[EL] CCP v. Harris
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Mon Nov 9 17:51:40 PST 2015
Sean,
It is a great question but I'm afraid I've reached significantly
diminishing marginal returns for continuing this discussion on the
listserv. At some point I might invest more time in the question. I do
recall thinking about it a lot in relation to the McConnell disclosure
provisions, which went even broader than electioneering communications.
Rick
On 11/9/15 5:37 PM, Sean Parnell wrote:
>
> Then, if you don’t mind, what definition of political activity would
> you like to see applied? For example:
>
> 1.Lobbying
>
> 2.Any communication published by a c3 that references a candidate,
> such as “/So Sen. McCain, who has gotten a great deal of positive
> press over the years with his crusade for campaign finance "reform"
> and repeatedly denounced the so-called "special interests" represented
> by lobbyists, must now explain how he can be friends with people who,
> as has so indelicately put it in the past, "corrupt" the government by
> representing their clients./”*
>
> 3.Any communication published by a c3 that, while it does not directly
> reference a candidate by name, addresses policy positions that are
> closely identified with particular candidates (say, McCain-Feingold or
> the flat tax in 1996).
>
> There are other possibilities as well of course, these are just a few
> that come to mind.
>
> Sean Parnell
>
> President, Impact Policy Management, LLC
>
> 571-289-1374 (c)
>
> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
>
> Alexandria, Virginia
>
> *This is from a piece I wrote on CCP’s blog back in 2008, here
> <http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2008/02/23/perhaps-an-update-to-im-just-a-bill-is-in-order/>.
> Judging by some of the past campaign finance regulations I’ve seen
> proposed in the past, it seems like the sort of thing that might be
> considered “political” by some.
>
> *From:*Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 09, 2015 7:08 PM
> *To:* Smith, Brad; Sean Parnell; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] CCP v. Harris
>
> I believe it depends upon what one considers to be political activity,
> which does not have to match either the IRS's stated definition or its
> actual enforcement practices
>
> On 11/9/15 3:59 PM, Smith, Brad wrote:
>
> C3 groups do not, by definition, engage in politics. And that is
> this case, CCP v. Harris.
>
> Now if you wish to change the traditionally understood definition
> of politics to include a whole bunch more stuff (and note, for IRS
> –i.e. 990—purposes it is already much broader than it is for
> FEC/political reporting) then go at it. But that’s asking for a
> quite a change in the law.
>
> In short, by supporting the state here, you have already announced
> your support for “public disclosure of the information of c3
> groups that do not engage in political activities.”
>
> /Bradley A. Smith/
>
> /Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault /
>
> / Professor of Law/
>
> /Capital University Law School/
>
> /303 East Broad Street/
>
> /Columbus, OH 43215/
>
> /(614) 236-6317/
>
> /bsmith at law.capital.edu <mailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu>/
>
> /http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp/
>
> *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 6:34 PM
> *To:* Sean Parnell; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto: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
>
>
>
> --
> 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
--
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/20151109/0914a7a2/attachment.html>
View list directory