[EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/21/15

Rick Hasen rhasen at law.uci.edu
Fri Nov 20 20:15:11 PST 2015


    “Democrat Wins Mississippi House Race After Drawing Straw”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77726>

Posted onNovember 20, 2015 8:06 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77726>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/us/mississippi-house-race-comes-down-to-one-deciding-straw.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news>:

    Moments after winning, Mr. Eaton, who raises cattle and grows timber
    and soybeans, attributed his win to a farmer’s luck. “There’s always
    happiness in a good crop year,” he said.

    A lawyer for Mr. Tullos said that a challenge had been filed with
    the State House of Representatives. Mr. Tullos, a lawyer himself,
    declined to comment but had said he planned a challenge if he lost
    the draw. He had cited concerns about the way a county election
    board handled nine paper “affidavit ballots” filed by voters who
    believed their names were erroneously left off the voter rolls.

    Resorting to a game of chance to break an electoral tie is common in
    many states, and coin tosses are often used to settle smaller local
    races. But in few instances had the pot been as rich as this: If Mr.
    Tullos had won, his fellow Republicans would have gained a
    three-fifths supermajority in the State House of Representatives,
    the threshold required to pass revenue-related bills.

    At stake, potentially, was hundreds of millions of dollars in tax
    revenue. The three-fifths requirement has allowed the Democratic
    minority to block Republican tax-cut proposals in the past on the
    grounds that Mississippi needs the revenue to finance schools and
    other services. Republicans, who also control the State Senate and
    governor’s mansion, say the cuts, including a proposal to phase out
    the state’s corporate franchise tax, will jump-start the economy and
    promote job growth….

    Some Democrats wondered whether the Republican-controlled House
    would be able to impartially judge the matter. On Thursday, Greg
    Snowden, the Republican House speaker pro tempore, predicted that
    “every member of the House will treat this with the utmost seriousness.”

    “It’s not a game,” he said.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77726&title=%26%238220%3BDemocrat%20Wins%20Mississippi%20House%20Race%20After%20Drawing%20Straw%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted invoting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>


    “Inglewood City Council’s new hours aren’t exactly welcoming”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77724>

Posted onNovember 20, 2015 4:39 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77724>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

LAT editorial 
<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-adv-inglewood-council-20151119-story.html>:

    Earlier this year, the same council took advantage of a loophole in
    state election law to approve the construction of a giant football
    stadium without conducting a full environmental review or taking a
    vote of the people. Then the city filed a federal lawsuit against
    resident Joseph Teixeira, alleging he violated copyright law by
    using snippets of official council meeting footage in YouTube videos
    that criticized Mayor James T. Butts Jr. Calling the lawsuit a
    “serious threat to critical political expression,” a federal judge
    tossed out the city’s claims and ordered it to pay Teixeira’s
    lawyers $117,741 in fees.

    Since then, The Times reported, the city has stopped posting council
    meetings on YouTube. It’s also cut the time residents can speak
    during the meetings’ public comment period from two minutes per
    person to one. So it’s understandable that residents, especially
    those skeptical of the city leadership, feel the move to daytime
    meetings is part of trend to limit participation and curtail
    opposing views.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77724&title=%26%238220%3BInglewood%20City%20Council%26%238217%3Bs%20new%20hours%20aren%26%238217%3Bt%20exactly%20welcoming%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inchicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>,legislation and 
legislatures <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>


    “Mysterious pro-Mitch McConnell group bankrolled by megadonors”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77722>

Posted onNovember 20, 2015 4:31 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77722>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CPI 
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/11/20/18887/mysterious-pro-mitch-mcconnell-group-bankrolled-megadonors>:

    A secretive nonprofit group that helped boost Senate Majority Leader
    Mitch McConnell of Kentucky during his hotly contested 2014
    re-election bid itself raised more money than McConnell’s
    challenger, Alison Lundergan Grimes, according to copies of the
    group’s tax filings obtained by theCenter for Public Integrity
    <http://www.publicintegrity.org/>.

    The Kentucky Opportunity Coalition raised more than $21 million
    during 2013 and 2014, including $15 million last year alone,
    according todocuments the group filed this week
    <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2519461-kentucky-opportunity-coalition-irs-form-990-for.html>with
    the Internal Revenue Service. Most of the money came from just a
    handful of wealthy — and anonymous — donors.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77722&title=%26%238220%3BMysterious%20pro-Mitch%20McConnell%20group%20bankrolled%20by%20megadonors%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,tax law 
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>


    “Koch Spy Agency Led by Voter Fraud Huckster”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77720>

Posted onNovember 20, 2015 7:25 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77720>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Oh this is interesting 
<http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/11/12980/koch-spy-voter-fraud>:

    The Kochs have been complaining about a “lack of civility in
    politics” as they seek to boost their public image–but one of their
    top operatives helped propel perhaps the most egregious case of
    race-baiting voter fraud hucksterism in recent years.

    At the same time that the Kochs have been on a PR blitz, publicly
    spinning an image of themselves
    <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/31/us/koch-brothers-brave-spotlight-to-try-to-alter-their-image.html?_r=1>as
    well-intentioned patriots trying to make the world a better place
    and decrying “character assasination
    <http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303978304579475860515021286>,” they’ve
    been quietly ramping up a clandestine surveillance and intelligence
    gathering operation focused on their perceived political enemies,
    Ken Vogelreports at /Politico/
    <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/the-koch-brothers-intelligence-agency-215943>.

    At the helm of this “competitive intelligence” operation is a man
    named Mike Roman, Vice President of Research for Kochs’ Freedom
    Partners and who was paid $265,000 last year, according toFreedom
    Partners’ recent tax filing
    <http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/11/12979/freedom-partners>.

    But who is Mike Roman? He’s been described generally as a longtime
    GOP operative. However, he’s also the guy who was behind the release
    of the 2008 “New Black Panthers scaring old white ladies at the
    polls” video. The clip dominated Fox News for months and went on to
    fuel unfounded allegations that the Obama administration’s
    Department of Justice was biased against white people.

    Roman made a name for himself by releasing the video, which showed
    two New Black Panther Party (NBPP) members holding billy clubs
    outside a Philadelphia polling place, on his voter
    fraud-peddling “Election Journal” website. He then worked with
    <http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/what_you_didnt_hear_about_the.html>Republican
    vote fraud conspiracist J. Christian Adams to try uncovering
    evidence that voters were intimidated–which they could not find. But
    that didn’t stop Roman, along with Fox News and the conservative
    echo chamber, from conjuring up avast racist conspiracy
    <http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/07/07/conservative-media-use-new-black-panthers-case/167383>inside
    the Obama administration, a theme that continues today
    <http://rickwells.us/archives/14344>.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77720&title=%26%238220%3BKoch%20Spy%20Agency%20Led%20by%20Voter%20Fraud%20Huckster%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted infraudulent fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>


    “Liberal ‘dark money’ group rails against ‘dark money'”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77718>

Posted onNovember 20, 2015 7:22 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77718>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

CPI 
<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/11/20/18881/liberal-dark-money-group-rails-against-dark-money>:

    Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid lambasted secret political cash
    when he appearedlast week in a video
    <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWx-ZCePJSo>filmed and produced by
    a liberal advocacy group.

    “Working families can’t compete with billionaires,” Reid, a Nevada
    Democrat, said in the ad that also featured another liberal luminary
    in Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. “Let’s stop the flood of dark
    money into our political system and do it now.”

    One catch: The group behind the video, a nonprofit calledAmerican
    Family Voices <http://www.americanfamilyvoices.org/>, doesn’t
    generally reveal who funds its operations — although a Center for
    Public Integrity <http://www.publicintegrity.org/politics>review of
    Internal Revenue Service and Department of Labor records indicates
    large unions, environmental interests and a major corporate retail
    lobbying group have this decade provided it with six- or
    seven-figure contributions.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77718&title=%26%238220%3BLiberal%20%26%238216%3Bdark%20money%26%238217%3B%20group%20rails%20against%20%26%238216%3Bdark%20money%27%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,tax law 
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>


    Today’s Must Read: Lee Drutman on La Raja and Schaffner on Campaign
    Finance and Polarization <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77716>

Posted onNovember 20, 2015 7:21 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77716>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Vox 
<http://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2015/11/20/9763292/parties-polarization-small-donors>:

    Last December, as part of the must-pass “CRomnibus” bill,Congress
    changed the law <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=68995>so that
    political parties could raise considerably more money. Under the new
    rules, a single donor can now give $1.5 million to the parties
    during a two-year election cycle.

    Good government groupswere predictably upset
    <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/cromnibus-campaign-finance_n_6298984.html>.
    But anothergroup of observers
    <http://www.democracyjournal.org/36/democratic-romanticism-and-its-critics.php?page=all>had
    a different view: In their view, political parties may not be
    perfect, but the alternative to strong political parties is
    extremism and chaos. They argued that you can’t get money out of
    politics. But you can channel it. And if you want moderation,
    political parties are the best channel.

    Two of the leading advocates of this view, Raymond J. La Raja and
    Brian F. Schaffner of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, now
    have a new book,/Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When
    Purists Prevail/
    <https://www.press.umich.edu/4882255/campaign_finance_and_political_polarization>,
    which makes the strongest and most extended case yet for allowing
    political parties to control more money. “Our argument” they write,
    “is that financially strong party organizations should reduce party
    polarization.” They’re also skeptical about small donors, which they
    dismiss as polarizing.

    My colleague Mark Schmitt has written thedefinitive overview
    <http://www.democracyjournal.org/36/democratic-romanticism-and-its-critics.php?page=all>of
    the reform skeptic movement, a larger group of mostly academics
    (which include La Raja and Schaffner) who, as Schmitt explains,
    offer a “challenge to many of the assumptions and unexamined
    verities of those who aspire to reform the American political process.”

    What follows here is a more targeted discussion of two specific
    debates this new book raises: about the value of empowering
    political parties, as well as its skepticism of empowering small
    donors. Although the small-donor critique is a side point of the
    book, it’s an important critique to address, given the full-fledged
    push by many campaign reformers into small-donor experiments.

    Here’s the quick summary of my take: Stronger parties will not move
    to the center because there are both few meaningful opportunities to
    move to the center and little meaningful center to move toward. The
    median voter theory on which they stake so much simply does not
    operate under our current political rules. The claim that small
    donors are polarizing reflects a failure to understand how a
    small-donor matching system would change the incentives of running
    for office and of giving.

    And while I disagree with the conclusions La Raja and Schaffner
    reach, I happily recommend their book. It’s clearly written, full of
    data, and provocative. And I do agree with their implicit criticism
    that reformers often fail to investigate their assumptions and as a
    result develop overly simplistic and counterproductive models of the
    world, often in a too simple corruption framework.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77716&title=Today%26%238217%3Bs%20Must%20Read%3A%20Lee%20Drutman%20on%20La%20Raja%20and%20Schaffner%20on%20Campaign%20Finance%20and%20Polarization&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,political 
parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,political polarization 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>


    Bauer on FEC Chair Ann Ravel’s Daily Show Appearance
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77714>

Posted onNovember 20, 2015 7:19 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77714>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bob <http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2015/11/fec-late-night-comedy/>:

    To be clear, and to be fair: Commissioner Ravel did not appear to
    choose the particular example; there is plenty to complain about in
    the design of the campaign finance law and ample grounds on which to
    question, on a number of issues, the FEC’s performance; and
    certainly no opinion is expressed here about the legal affairs of
    the Fiorina Super PAC.  Nor is there any doubt that/The/ /Daily
    Show/, like the Colbert turns with Trevor Potter, can be exceedingly
    entertaining and score a useful point here and there.

    Commissioner Ravel concluded, however, that as Chair of the agency,
    she could help inform the public about the agency’s failings, and
    perhaps help bring pressure to right the ship, by appearing in
    a/Daily Show/routine.  It is not clear that, as an official
    communication, this will work as intended. Certainly, the audience
    would not likely have come away with the impression registered by
    the judge presiding over the challenge to the “name” rule: “U.S.
    federal election law is complex.” /Id/. at *2.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77714&title=Bauer%20on%20FEC%20Chair%20Ann%20Ravel%26%238217%3Bs%20Daily%20Show%20Appearance&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal 
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>


-- 
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/20151120/2c8dcc49/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151120/2c8dcc49/attachment.png>


View list directory