[EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/12/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Thu Mar 12 07:39:01 PDT 2015
Naiveté and Modesty in Political Reform Thinking”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70948>
Posted onMarch 12, 2015 7:26 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70948>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bauer blogs.
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2015/03/naivete-modesty-political-reform-thinking/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70948&title=%E2%80%9CNaivet%C3%A9%20and%20Modesty%20in%20Political%20Reform%20Thinking%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,theory
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=41>
“International IDEA Policy Brief on Money in Politics”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70946>
Posted onMarch 12, 2015 7:25 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70946>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Release
<http://newsletter.paloma.se/webversion/default.aspx?cid=949&mid=280236&emailkey=fd032071-a639-4c2f-933f-9bb1d0fec062>:
Following on from itshandbook on Political Finance
<http://c.plma.se/?q=002802360023>, International IDEA has now
released apolicy brief on money in politics
<http://c.plma.se/?q=002802360034>(www.idea.int/mip) with nine key
recommendations for policy makers and other relevant stakeholders.
Drawn from the findings of International IDEA’s research, this
policy brief aims to influence the debate in a way that leads both
to a reduction in the absolute amount of money in election
campaigns, as well as making the role of money in politics more
transparent and better regulated.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70946&title=%E2%80%9CInternational%20IDEA%20Policy%20Brief%20on%20Money%20in%20Politics%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,comparative election law
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=107>
“Beyond Coordination: Defining Indirect Campaign Contributions for
the Super Pac Era” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70944>
Posted onMarch 12, 2015 7:23 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70944>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Brent Ferguson has postedthis draft
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2577075>on SSRN
(forthcoming /Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly/). Here is the
abstract:
Buckley v. Valeo held that the government may limit political
contributions to candidates, but it may not limit independent
campaign expenditures by individuals and groups. However, the Court
also held that governments may treat outside expenditures as
indirect contributions to candidates if they were made with the
consent of or in cooperation with a candidate. Since Citizens United
and the rise of Super PACs, the line between outside spending and
campaign contributions has grown ever more important because Super
PACs must avoid excess collaboration with a candidate to ensure that
their spending may not be limited.
In response to the rise of outside spending, some regulators have
proposed new rules that would define campaign contributions more
broadly in order to prevent Super PACs and other groups from
maintaining close relationships with candidates. At the same time,
commentators have begun to examine the constitutional line for such
regulations. Yet recent commentary has misconstrued Buckley and
later cases, and no recent work has comprehensively examined Buckley
and its progeny to produce a comprehensive theory of how such
regulations should be treated.
This Article performs that examination, concluding that Buckley and
subsequent cases allow for a fairly broad definition of indirect
contributions. Based on Buckley’s language and its logical
underpinnings, the Article argues that an expenditure may be treated
as a contribution if the candidate provides reliable indications
that the expenditure is valuable, as long as the resulting
definition does not impermissibly curtail the spender’s right to
engage in public discussion. After putting forth this theory, the
Article addresses several proposed regulations, such as one that
would prevent candidates from fundraising for Super PACs, and
analyzes whether they are constitutionally permissible.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70944&title=%E2%80%9CBeyond%20Coordination%3A%20Defining%20Indirect%20Campaign%20Contributions%20for%20the%20Super%20Pac%20Era%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Bitter Supreme Court election drags on in court”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70942>
Posted onMarch 11, 2015 9:17 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70942>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ugly
<http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/local/northern-ky/2015/03/06/supreme-court-election-spat/24529407/>:
The race for Kentucky Supreme Court 6th District was remarkably
nasty, and it didn’t end on Election Day. Justice Michelle Keller of
Fort Mitchell and her former opponent, Teresa Cunningham of Boone
County, are still battling it out in court.
Keller won the election easily, receiving 58 percent of the vote. A
month later, however, Cunningham filed a lawsuit asking a judge to
throw out the election results, alleging harassment by Keller and
her supporters.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70942&title=%E2%80%9CBitter%20Supreme%20Court%20election%20drags%20on%20in%20court%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,judicial
elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>
Bipartisan Measure Proposed to Required Redistricting Commissions
for Federal Redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70940>
Posted onMarch 11, 2015 9:08 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70940>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Hill reports.
<http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/235355-lawmakers-offer-redistricting-reform-proposals>
Even if such a measure passed (not bloody likely), it could well
beunconstitutional. <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70645>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70940&title=Bipartisan%20Measure%20Proposed%20to%20Required%20Redistricting%20Commissions%20for%20Federal%20Redistricting&description=>
Posted incitizen commissions
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=7>,Elections Clause
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=70>,redistricting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Emotional debate in legislature over changes in Iowa’s rules for
absentee ballots” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70938>
Posted onMarch 11, 2015 4:15 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70938>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Radio Iowa reports
<http://www.radioiowa.com/2015/03/11/emotional-debate-in-legislature-over-changes-in-iowas-rules-for-absentee-ballot/>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70938&title=%E2%80%9CEmotional%20debate%20in%20legislature%20over%20changes%20in%20Iowa%E2%80%99s%20rules%20for%20absentee%20ballots%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inabsentee ballots <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>,election
administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“So Far The 2016 Campaign Is More Like The 2016 Un-campaign”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70936>
Posted onMarch 11, 2015 3:31 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70936>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Peter Overby reports
<http://www.npr.org/2015/03/11/392375446/many-presidential-hopefuls-playing-candidate-hokey-pokey?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=politics&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews>for
NPR.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70936&title=%E2%80%9CSo%20Far%20The%202016%20Campaign%20Is%20More%20Like%20The%202016%20Un-campaign%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Selma’s Senator Not Really Sure What’s Going On With That Voting
Rights Stuff” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70934>
Posted onMarch 11, 2015 3:03 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70934>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
HuffPo.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/11/richard-shelby-voting-rights-act_n_6843756.html?1426110961>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70934&title=%E2%80%9CSelma%E2%80%99s%20Senator%20Not%20Really%20Sure%20What%E2%80%99s%20Going%20On%20With%20That%20Voting%20Rights%20Stuff%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inVoting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>,VRAA
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=81>
“Is It Sheldon Adelson’s World?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70932>
Posted onMarch 11, 2015 1:34 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70932>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Tom Friedman
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/opinion/thomas-l-friedman-is-it-sheldons-world.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0>NYT
column.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70932&title=%E2%80%9CIs%20It%20Sheldon%20Adelson%E2%80%99s%20World%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
Amicus Brief in Same Sex Marriage Cases Stresses Right of Married
Couples to Make Political Contributions
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70930>
Posted onMarch 11, 2015 1:08 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70930>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Interesting
<http://op.bna.com/der.nsf/id/sbay-9uhqb4/$File/14-556-libertyeducation.pdf>(viaKen
Doyle <https://twitter.com/KenDoyle16/status/575749195769987074>).
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70930&title=Amicus%20Brief%20in%20Same%20Sex%20Marriage%20Cases%20Stresses%20Right%20of%20Married%20Couples%20to%20Make%20Political%20Contributions&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“A New Approach to Coordination Between Super PACs and Candidates in
Political Fundraising” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70928>
Posted onMarch 11, 2015 12:34 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70928>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
New
<http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/working-together-for-an-independent-expenditure/>Harvard
Law Review note:
Employing the principles of the state campaign finance regimes,
section III.A proposes a potential framework for the FEC and state
election agencies to use in redefining existing understandings of
“coordination” to account for coordinated fundraising between
candidates and Super PACs. The framework proposed by this Note
attempts to limit the threat of corruption while maximizing First
Amendment protections by prohibiting candidates from attending Super
PAC fundraisers, soliciting contributions for Super PACs, sharing
fundraising consultants with Super PACs, and providing lists of
supporters for use in Super PAC fundraising. Section III.B argues
that this proposal would be a permissible regulation of campaign
finance under the Supreme Court’s established justification of
preventing quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of such corruption.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70928&title=%E2%80%9CA%20New%20Approach%20to%20Coordination%20Between%20Super%20PACs%20and%20Candidates%20in%20Political%20Fundraising%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Sen. Cornyn on the VRA and Voter ID
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70926>
Posted onMarch 11, 2015 12:10 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70926>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Meredith Shiner interview
<http://news.yahoo.com/john-cornyn--obama--does-not-speak-for-the-u-s--government-exclusively-195511192.html>:
*Did you consider going toSelma this past weekend for the ceremonies
honoring the 50^th anniversary of Bloody Sunday
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/thousands-join-second-day-of-selma-remembrances/2015/03/08/60d6784c-c5da-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html>,
and are you concerned that issues of voting rights and
enfranchisement seem to be becoming more partisan? The vast majority
of political attendees in Selma were Democratic, and the president’s
line about voting rights and fixing the law inthis year’s State of
the Union garnered mainly Democratic applause
<https://twitter.com/meredithshiner/status/557761576955285504>.*
Well, I think the Voting Rights Act was a seminal victory for our
country and a great healing moment. But there are some who want to
continue to drive divisions and create phony narratives. As you
know, the argument is over the preclearance requirements in states
like mine, which actually have a better record of minority voter
participation than states that aren’t covered. So I had a
pre-existing [scheduling commitment] to a criminal justice panel at
the American Enterprise Institute with Cory Booker and Mike Lee, so
that’s the main reason I didn’t go, but I don’t think anybody should
doubt our national commitment to heal the wounds of racial division.
I think we’ve come an awful long way. I was proud to see President
[George W.] Bush there.
*Have you talked to Leader Mitch McConnell,who has a deep history in
the Civil Rights movement
<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113181/mitch-mcconnell-civil-rights-crusader-gop-senators-regrets>, about
moving legislation that would fix that formula? You mentioned that
one of your concerns is that the original law unduly affects places
that have made progress on this front, but there are still places
where people are having difficulty voting. Do you think it’s
important for Congress to address that formula and to amend it, as
the Supreme Court (which you can see here, from this office) has
asked Congress to do? *
I think Eric Holder and this administration have trumped up and
created an issue where there really isn’t one. For example, the
attorney general sued my state for requiring a voter ID, saying
somehow that suppressed minority votes, when you can get one for
free. And the Supreme Court has passed, in an opinion by John Paul
Stevens, <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=56071>who is not exactly a
conservative, that this is a reasonable way of protecting the
integrity of the ballot and it doesn’t unduly burden the ability of
minority voters to cast a ballot. [Editor’s note: Justice
Stevenshas said <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=56071>his judgment
was specific to the case and “should not be taken as authority that
voter ID laws are always OK.”].
So a lot of this is, I think, theatrics, to try to create division
where there isn’t [any]. That, to me, is one of the shames of… the
first African-American president of the United States. You would
think this would be a great time of national pride and great
national healing, but unfortunately, this president has tried to use
his bully pulpit and his presidency to try to cause division, and
that’s a shame.
*So you don’t think that Congress needs to fix the formula?*
No.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70926&title=Sen.%20Cornyn%20on%20the%20VRA%20and%20Voter%20ID&description=>
Posted inThe Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Why Congress Relies on Lobbyists Instead of Thinking for Itself”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70923>
Posted onMarch 11, 2015 11:15 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70923>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Lee Drutman and Steven Teles
<http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/when-congress-cant-think-for-itself-it-turns-to-lobbyists/387295/>at
/The Atlantic./
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70923&title=%E2%80%9CWhy%20Congress%20Relies%20on%20Lobbyists%20Instead%20of%20Thinking%20for%20Itself%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inlobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
Some Thoughts on UCI Law’s Initial US News Ranking at 30
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70919>
Posted onMarch 11, 2015 10:32 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=70919>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
With news
<http://www.law.uci.edu/ecards/usnews-ranking-2015march.html>this week
that the new UCI Law school placed at 30 in its initialUS News law
ranking
<http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings/page+2>,
I thought I would offer some thoughts. But first two caveats: (1) I’m a
member of the faculty of the law school, and so I obviously have my
biases; and (2) I speak only for myself, not for the rest of the faculty
or the law school’s administration. Still, people have been asking me
what I think, so I offer these thoughts.
1. Overall, I am very pleased with the initial ranking of 30, and I
have confidence (though no guarantee) that the ranking will rise higher
in the next few years (more on that below). The timing for starting a
new law school could not have been worse when UCI Law opened its doors.
The law school market saw a precipitous decline in enrollments, and even
extremely well respected schools (those outside the top 5 schools but
within the top 25 schools) have struggled to maintain the same quality
of students and enrollment numbers. We have witnessed some excellent
schools resort to new tactics, such as offering extremely generous
scholarship packages to draw students they might not have even taken in
the past, as well as many top law schools hiring their own graduates as
a way to keep their employment numbers up for U.S. News purposes, a
practice thatU.S. News has started taking into account
<http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/03/10/2016-u-s-news-law-school-ranking-the-highlights/>and
that the ABA may crack down on. Also, being a new and unranked school,
every student that came to us took a chance on how we would ultimately
be ranked and perceived. I think that’s actually led to a great student
body full of risk takers and entrepreneurs, but it took tremendous
efforts on the part of Admissions people for us to attract excellent
students. Lowering the number of admits last year was no“Hail Mary pass
<http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/03/more-on-the-.html#more>” as
Paul Caron uncharitably put it, but a rational strategy in this
environment and for a school being ranked for the first time. Now that
we are ranked, I expect it will be much easier for us to compete for
students and slowly grow the class to its eventual (relatively small) size.
2. The dean of UCI Law, Erwin Chemerinsky, set expectations very
high—aiming to create a top twenty school from the outset (an ambitious
goal even if we did not face this unparalleled challenging legal
education market). Setting expectations so high was necessary not only
to attract top students but also to attract top faculty. But by setting
expectations so high, there were bound to bearticles
<http://www.nationallawjournal.com/home/id=1202720102826/UC-Irvine-Debuts-at-No-30-on-US-News-ListmdashMissing-Goal?mcode=1202615432217&curindex=0&slreturn=20150211130525> this
week that the school “missed its goal.” But the thing is, in my view
Erwin and the administration did succeed in creating a top twenty law
school from the outset, even if that is not yet reflected in the U.S.
News ranking. If you look at the quality of the UCI Law faculty
recruited, it is extraordinarily productive and well respected. Themost
recent survey of faculty reputation
<http://www.law.uci.edu/news/press-releases/07-17-12.html>using Brian
Leiter’s methodology ranked us 7th in the nation. We have leaders across
fields. Our innovative clinical programs ranked us 11th in the initial
U.S. News survey (and 23rd in intellectual property). The students are
not only risk-takers and innovators; we have the 10th most diverse
student body in law schools across the nation according to the U.S. News
survey.
3. So if, in my view, we already /are/a top 20 school, why is that no
reflected fully in the rankings? I think some was driven by early
employment numbers, which have considerably picked up as both employers
got to know us better and as the job market generally improved. Some is
just growing pains and the costs of ramping up a new school. But a big
part is the reputation numbers. We ranked 3.6 on a 5 point scale for
reputation among lawyers and judges, which is quite a good number
(relative to other schools), especially for a school right out of the
box. Our faculty and programs are well known to judges and lawyers
across the country. But on the faculty reputation score, we scored only
a 3.0. This is quite odd, and I think it hurt us a lot. (To see why it
is odd,look at this chart
<http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/03/2016-us-news-peer-reputation-.html>and
see where we fall relative to other schools solely on the faculty
reputation ranking and compare it to studies of faculty quality.) As I
understand it (I have not verified this myself), there’s no other school
in the top 100 schools with as large a gap (0.6) between the two
reputation scores. What explains it? I see three possible explanations.
One is that this is a fair assessment of our relative faculty quality. I
don’t buy that, especially given our much strong reputation as judged
under both the Leiter-type surveys as well as other objective indicia of
faculty quality (such as how articles and books written by our faculty
are placed and received in the academy). A second explanation is that we
simply are not yet known enough among enough other faculty members as to
our quality. If this is correct, the numbers should improve in time. A
third possibility is some kind of strategic voting. (Here
<http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/03/dean-advises-other-deans-to-punish-law-schools-.html>‘s
a new call for strategic voting of U.S. News rankings in another
context—schools that cook employment numbers.) There are some people who
didn’t want the law school to succeed, perhaps out of fear of
competition, and perhaps out of dislike of the audaciousness of a plan
to create a top twenty school from the outset. What are you going to do?
Haters gonna hate.
<http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2015/03/uc-irvine-law-said-theyd-debut-in-the-top-20-it-didnt-happen-good.html> But
that too should dissipate over time and the numbers go more to the
normal range. So I disagree withDavid Bernstein
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/10/u-c-irvine-law-school-didnt-make-the-top-20-what-went-wrong/>about
how high we can climb.
4. Ultimately, rankings only matter to the extent they allow us to
attract excellent students and excellent faculty, to place out students
in great jobs where they can make a difference, achieve personal
success, and improve the world. On that score, UCI law is already a huge
success. UCI Law is a rare school that is committed both to first rate
legal scholarship AND first rate teaching in the classroom. It is a
school with an emphasis on public interest, social justice, and
diversity. It is a school focused on interdisciplinary work at the
highest levels at a world class university which has invested tremendous
resources to insure that the law school will succeed. It is an
environment full of very nice faculty, students and staff. It manages to
capture what is best about a top academic institution without hiring
jerks. That is surprisingly rare in academia. The future is bright.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D70919&title=Some%20Thoughts%20on%20UCI%20Law%E2%80%99s%20Initial%20US%20News%20Ranking%20at%2030&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
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/20150312/21f6cffa/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/20150312/21f6cffa/attachment.png>
View list directory