[EL] CCP v. Harris
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Mon Nov 9 16:07:49 PST 2015
See the Ninth Circuit opinion discussing this issue, as well as the
state's BIO, especially the Introduction and page 12.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/CCP-v.-Harris-BIO.pdf
On 11/9/15 3:58 PM, Scarberry, Mark wrote:
>
> It might be helpful to know what enforcement purposes could be served.
> The AG traditionally makes sure that charities are being run for
> charitable purposes and that money isn’t being diverted from those
> purposes, if I’m not mistaken. Could disclosure of donors advance that
> purpose? Could disclosure of small donors advance that purpose? It
> isn’t clear to me how this disclosure advances those purposes, unless
> perhaps it turns out that a major donor’s family members are highly
> paid employees of the charity, but even that might not be improper,
> right? And it wouldn’t support requiring disclosure of all donors.
>
> I suppose, depending on state law, that the AG would want to make sure
> – as a matter of state law – that the charity isn’t engaging in
> support of candidates. Does disclosure of donors advance that purpose?
> Is a state AG entitled to question whether a charity’s status under
> federal tax law is at risk? Even then, what would be involved would
> mostly be protection of donors, who expect their donations to be
> deductible and to be used for legitimate charitable purposes. How does
> disclosure of donors advance that interest? Is the AG really claiming
> that she wants to create a database of donors whose identities she
> needs to know so that she can protect their interests?
>
> Mark
>
> Mark S. Scarberry
>
> Professor of Law
>
> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of
> *Rick Hasen
> *Sent:* Monday, November 09, 2015 3:34 PM
> *To:* Sean Parnell; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] CCP v. Harris
>
> I think whatever is disclosed to the IRS should be disclosable to the
> AGs for enforcement purposes, provided of course that they can keep
> the information private (an allegation which I understand has not yet
> been considered in the case). I would not support public disclosure
> of the information of c3 groups that do not engage in political
> activities.
>
> On 11/9/15 1:18 PM, Sean Parnell wrote:
>
> I’m curious what you think, Rick (and any other “reformers”) about
> the policy as a stand-alone issue, i.e. not in regards to what a
> ruling one way or another might mean for the regulation of money
> in an explicit campaign context, but as a policy issue in and of
> itself should state AG’s be able to require the revelation of
> donors to c3 entities? And what would you think of a policy of
> mandated disclosure to the public of donors/members to c3 entities?
>
> Sean Parnell
>
> President, Impact Policy Management, LLC
>
> 571-289-1374 (c)
>
> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
> <mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>
>
> Alexandria, Virginia
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf
> Of *Rick Hasen
> *Sent:* Monday, November 09, 2015 4:07 PM
> *To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] CCP v. Harris
>
> I'd also look at what the trial court did in Doe v. Reed and
> Protect Marriage, as described in my "Chill Out" piece.
>
> On 11/9/2015 12:58 PM, Bill Maurer wrote:
>
> Thanks, Richard, I’ve read that case numerous times. It seems
> to prove my point that the standard is actually applicable
> only after the harassment has already occurred.
>
> I would also note that, in practice, the application of the
> case has been that only the Socialist Workers Party has been
> able to demonstrate harassment. They are a pristine example of
> something that is truly sui generis.
>
> Bill
>
> *From:*Richard Winger [mailto:richardwinger at yahoo.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 09, 2015 12:49 PM
> *To:* Bill Maurer; Edward Still; Allen Dickerson
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] CCP v. Harris
>
> read Brown v Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee, 459 US 87.
>
> Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org <mailto:wmaurer at ij.org>>
> *To:* Edward Still <still at votelaw.com
> <mailto:still at votelaw.com>>; Allen Dickerson
> <adickerson at campaignfreedom.org
> <mailto:adickerson at campaignfreedom.org>>
> *Cc:* "law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>"
> <law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 9, 2015 12:33 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] CCP v. Harris
>
> Rick’s commented that “There is no constitutional impediment
> to [disclosure], except as to those groups which can
> demonstrate a realistic threat of harassment.”
>
> I’ve never seen a discussion of what exactly a plaintiff would
> have to do to demonstrate a realistic threat of harassment.
> Wouldn’t evidence of a realistic threat be evidence of actual
> harassment (for instance, I don’t see those doing the
> harassing sending out a pre-harassment notice that they will
> be engaging in future harassment, although I suppose someone
> could do that)? And what about new groups with new issues? How
> are they supposed to demonstrate the realistic threat?
>
> In other words, I don’t see the “harassment” standard as
> protecting much of anything going forward—it is entirely
> backward looking and, for that reason, utterly useless as a
> protection against harassment in the first instance.
>
> That is exactly the point Brad made about the inadvertent
> disclosure analysis of the Ninth Circuit. The court
> essentially said, you can’t get protection from inadvertent
> disclosure until the information has been inadvertently
> disclosed. At which point, it doesn’t matter.
>
> And what’s the standard for harassment? Is it violence or
> coercion, because I’ve heard a number of commentators
> (including Justice Scalia) suggest that anything short of that
> is the price of being involved in politics? Be we already have
> laws against violence or coercion. So, are laws against
> assault supposed to be the things that demark the outer edge
> of how far the government can go in collecting information
> about those who decide to exercise their fundamental rights?
>
> Isn’t the real standard that anyone who participates in
> political activity in this country should be aware that by
> doing so they are opening themselves up to governmental
> scrutiny in perpetuity with no realistic protection against
> misuse of the information the government has collected?
>
> Of course, a legitimate response to this is “We don’t care if
> people are harassed or their information misused.” But, why
> not say that?
>
> Bill
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Edward Still
> *Sent:* Monday, November 09, 2015 9:04 AM
> *To:* Allen Dickerson
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] CCP v. Harris
>
> The Questions Presented were:
>
> QUESTIONS PRESENTED
>
> 1. Whether a state official’s demand for all significant
> donors to a nonprofit organization, as a precondition to
> engaging in constitutionally-protected speech, constitutes a
> First Amendment injury.
>
> 2. Whether the “exacting scrutiny” standard applied in
> compelled disclosure cases permits state officials to demand
> donor information based upon generalized “law enforcement”
> interests, without making any specific showing of need.
>
> The cert petition is at http://electionlawblog.org/?p=74940.
>
>
> Edward Still
> Edward Still Law Firm LLC
>
> 429 Green Springs Hwy, STE 161-304
>
> Birmingham AL 35209
> 205-320-2882
> still at votelaw.com <mailto:still at votelaw.com>
> www.votelaw.com/blog <http://www.votelaw.com/blog>
> www.edwardstill.com <http://www.edwardstill.com>
> www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill>
>
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Allen Dickerson
> <adickerson at campaignfreedom.org
> <mailto:adickerson at campaignfreedom.org>> wrote:
>
> The point was to protect CCP's donors from scrutiny and
> potential leaks, inadvertent or otherwise, by a state AG who
> believed she was entitled to their identities without making
> any showing of need whatsoever. The case did not address the
> public informational interest behind campaign finance
> disclosure, which we couldn't do in any case because that
> wasn't the state's stated interest. Campaign finance simply
> wasn't involved.
>
> (Steve: the stated governmental interest was greater
> efficiency in exercising the AG's law enforcement duties).
>
>
> On Nov 9, 2015, at 11:34 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
>
> 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 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 <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 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 <mime-attachment.png> 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=>
>
> Posted in citizen 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 on November 8, 2015 12:59 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77388> by *Rick
> 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
> suggest NBC <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 in campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
>
> What To Do About Truthiness in Campaigns? Not
> Much <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77386>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2015 12:54 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77386> by *Rick
> 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 in campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
>
> “In Seattle, a Campaign Finance Plan That
> Voters Control”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77384>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2015 12:52 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77384> by *Rick
> 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 in campaign finance
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
>
>
> Listen to the Oral Argument in Shapiro v.
> McManus Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77382>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2015 12:40 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77382> by *Rick
> 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 in redistricting
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Supreme Court
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
> “Garcetti explains email endorsement mistake”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77380>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2015 12:31 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77380> by *Rick
> 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
> mayor sent 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 in campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
>
> “Feds investigate Gov. Susana Martinez adviser
> Jay McClesky, campaign funds”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77378>
>
> Posted on November 8, 2015 12:26 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77378> by *Rick
> 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 in campaign 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 <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>
> hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> <http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/>
>
> http://electionlawblog.org
> <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 <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>
> hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> <http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/>
>
> http://electionlawblog.org <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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Spam <about:blank>
> Phish/Fraud <about:blank>
> Not spam <about:blank>
> Forget previous vote <about:blank>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Spam
> <https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09PDwQ10W&m=cbc9018b5d62&t=20151109&c=s>
> Phish/Fraud
> <https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09PDwQ10W&m=cbc9018b5d62&t=20151109&c=p>
> Not spam
> <https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09PDwQ10W&m=cbc9018b5d62&t=20151109&c=n>
> Forget previous vote
> <https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09PDwQ10W&m=cbc9018b5d62&t=20151109&c=f>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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 <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>
> hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
>
> --
> 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 <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> 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
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/20151109/418f9a0a/attachment.html>
View list directory