[EL] CCP v. Harris
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Mon Nov 9 08:34:03 PST 2015
I think this case had the potential to undermine campaign disclosure
rules if successful, and I think that was the point.
And yes, I absolutely would have written the same comment if it were the
Brennan Center or the ACLU suing the Texas AG.
Rick
On 11/9/2015 8:08 AM, Allen Dickerson wrote:
> Rick,
>
> Your post seriously misinterprets CCP v. Harris, a case that has
> nothing to do with political activity or campaign finance.
> California's registration policy applies only to 501(c)(3)
> organizations. And CCP, like all 501(c)(3) groups, is prohibited from
> engaging in political activity. The informational interest
> undergirding campaign finance disclosure simply isn't implicated here.
>
> A thought experiment: would you have written the same comment if the
> Brennan Center or ACLU had sued the Texas AG on the same claim?
>
> I recognize the ever-present danger of seeing campaign finance issues
> everywhere when that's one's area of expertise. But our case is a very
> poor fit for your political disclosure narrative.
>
> Best,
> Allen
>
>
> On Nov 9, 2015, at 10:48 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
>
>>
>> “Democracy for GrownUps” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77408>
>>
>> Posted onNovember 9, 2015 7:46 am
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77408>byRick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> I have writtenthis review
>> <http://newramblerreview.com/book-reviews/law/democracy-for-grownups>of
>> Bruce Cain’sDemocracy More or Less
>> <http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-More-Less-Political-Cambridge/dp/1107612268>for
>> theNew Rambler Review. <http://newramblerreview.com/> It begins:
>>
>> Modern American democracy is often messy, increasingly polarized,
>> sometimes stupefying, and surprisingly decentralized. Our
>> Congress functions (or doesn’t) mainly along party lines under
>> rules set in a Constitution more than 200 years old which does
>> not recognize political parties, and indeed was designed to
>> stifle their emergence. Divided government in times of polarized
>> parties has undermined accountability as each side can blame the
>> other for policy failures, and we lurch from one potential
>> government shutdown to another thanks in part to polarization and
>> in part to internal fighting within the Republican Party. Much
>> power devolves to the state and local level, where we often see
>> one-party rule rather than the partisan stalemate of Congress.
>>
>> State one-partyism extends even to the rules for conducting
>> elections, where a majority of states use partisan election
>> officials to set the rules of the game and to carry out our
>> elections, and where state legislatures draw their own
>> legislative districts only mildly constrained by Supreme Court
>> one-person, one-vote requirements. Our campaign finance system is
>> careening toward deregulation, with a series of Supreme Court
>> decisions and partially enforceable congressional measures
>> leading to the creation of political organizations, some of which
>> can shield their donors’ identities, allowing the wealthiest of
>> Americans to translate their vast economic power into political
>> power. Money spent to influence elections is complemented by
>> money spent to influence public policy through lobbying, creating
>> a system in which those with great wealth and organizational
>> ability have a much better chance of having their preferences
>> enacted in law and having their preferred candidates elected,
>> than average Americans have.
>>
>> It is no wonder that the reform impulse in American politics is
>> strong. States with the initiative process have experimented with
>> top-two primaries in which the top two vote getters, regardless
>> of party, go to a runoff, and redistricting reform featuring
>> either citizen commissions or substantive limits on legislative
>> self-dealing. The National Popular Vote movement seeks an end run
>> around the antiquated rules of the Electoral College, which
>> violate modern accepted principles of one-person, one-vote by
>> giving small states outsized power relative to their populations.
>>
>> Reformers push a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme
>> Court’s decision in/Citizens United/and other cases which
>> hamstring the government’s ability to control money in politics.
>> Good government groups regularly clamor for redistricting reform
>> (often joined by the political party on the losing side of
>> redistricting in each state), expansion of voting rights for
>> former felons and others, and the end of corruption and
>> patronage. Some even call for constitutional conventions with
>> citizen participants chosen by lottery.
>>
>> But as Bruce Cain argues in his terrific new book, the
>> never-ending efforts at reform present tradeoffs, and attempts to
>> achieve either pure majoritarianism or government meritocracy can
>> have unintended and unwanted consequences. Further, many reform
>> efforts are oversold as a cure for all that ails American
>> democracy. Cain argues for a Goldilocks-like pluralist reform
>> agenda which recognizes that busy citizens lack interest in
>> governing and capacity to make complex decisions. Instead,
>> politics is conducted through intermediaries across the range of
>> local, state, and national governing arenas. Pluralism
>> “prioritizes aggregation, consensus, and fluid coalitions as a
>> means of good democratic governance.” (p. 11)
>>
>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77408&title=%26%238220%3BDemocracy%20for%20GrownUps%26%238221%3B&description=>
>> Posted intheory <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=41>
>>
>>
>> ELB Podcast Episode 6. Nate Persily: Can the Supreme Court Handle
>> Social Science In Election Cases?
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77303>
>>
>> Posted onNovember 9, 2015 7:42 am
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77303>byRick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Can the Supreme Court handle social science evidence in election law
>> cases? Will lack of good data determine the outcome of the Supreme
>> Court’s upcoming one person, one vote decision in /Evenwel v.
>> Abbott/? What role will and should evidence play in assessing
>> questions such as the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold’s soft
>> money ban or Texas’s strict voter identification law.
>>
>> On Episode 6 of the ELB Podcast, we talk to law professor and
>> political scientist Nate Persily <http://persily.com/>of Stanford Law
>> School, one of the country’s leading redistricting and election law
>> experts.
>>
>> You can listen to the ELB Podcast Episode 6 onSoundcloud
>> <https://soundcloud.com/rick-hasen/elb-podcast-episode-6-nate>orsubscribe
>> at iTunes
>> <https://geo.itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/elb-podcast/id1029317166?mt=2>.
>>
>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77303&title=ELB%20Podcast%20Episode%206.%20Nate%20Persily%3A%20Can%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20Handle%20Social%20Science%20In%20Election%20Cases%3F&description=>
>> Posted inELB Podcast <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=116>,Supreme
>> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>>
>>
>> “Democratic Group Called iVote Pushes Automatic Voter
>> Registration” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77406>
>>
>> Posted onNovember 9, 2015 7:38 am
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77406>byRick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> NYT:
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/us/politics/democratic-group-called-ivote-pushes-automatic-voter-registration.html?ref=politics&_r=0>
>>
>> As Republicans across the country mount an aggressive effort to
>> tighten voting laws, a group of former aides to President Obama
>> and President Bill Clinton is pledging to counter by spending up
>> to $10 million on a push to make voter registration automatic
>> whenever someone gets a driver’s license.
>>
>> The change would supercharge the1993 National Voter Registration
>> Act
>> <http://www.justice.gov/crt/about-national-voter-registration-act>,
>> known as the “motor voter” law, which requires states to offer
>> people the option of registering to vote when they apply for
>> driver’s licenses or other identification cards. The new laws
>> would make registration automatic during those transactions
>> unless a driver objected.
>>
>> The group, called iVote — which is led byJeremy Bird
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/us/politics/obama-campaign-confronts-voter-id-laws.html>,
>> who ran Mr. Obama’s voter turnout effort in 2012 — is betting
>> that such laws could bring out millions of new voters who have,
>> for whatever reason, failed to register even when they had the
>> opportunity at motor vehicle departments….
>>
>> Kris W. Kobach, the secretary of state in Kansas and a
>> Republican, who has been a leading advocate of stricter voting
>> laws, said he opposed automatic registration because people who
>> chose not to register were clearly not interested in voting.
>>
>> “The assumption that by making what is already easy automatic
>> that will somehow bring people to the polls is just erroneous,”
>> Mr. Kobach said. “I just think it’s a bad idea. It’s not going to
>> increase participation rates.”
>>
>> Mr. Kobach has pushed for some of the nation’s most restrictive
>> voting laws, including one that requires proof of citizenship. He
>> said automatic registration would make that kind of check impossible.
>>
>> “You’re going to end up with aliens on the voter rolls,” Mr.
>> Kobach said. “It’s inevitable that an automatic registration
>> system would result in many of them getting on.”
>>
>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77406&title=%26%238220%3BDemocratic%20Group%20Called%20iVote%20Pushes%20Automatic%20Voter%20Registration%26%238221%3B&description=>
>> Posted inelection administration
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter registration
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>
>>
>>
>> “Inside the abandoned plans of Ted Cruz’s super PACs”
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77404>
>>
>> Posted onNovember 9, 2015 7:32 am
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77404>byRick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Teddy Schleifer
>> <http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/08/politics/ted-cruz-super-pac-abandoned-plans/index.html>for
>> CNN:
>>
>> The super PACs are staffed in part by a few individuals with no
>> formal political experience, including Neugebauer, who has been
>> the groups’ main fundraiser and formerly its chief executive
>> officer — in addition to one of its lead donors. The groups have
>> only recently begun hiring their first political professionals,
>> including a new professional fundraiser: Campbell Smith, a
>> finance official at the National Rifle Association, the super
>> PACs confirmed to CNN.
>>
>> The ditched buy is at the heart of the dispute between the
>> campaign and the super PAC — a dispute that spilled out into the
>> public this week, with several campaign advisers tellingPolitico
>> <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/ted-cruz-silent-super-pacs-2016-215422>that
>> they want to see Keep the Promise purchase advertising time
>> immediately. Campaigns and super PACs frequently read one
>> another’s messages in the press with a fine-toothed comb to learn
>> thinking that they cannot legally directly share with one another.
>>
>> It’s a reflection of the divided campaign finance world, where
>> super PACs are allowed to raise unlimited amounts of cash
>> (donations must still be reported to the Federal Election
>> Commission), but the catch is that campaign and super PAC
>> officials aren’t allowed to coordinate. Neugebauer’s pitch at The
>> Broadmoor came without Cruz staffers in the room, for instance, a
>> donor said.
>>
>> And amid increasing questions about the super PAC, campaign
>> officials are coming to the defense of Neugebauer, who left his
>> role at the super PAC in a shake-up, and are praising his ability
>> to incentivize two more eight-digit donations with a $10 million
>> check of his own.
>>
>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77404&title=%26%238220%3BInside%20the%20abandoned%20plans%20of%20Ted%20Cruz%26%238217%3Bs%20super%20PACs%26%238221%3B&description=>
>> Posted incampaign finance
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>>
>>
>> “The battle over campaign finance reform is changing. Here’s
>> how.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77402>
>>
>> Posted onNovember 9, 2015 7:31 am
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77402>byRick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> WaPo talks
>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/07/the-battle-over-campaign-finance-reform-is-changing-heres-how/>with
>> Josh Silver of represent.us <http://represent.us>.
>>
>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77402&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20battle%20over%20campaign%20finance%20reform%20is%20changing.%20Here%E2%80%99s%20how.%26%238221%3B&description=>
>> Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>>
>>
>> Bauer on Justice Kennedy on Citizens United at Harvard
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77400>
>>
>> Posted onNovember 9, 2015 7:23 am
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77400>byRick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Bauer blogs.
>> <http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2015/11/justice-kennedy-harva>
>>
>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77400&title=Bauer%20on%20Justice%20Kennedy%20on%20Citizens%20United%20at%20Harvard&description=>
>> Posted incampaign finance
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme Court
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>>
>>
>> Breaking: #SCOTUS❤️Political Disclosure, Denies Cert. in CCP v.
>> Harris <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77396>
>>
>> Posted onNovember 9, 2015 7:19 am
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77396>byRick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> The Supreme Court, without noted dissent,has denied
>> cert.<http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110915zor_4g25.pdf>in
>> Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris. The question concerns
>> whether CA AG Harris can have access toCCP
>> <http://www.campaignfreedom.org/>’s donor list for law enforcement
>> purposes (and not for public disclosure) or whether such access
>> violates the First Amendment.
>>
>> This cert. denial follows a string of cases in which the Supreme
>> Court has endorsed disclosure as the appropriate way to deal with
>> political activity (rather than campaign finance limits). These cases
>> include /McConnell v. FEC/, /Citizens United v. FEC/, and /Doe v.
>> Reed/. Aside from Justice Thomas (and to some extent Justice Alito),
>> the Court has a strong belief in the benefits of disclosure in
>> providing valuable information to voters, deterring corruption, and
>> aiding in law enforcement. It is clearJustice Kennedy is
>> upset<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77126>that political forces have
>> not enhanced disclosure since /Citizens United/. There is no
>> constitutional impediment to it, except as to those groups which can
>> demonstrate a realistic threat of harassment.
>>
>> The claims of harassment of contributors to conservatives causes have
>> turned out to be greatly exaggerated. I explore this most recently in
>> Chill Out: A Qualified Defense of Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws in
>> the Internet Age <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1948313>, 27/Journal of
>> Law and Politics/557 (2012).
>>
>> This is good news, although disclosure isfar from enough
>> <http://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-United-Campaign-Distortion-Elections/dp/0300212453/ref=la_B0089NJCR2_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1430416698&sr=1-7>to
>> deal with other problems with our campaign finance system.
>>
>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77396&title=Breaking%3A%20%23SCOTUS%20%E2%9D%A4%EF%B8%8F%20Political%20Disclosure%2C%20Denies%20Cert.%20in%20CCP%20v.%20Harris&description=>
>> Posted incampaign finance
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,Supreme Court
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>>
>>
>> “California’s ballot could be a blockbuster next November”
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77394>
>>
>> Posted onNovember 8, 2015 7:05 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77394>byRick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> John Myers
>> <http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-california-ballot-measures-2016-20151108-story.html>for
>> the LAT:
>>
>> The list of measures is very much a work in progress. Most
>> campaigns are still gathering voter signatures or waiting for
>> their proposals to be vetted by state officials.
>>
>> But political strategists have identified at least 15 — perhaps
>> as many as 19 –measures that all have a shot at going before
>> voters next fall.
>>
>> The last time California’s ballot was that long was in November
>> 2004, when there were16 propositions
>> <http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2004-general/formatted_ballot_measures_detail.pdf>.
>> The March 2000 ballot had20
>> <http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2000-primary/measures.pdf>.
>>
>> Here are the expected 2016 ballot initiatives
>> <http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-california-ballot-box-2016-20151108-story.html>
>>
>> A number of political forces help explain why so many are lined
>> up now. For starters, there’s the2011 law
>> <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_202_bill_20110908_amended_asm_v97.html> that
>> moved everything but measures written by the Legislature to the
>> general election ballot. As a result, June primary ballots are
>> now almost barren of contentious campaigns.
>>
>> There is also a lingering hangover from the state’s record-low
>> voter turnout in 2014: a new and extremely low number of voter
>> signatures needed to qualify an initiative for the ballot.
>>
>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77394&title=%26%238220%3BCalifornia%26%238217%3Bs%20ballot%20could%20be%20a%20blockbuster%20next%20November%26%238221%3B&description=>
>> Posted indirect democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>
>>
>>
>> “As Lawrence Lessig’s Long-Shot Bid Ends, What’s To Come For His
>> Key Issue?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77392>
>>
>> Posted onNovember 8, 2015 4:26 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77392>byRick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Michel Martin
>> interviews<http://www.npr.org/2015/11/08/455243856/as-lawrence-lessigs-long-shot-bid-ends-whats-to-come-for-his-key-issue?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=politics&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews>Lessig
>> for NPR.
>>
>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77392&title=%26%238220%3BAs%20Lawrence%20Lessig%26%238217%3Bs%20Long-Shot%20Bid%20Ends%2C%20What%26%238217%3Bs%20To%20Come%20For%20His%20Key%20Issue%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
>> Posted incampaign finance
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>>
>>
>> “Lawmakers Ponder New Redistricting Methods”
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77390>
>>
>> Posted onNovember 8, 2015 1:03 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77390>byRick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> CBS Miami
>> <http://miami.cbslocal.com/2015/11/06/lawmakers-ponder-new-redistricting-methods/>:
>>
>> Oliva, who is set to take over as speaker of the House after the
>> 2018 elections, said in the wake of the failed session that he
>> was ready to consider an independent redistricting commission
>> that would recommend maps to the Legislature. The House and
>> Senate also failed to agree on a congressional redistricting plan
>> during an August special session.
>>
>> “I’m for looking into it, because I certainly think that we need
>> to have maps that aren’t disputed halfway into the next Census,”
>> Oliva said.
>>
>> At the same time, he pointed out some of the pitfalls for a
>> commission.
>>
>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77390&title=%26%238220%3BLawmakers%20Ponder%20New%20Redistricting%20Methods%26%238221%3B&description=>
>> Posted incitizen commissions
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=7>,redistricting
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
>>
>>
>> “‘SNL’ Gives Donald Trump Just 12 Minutes On Screen”
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77388>
>>
>> Posted onNovember 8, 2015 12:59 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77388>byRick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Variety
>> <http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/donald-trump-saturday-night-live-12-minutes-1201636040/>:
>>
>> His minimal appearance on the show would suggestNBC
>> <http://variety.com/t/nbc/>was extremely cognizant of TV’s
>> so-called “equal time” rule, which mandates that U.S. broadcast
>> and radio stations that grant appearances to political candidates
>> must provide an equal amount of time to other candidates who
>> request it….Candidates who want equal time are not guaranteed to
>> get what Trump received. NBC could send them to various programs
>> operated by NBC News, or to NBC-owned stations or some of the
>> network’s affiliates. But other people striving for the office
>> could certainly gain publicity for themselves by making the
>> request – and bring more scrutiny to the broadcast network, which
>> is owned by Comcast’s NBCUniversal unit.
>>
>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77388&title=%26%238220%3B%E2%80%98SNL%E2%80%99%20Gives%20Donald%20Trump%20Just%2012%20Minutes%20On%20Screen%26%238221%3B&description=>
>> Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>>
>>
>> What To Do About Truthiness in Campaigns? Not Much
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77386>
>>
>> Posted onNovember 8, 2015 12:54 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77386>byRick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> The New York Times notes that
>> truth<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/us/politics/candidates-stick-to-script-if-not-the-truth-in-2016-race.html?ref=politics>seems
>> to be a particular casualty of the 2016 election.
>>
>> It might make one think of laws barring false campaign speech. But
>> there are serious constitutional impediments to such laws, as I
>> explored recently in A Constitutional Right to Lie in Campaigns and
>> Elections?
>> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2151618>,
>> 74/Montana Law Review/53 (2013).
>>
>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77386&title=What%20To%20Do%20About%20Truthiness%20in%20Campaigns%3F%20Not%20Much&description=>
>> Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>>
>>
>> “In Seattle, a Campaign Finance Plan That Voters Control”
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77384>
>>
>> Posted onNovember 8, 2015 12:52 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77384>byRick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> NYT editorial:
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/opinion/sunday/in-seattle-a-campaign-finance-plan-that-voters-control.html?ref=opinion&_r=0>
>>
>> In Tuesday, Seattle voters advanced the city’s reputation for
>> progressivism when they approved a bold and unusual campaign
>> finance reform plan. The plan will draw on real estate taxes to
>> give every registered voter $100 in “democracy vouchers” to spend
>> on candidates in the next city elections.
>>
>> The 10-year, $30 million experiment in taxpayer subsidized
>> elections was approved by a 20 percent margin in an initiative
>> that supporters said was a reaction to the ability of affluent
>> donors to dominate campaigns. Under the plan, every voter will
>> receive four $25 vouchers in every election cycle to be used only
>> as campaign contributions to candidates in city races.
>>
>> Candidates are free to decline the money, but those who accept it
>> will have to observe lower campaign spending and contribution
>> limits, and agree to participate in at least three debates
>> against rivals. The program will be financed by a property tax
>> levy that works out to an estimated $9 a year on a $450,000
>> property. The unusual initiative is being closely watched by
>> government reform groups in other parts of the nation, some of
>> which helped finance the effort to get the initiative approved.
>>
>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77384&title=%26%238220%3BIn%20Seattle%2C%20a%20Campaign%20Finance%20Plan%20That%20Voters%20Control%26%238221%3B&description=>
>> Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>>
>>
>> Listen to the Oral Argument in Shapiro v. McManus Case
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77382>
>>
>> Posted onNovember 8, 2015 12:40 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77382>byRick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Here <https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-990>, at Oyez.
>>
>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77382&title=Listen%20to%20the%20Oral%20Argument%20in%20Shapiro%20v.%20McManus%20Case&description=>
>> Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme
>> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>>
>>
>> “Garcetti explains email endorsement mistake”
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77380>
>>
>> Posted onNovember 8, 2015 12:31 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77380>byRick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> KPCC reports.
>> <http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/11/07/55516/garcetti-explains-email-endorsement-mistake/>
>>
>> Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti expanded Friday on an email gaffe
>> involving his endorsement of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
>>
>> The Thursday email episode made headlines around the country.
>> Through a city email account, a communications staffer for the
>> mayorsent out an email
>> <http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/11/05/55483/la-mayor-endorses-clinton-in-2016-white-house-cont/>quoting
>> Garcetti endorsing Clinton for president. Just over an hour
>> later, that email was retracted.
>>
>> Even later on Thursday, his campaign confirmed that Garcetti is
>> backing Clinton.
>>
>> At an event downtown Friday afternoon, Garcetti called the email
>> from his office a mistake.
>>
>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77380&title=%26%238220%3BGarcetti%20explains%20email%20endorsement%20mistake%26%238221%3B&description=>
>> Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>>
>>
>> “Feds investigate Gov. Susana Martinez adviser Jay McClesky,
>> campaign funds” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77378>
>>
>> Posted onNovember 8, 2015 12:26 pm
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77378>byRick Hasen
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Santa Fe New Mexican
>> <http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/federal-probe-targets-gov-s-top-adviser-mccleskey/article_6cb560e4-4c58-5b1d-b1b9-f64109f0a884.html>:
>>
>> For the past several months, the FBI has been interviewing some
>> state Republicans about Gov. Susana Martinez’s fundraising
>> activities going back to her first run for governor.
>>
>> One prominent New Mexico Republican, who spoke on the condition
>> of anonymity, confirmed being interviewed in recent months by
>> federal agents about funds from Martinez’s campaign, as well as
>> money from her 2011 inauguration committee, going to the
>> governor’s political consultant, Jay McCleskey.
>>
>> This person also said agents asked questions about different
>> “fundraising vehicles,” such as political action committees, used
>> by Martinez’s political wing, though it was unclear what
>> potential violations federal agents are investigating.
>>
>> <share_save_171_16.png>
>> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77378&title=%26%238220%3BFeds%20investigate%20Gov.%20Susana%20Martinez%20adviser%20Jay%20McClesky%2C%20campaign%20funds%26%238221%3B&description=>
>> Posted incampaign finance
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,chicanery
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
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/20151109/b202fb60/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 513 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151109/b202fb60/attachment.png>
View list directory