been falling further off the track of
late. It’s not their fault. They are only as good as the raw
material they have to work with.
In short, polls and pollsters are going to be less reliable. We may
not even know when we’re off base. What this means for 2016 is
anybody’s guess.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73649&title=%E2%80%9CWhat%E2%80%99s%20the%20Matter%20with%20Polling%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Republicans lag behind on voter information”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73647>
Posted onJune 21, 2015 4:13 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73647>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
LAT
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-republicans-voter-data-20150618-story.html>:
The Republican National Committee’s plans for the 2014 midterm
election went far beyond taking control of Congress: They were to
put in motion a massive technology push aimed at capturing the White
House in 2016.
The party vowed to catch up with — even leapfrog over — the Internet
wizards who helped orchestrate Barack Obama’s victories.
The blueprint called for a nationally synchronized technology
platform to collect every piece of information obtained about voters
by every Republican running for office, whether for city council or
the U.S. Senate. The eventual presidential nominee would be endowed
with reams of real-time data that could be used to target voters
with unprecedented efficiency and precision.
The honest truth is Democrats are ahead of Republicans because of
their fundamental belief in the collective.– Vincent Harris, digital
director, Mitch McConnell reelection campaign
But that promised innovation has run into the head winds of contract
disputes, suspicions about data firms’ political loyalties and
friction with the tea party. Voter information is being collected
out in the field by a jumble of firms not always working in concert.
Among them is a Koch brothers-funded outfit that one day could
eclipse the national GOP’s.
As a result, Republicans are heading toward 2016 with that crucial
data being collected in systems that don’t communicate seamlessly,
experts say — and may not by election day.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73647&title=%E2%80%9CRepublicans%20lag%20behind%20on%20voter%20information%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Former LA Supervisor Yaroslavsky Favors Unlimited Contributions to
Candidates <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73645>
Posted onJune 20, 2015 1:51 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73645>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
LAT oped
<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-yaroslavsky-fixing-government-20150621-story.html#page=1>:
Neither the Supreme Court nor Congress is likely to change course
anytime soon. In the meantime, something needs to be done.
Public financing of campaigns, something I didn’t always embrace,
has clearly made a difference in Los Angeles city elections. It has
given candidates who couldn’t self-fund, or couldn’t count on
special interests to fund an “independent expenditure” campaign on
their behalf, a chance to be heard. To broaden that opportunity,
local jurisdictions should institute or expand public financing laws
as much as their treasuries will allow.
However, there aren’t enough funds in any city budget to completely
level the playing field against special-interest campaigns. In Los
Angeles alone, it would take tens of millions of dollars per
election to adequately fund community candidates.
So as long as Citizens United and its analogs are in force,
fundraising limits on candidate-controlled committees should be
lifted to give independent-minded or community-based candidates a
credible chance to win.
It is patently unfair for a candidate to be strictly limited in the
amount he or she can raise from a supporter, while his opponent can
benefit from massive, unlimited expenditures on his or her behalf. A
community-based candidate does not have to match the spending of his
better-funded opponent dollar for dollar, but he needs to have a
sufficient war chest to be heard in the electoral competition.
Ugh.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73645&title=Former%20LA%20Supervisor%20Yaroslavsky%20Favors%20Unlimited%20Contributions%20to%20Candidates&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
Emily Bazelon NYT Mag Piece on Judges Changing Their Minds Talks
Posner and Stevens on Voter ID <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73643>
Posted onJune 20, 2015 1:38 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73643>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Fascinating piece called Better Judgment:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/magazine/better-judgment.html>
Posner’s attention to consequences can lead him, like other
empirically minded judges, to change his thinking. Eight years ago
inCrawford v. Marion County Election Board
<http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1256297.html>, an early
challenge to a state law requiring voters to show photo
identification at the polls, Posner ruled in favor of Indiana’s
voter-ID law, in part because none of the plaintiffs who challenged
it said that the law would prevent them from voting. Dissenting from
Posner’s ruling, one of his colleagues said that Indiana, too,
lacked evidence of the existence of voter fraud, which the law was
ostensibly intended to combat. It was clear enough, the colleague
wrote, that thousands of poor and elderly voters would be
disenfranchised.
Six years later, in “Reflections on Judging
<http://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Judging-Richard-A-Posner/dp/0674725085>,”
a recent book (he has written roughly 45), Posner criticized his
original ruling. “I plead guilty to having written the majority
opinion,” he wrote, upholding “a type of law now widely regarded as
a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention.”
Commentators pounced: A New York Times headline trumpeted “The
Debate Over Judge Posner’s Unforced Error
<http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/judge-posner-regrets-the-error/>,”
and The Washington Post ran a column titled, “Judge Posner’s Mea
Culpa Was Better Left Unsaid
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-lane-judge-richard-posners-mea-culpa-was-better-left-unsaid/2013/10/21/35e1dd3e-3a71-11e3-b7ba-503fb5822c3e_story.html>.”
The lesson was clear: It’s safer for judges not to admit misgivings.
But Posner said he had simply acknowledged that judges sometimes
don’t understand a subject well enough to “gauge the consequences of
their decisions.” With more evidence about the results of requiring
voter ID, it made sense to him to shift his position. Last year,
Posner’s court heard a challenge to another voter-ID law in
Wisconsin. Researching online, Posner found charts showing that
strict voter-ID requirements have been enacted only in states
controlled by Republicans. After a panel of three judges on his
court upheld Wisconsin’s law, Posner urged the court as a whole to
rehear the case. This time he wrote that the “net effect of such
requirements is to impede voting by people easily discouraged from
voting, most of whom probably lean Democratic.” Posner lost the
argument; the panel decision was upheld and Wisconsin’s law stood.
Even the architect of the Supreme Court’s voter-ID decision has had
a change of heart. In 2008, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the
majority opinionaffirming
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-21.ZO.html>Posner’s
Indiana ruling by a vote of 6 to 3. But he, too, has since decided
that the dissenting judges got it right about the consequences of
the decision. It’s “unfortunate,” Stevens told me by phone recently,
that his opinion in Crawford has prompted other states to pass
voter-ID requirements.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73643&title=Emily%20Bazelon%20NYT%20Mag%20Piece%20on%20Judges%20Changing%20Their%20Minds%20Talks%20Posner%20and%20Stevens%20on%20Voter%20ID&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting
Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
Civitas Very Unhappy with Voter ID Changes in NC
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73641>
Posted onJune 20, 2015 1:31 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73641>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
News and Observer:
<http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article24877873.html>
Thursday’s change to the rule brought lukewarm support from opponents of
voter ID laws and quick criticism from advocates.
“It’s a shame to lose a court case without ever walking into court,”
said Francis De Luca, president of the Civitas Institute, a
conservative organization that lobbied for voter ID rules.
The Rev. William J. Barber II, the head of the state NAACP who was
arrested on Wednesday while protesting the N.C. voting laws at the
N.C. General Assembly, said Thursday “the bill is still bad and
racially disparate.”
…Susan Myrick, elections policy analyst for Civitas Institute, said
Thursday that she was caught off guard by the Senate vote.
“To say the least, we were surprised,” Myrick said. The provisional
ballot addition, she said, “guts” the ID rule. “It demolishes it,”
Myrick said. “There’s no voter ID in North Carolina. It’s over.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73641&title=Civitas%20Very%20Unhappy%20with%20Voter%20ID%20Changes%20in%20NC&description=>
Posted inThe Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
Arizona’s Politics: Seth Waxman Represented AZ Redistricting
Commission Pro Bono at #SCOTUS <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73639>
Posted onJune 19, 2015 1:38 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73639>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
See here.
<http://arizonaspolitics.blogspot.com/2015/06/update-arizona-taxpayers-bill-for-post.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73639&title=Arizona%E2%80%99s%20Politics%3A%20Seth%20Waxman%20Represented%20AZ%20Redistricting%20Commission%20Pro%20Bono%20at%20%23SCOTUS&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Renzi Speech or Debate Clause Case Relisted at #SCOTUS
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73637>
Posted onJune 19, 2015 12:23 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73637>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
John Elwood <http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/relist-watch-67/>:
The other two rescheduled cases involve theSpeech or Debate Clause
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause>of the
Constitution. The first petitioner is former Representative Richard
Renzi, who was charged with extorting private investors to buy land
owned by his friend and business partner in exchange for a promise
to support federal land-exchange legislation. In anoutstanding
<https://www.mayerbrown.com/people/Dan-Himmelfarb/>petition filed
in/Renzi v. United States/
<http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/renzi-v-united-states-2/>,14-1082
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-1082.htm>,
Renzi asks whether the Speech or Debate Clause protects (1)
legislative fact-finding by a member of Congress and (2) the actions
of a member of Congress in developing, evaluating and drafting
legislation prior to the formal introduction of a bill. Renzi also
asks (3) whether a member of Congress can waive the protections of
the Speech or Debate Clause only by explicitly and unequivocally
renouncing them. His co-defendant, James W. Sandlin, a private
citizen, argues in/Sandlin v. United States/,14-1083
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-1083.htm>,
that he should benefit if Renzi wins as they were tried together
using the same evidence.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73637&title=Renzi%20Speech%20or%20Debate%20Clause%20Case%20Relisted%20at%20%23SCOTUS&description=>
Posted inSpeech or Debate Clause
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=36>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“With Lawsuit Looming, North Carolina Scrambles To Loosen Voter ID
Rules” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73635>
Posted onJune 19, 2015 11:40 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73635>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Think Progress:
<http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/06/19/3671820/lawsuit-looming-north-carolina-scrambles-pass-bill-loosen-voter-id-rules/>
“We are pleased that the legislature has taken steps to make North
Carolina’s voter ID requirement less onerous than originally
designed, said Bob Phillips withCommon Cause North Carolina
<http://www.commoncause.org/states/north-carolina/news/common-cause-nc-responds-to.html>,
while noting that he and others are “still deeply concerned about
voting barriers created by the sweeping 2013 elections overhaul.”
On July 13, voting rights advocates led by the NAACP will argue
before a court in Winston-Salem, North Carolina that the
lawunconstitutionally burdens
<http://www.advancementproject.org/pages/north-carolina-vpp>voters
of color and low income voters, whodisproportionately lack
<http://www.democracy-nc.org/downloads/SBOEDataNoIDApril2013PR.pdf>the
required forms of ID. They also plan to hold amarch and rally
<https://www.facebook.com/events/777444422371133/>under the banner
“This is our Selma” — linking their current struggle to
thedemonstrations in 1965
<http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/03/08/3631261/meet-selma-foot-soldiers-still-marching-today/>that
led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act.
Arguing that race-based voter suppression is not a thing of the
past, the plaintiffs are citing anew investigation
<http://democracy-nc.org/downloads/SilencedVoterAlarm.pdf>by the
organization Democracy North Carolina found that the state’s
restrictions depressed voter turnout by at least 30,000 North
Carolinians in the 2014 midterm elections. They also found that
Africans Americans were more likely to be given a provisional
ballot, thousands of which were rejected and not counted.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73635&title=%E2%80%9CWith%20Lawsuit%20Looming%2C%20North%20Carolina%20Scrambles%20To%20Loosen%20Voter%20ID%20Rules%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
“Make Your Laws” Resubmits Ravel-Weintraub FEC Petititon
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73633>
Posted onJune 19, 2015 11:17 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73633>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here. <https://www.makeyourlaws.org/fec/ravel_weintraub>
I think this moots the question whether Ellen Weintraub is a “person,”
though I was looking forward to her incorporating as Weintraub Inc.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73633&title=%E2%80%9CMake%20Your%20Laws%E2%80%9D%20Resubmits%20Ravel-Weintraub%20FEC%20Petititon&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
“Various New York Politics Blogs Publish Misleading Information
about Bernie Sanders’ Ability to be on New York Democratic
Presidential Primary Ballot” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73631>
Posted onJune 19, 2015 9:45 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73631>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
BAN:
<http://ballot-access.org/2015/06/19/various-new-york-politics-blogs-publish-misleading-information-about-bernie-sanders-ability-to-be-on-new-york-democratic-presidential-primary-ballot/>
Several New York politics blogs and publications have recently said
that Bernie Sanders is in danger of being kept off the New York
presidential primary ballot because he is not a Democrat and the
Democratic Party has the power to keep non-members off its
prseidential primary ballot. Here isthe article in Power Line
<http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/06/all-we-are-saying-is-give-bernie-a-chance.php>;
here is thearticle in Gothamist
<http://gothamist.com/2015/06/18/bernie_sanders_new_york.php>.Here
is the CapitalNew York story
<http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2015/05/8568985/sanders-could-face-ny-primary-ballot-struggle>.
The articles are incorrect. The Wilson-Pakula law does not pertain
to presidential primaries. The Wilson-Pakula law, sec. 6-120, does
keep non-members off the primary ballots of parties (unless party
committees approve letting them on), but it only relates to offices
for which nominations are made. No state’s presidential primary
nominates a major party’s presidential candidate. Only the party’s
national conventions do that. The candidates in New York Democratic
presidential primaries are individuals running for Delegate to the
national convention.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73631&title=%E2%80%9CVarious%20New%20York%20Politics%20Blogs%20Publish%20Misleading%20Information%20about%20Bernie%20Sanders%E2%80%99%20Ability%20to%20be%20on%20New%20York%20Democratic%20Presidential%20Primary%20Ballot%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>
“GOP’s House and Senate super PACs step up sales pitch”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73629>
Posted onJune 19, 2015 8:59 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73629>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico
<http://gop%27s%20house%20and%20senate%20super%20pacs%20step%20up%20sales%20pitc%20%20read%20more:%20http//www.politico.com/story/2015/06/gops-house-and-senate-super-pacs-step-up-sales-pitch-119181.html#ixzz3dWZBAg17>:
The primary Senate and House Republican super PACs are joining
forces in a major campaign to get Big Business to open its checkbook
to the party.
The message isn’t subtle: the left is shelling out tens of millions
of dollars to pummel Republicans and it’s time for corporate America
to fund a counteroffensive.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73629&title=%E2%80%9CGOP%E2%80%99s%20House%20and%20Senate%20super%20PACs%20step%20up%20sales%20pitch%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“The 2014 Term & the First Amendment — Surprising twists & turns”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73627>
Posted onJune 19, 2015 8:31 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73627>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Read Ron Collins
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/the-2014-term-the-first-amendment-surprising-twists-turns/>at
SCOTUSBlog.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73627&title=%E2%80%9CThe%202014%20Term%20%26%20the%20First%20Amendment%20%E2%80%94%20Surprising%20twists%20%26%20turns%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“All We are Saying is Give Bernie a Chance!”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73625>
Posted onJune 19, 2015 8:12 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73625>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Steve Hayward
<http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/06/all-we-are-saying-is-give-bernie-a-chance.php>on
a possible ballot access fight in NY.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D73625&title=%E2%80%9CAll%20We%20are%20Saying%20is%20Give%20Bernie%20a%20Chance%21%E2%80%9D&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/20150621/ce9de57d/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/20150621/ce9de57d/attachment.png>
View list directory