[EL] The origins of [undisclosed spending that affects elections in some way, shape or form]?

[Paul Blumenthal]

The article goes further than that sentence.

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Stephen Klein <stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Paul Blumenthal writes:
>
> "Further, corporations and unions can spend undisclosed 'dark money' on
> elections through nonprofit corporations, which are not subject to campaign
> finance disclosure laws due to a prior Supreme Court ruling and a Federal
> Election Commission rule change in 2007 that eliminated a key reporting
> requirement."
>
> I assume, despite the evolving definitions of disclosure and undisclosed
> money that in some way, shape or form affects an election ("dark money"),
> he's referring to *Buckley v.  Valeo* as said "prior Supreme Court
> ruling" (I suppose listing the name or the more ominous "1976" that
> accompanies the ruling's citation might be too much for dear readers), but
> what 2007 rulemaking is at issue and how, exactly, did it affect *Buckley*'s
> precedent?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 3, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
> “Anthony Kennedy’s Citizens United Disclosure Salve ‘Not Working'”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77234>
> Posted on November 3, 2015 8:08 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77234>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Paul Blumenthal
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/citizens-united-anthony-kennedy_5637c481e4b0631799134b92>
>  for HuffPo.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>



-- 
Paul Blumenthal
Huffington Post
Twitter: PaulBlu | o: (202) 624-9384 | c: (202) 714-8545
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151103/22be4d0b/attachment.html>