[EL] CCP v. Harris

[Steve Hoersting]

Good point; and, indeed, an interesting thought experiment....

Allen: For those of us who have not followed this case closely: On what
governmental interest did the Court uphold the actions of the State AG?

(Please don't say the campaign-finance informational interest).

Steve
On Nov 9, 2015 11:16 AM, "Allen Dickerson" <adickerson at campaignfreedom.org>
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> wrote:
>
> “Democracy for GrownUps” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77408>
> Posted on November 9, 2015 7:46 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77408>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I have written this review
> <http://newramblerreview.com/book-reviews/law/democracy-for-grownups> of
> Bruce Cain’s Democracy More or Less
> <http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-More-Less-Political-Cambridge/dp/1107612268>
>  for the New 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 in theory <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 on November 9, 2015 7:42 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77303>
> by Rick 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 on Soundcloud
> <https://soundcloud.com/rick-hasen/elb-podcast-episode-6-nate> or subscribe
> 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 in ELB 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 on November 9, 2015 7:38 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77406>
> by Rick 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 the 1993 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 by Jeremy 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 in election 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 on November 9, 2015 7:32 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77404>
> by Rick 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 telling Politico
> <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 in campaign 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 on November 9, 2015 7:31 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77402>
> by Rick 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.
> <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 in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> Bauer on Justice Kennedy on Citizens United at Harvard
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77400>
> Posted on November 9, 2015 7:23 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77400>
> by Rick 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 in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
> Breaking: #SCOTUS [image: ❤️] Political Disclosure, Denies Cert. in CCP
> v. Harris <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77396>
> Posted on November 9, 2015 7:19 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77396>
> by Rick 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 to CCP <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 is far 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 in campaign 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 on November 8, 2015 7:05 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77394>
> by Rick 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 had 20
> <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 the 2011 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 in direct 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 on November 8, 2015 4:26 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77392>
> by Rick 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 in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> “Lawmakers Ponder New Redistricting Methods”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77390>
> Posted on November 8, 2015 1:03 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77390>
> by Rick 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=>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> ...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151109/2beab1ef/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2764.png
Type: image/png
Size: 513 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151109/2beab1ef/attachment.png>