[EL] ELB News and Commentary 11/30/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Mon Nov 30 07:46:27 PST 2015
Plutocrats United: The Book Tour and Talks
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77845>
Posted onNovember 30, 2015 7:45 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77845>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
My new book,Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and
the Distortion of American Elections
<http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300212457>, will be
released on January 12. (Pre-order at 28% discount at Amazon
<http://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-United-Campaign-Distortion-Elections/dp/0300212453/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1448649580&sr=1-1&keywords=9780300212457>.)
I will be presenting the book at a number of venues and events over the
next few months. Some of the information is tentative, and I will
periodically update this post, and bump it to the top, with new and
updated information. Here is the information so far.
*January 12*, Los Angeles, Zocalo Public Square, 7:30 pm (details and
RSVP <http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/event/?postId=66754>)
*January 21*, New York City, Brennan Center for Justice/NYU (evening
event) (details to come)
*January 22*, Washington, DC, Campaign Legal Center (with Trevor Potter)
(lunchtime event) (details to come)
*February 8*, Irvine, CA, University of California, Irvine (with Erwin
Chemerinsky) (4 pm event) (details to come)
*February 18*, Philadelphia, PA, National Constitution Center (with Ned
Foley and Michael Gerhardt) (12 pm event) (details to come)
*February 18*, Philadelphia PA, University of Pennsylvania Law School (3
pm event) (details to come)
*February 19,*Boston/Cambridge, Harvard Law School (lunchtime event)
(details to come)
*February 26*, Brooklyn, Brooklyn Law School (First Amendment symposium)
(details to come)
*February 29*, Decatur, Ga, Georgia Center for the Book at DeKalb County
Public Library, 7:15 pm (details to come)
*March 1*, Miami, University of Miami (details to come)
*March 16*, Berkeley, CA, University of California, at Berkeley, 3:30 pm
(with Tom Mann and Bertrall Ross) (details to come)
*March 31*, Winter Park, FL, Rollins College, 7 pm (details to come)
*April 15*, Boulder, CO, University of Colorado, Boulder (symposium on
campaign finance) (details to come)
I hope to see many ELB readers at these events!
Here is adescription
<http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300212457>of the book:
Campaign financing is one of today’s most divisive political issues.
The left asserts that the electoral process is rife with corruption.
The right protests that the real aim of campaign limits is to
suppress political activity and protect incumbents. Meanwhile, money
flows freely on both sides. In/Plutocrats United,/Richard Hasen
argues that both left and right avoid the key issue of the new
Citizens United era: balancing political inequality with free speech.
The Supreme Court has long held that corruption and its appearance
are the only reasons to constitutionally restrict campaign funds.
Progressives often agree but have a much broader view of corruption.
Hasen argues for a new focus and way forward: if the government is
to ensure robust political debate, the Supreme Court should allow
limits on money in politics to prevent those with great economic
power from distorting the political process.
And here are theearly blurbs
<http://yalepress.yale.edu/reviews.asp?isbn=9780300212457>:
“A masterful blend of legal reasoning and political analysis,
Hasen’s new book is the most thorough, nuanced, and compelling
treatment I have read of how money in elections reduces political
equality and thereby diminishes American democracy. He unabashedly
proposes a reform strategy that goes to the heart of the
problem.”—Thomas E. Mann, co-author of/It’s Even Worse Than It Looks/
“/Plutocrats United/will mark Hasen certainly as the dean of this
field.” —Lawrence Lessig, author of/Republic, Lost: How Money
Corrupts Congress–and a Plan to Stop It/
“There is no better analyst or interpreter of America’s campaign
finance laws and regime then Rick Hasen./Plutocrats United/is Hasen
at his finest: a cogent, reasoned critique of what the Supreme Court
has and has not done to shape money and American politics, and a
roadmap to a better system if and when there is a Court willing to
respond to reason.”—Norman Ornstein, co-author,/It’s Even Worse Than
It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the
New Politics of Extremism/
“Rick Hasen is the foremost scholar working today to make the case
for a robust conception of political equality in thinking about the
regulation of campaign finance. In this new book he displays all of
his well-recognized skills and deep learning. It is clear and
readable, both scholarly and accessible, and it will be highly
influential in academic and policy development communities , and in
the courts. There is no more authoritative source for anyone who
seeks a thorough treatment of all the reasons one might care about
equality in this era of mega-donors and Super PACs.”–Bob Bauer,
former White House Counsel and Professor of Practice, New York
University School of Law
“While others complain about the corruption of money in politics,
Rick Hasen, America’s leading expert on the electoral process,
offers smart, innovative solutions. This book is a “must-read” for
anyone who wants to understand the roots of America’s profound
political inequality — and wants to do something about it.”—Adam
Winkler, UCLA School of Law
“/Plutocrats United/should become the go-to volume for anyone
wanting to understand the role of money in American politics: how we
got to where we are today, and a realistic assessment of the chances
for improving the current situation. Hasen deftly interweaves
fine-grained details with a lucid big-picture perspective. Even more
impressively, he eschews simplistic solutions, recognizing that
regulatory line-drawing in this area necessarily will involve a
careful balancing of competing constitutional values.”–Edward B.
Foley, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77845&title=Plutocrats%20United%3A%20The%20Book%20Tour%20and%20Talks&description=>
Posted incampaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Plutocrats United
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
#SCOTUS: What’s Next in the Hawaii Election Case Whose Vote Counting
Justice Kennedy Enjoined Friday? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77879>
Posted onNovember 30, 2015 7:41 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77879>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
As I reported
<http://breaking:%20Justice%20Kennedy%20Enjoins%20Counting%20of%20Ballots%20in%20Hawaii%20Election/>on
Friday, Justice Kennedy, in his capacity as Circuit Justice for the
Ninth Circuit, hasenjoined the counting
<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2623111-hawaii.html>of ballots
in an upcoming election in which only those with Native Hawaiian
ancestry may vote.Adam Liptak reporte
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/politics/supreme-court-justice-intervenes-in-native-hawaiian-election.html>d
for the NY Times on the case, andI pondered
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77853> whether the order itself might
affect voting, which concludes today. (After all, a person should be
less likely to vote if he or she believes it is fairly likely the votes
will never be counted.)
As i noted in an update to my original post, and asLyle Denniston noted
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/11/kennedy-temporarily-blocks-hawaii-vote-count/>in
his post at SCOTUSBlog, Justice Kennedy’s order hinted at further
action. It reads: “IT IS ORDERED that the respondents are enjoined from
counting the ballots cast in, and certifying the winners of, the
election described in the application, pending further order of the
undersigned or of the Court.” Lyle writes: “Because of the holiday
weekend, it may be that the full Court will consider the matter further
when the Court returns to public sessions next Monday. In the meantime,
the cast ballots may not be opened for counting and the outcome cannot
be certified officially.”
The Court’s docket
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15a551.htm>shows
the briefing on the emergency application is complete, but Justice
Kennedy’s order contemplates a further order. I expect within a few days
we will get another order from the entire Court, with the holiday
weekend over. Justice Kennedy’s order seemed intended to keep the status
quo (but I think it actually could be affecting voting). It would not
surprise me to see Justice Kennedy’s order extended, and perhaps even
the case set for full briefing and argument, although the Court may keep
the stay in place and give the Ninth Circuit the first crack at a full
decision in this case. Sooner or later, though, I expect the Court will
address the merits in this fascinating and important case.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77879&title=%23SCOTUS%3A%20What%26%238217%3Bs%20Next%20in%20the%20Hawaii%20Election%20Case%20Whose%20Vote%20Counting%20Justice%20Kennedy%20Enjoined%20Friday%3F&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,voting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
#SCOTUS Rejects Another Challenge to Campaign Finance Disclosure and
Disclaimer Rules <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77877>
Posted onNovember 30, 2015 7:29 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77877>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP reporton
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_HAWAII_CAMPAIGN_FINANCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>today’scert.
denial<http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/113015zor_3e04.pdf>in
a campaign finance case out of Hawaii. (Here is thecert. petition
<http://www.jamesmadisoncenter.org/cases/files/yamada/CertiorariPetition08142015.pdf>from
Jim Bopp.) AsI wrote <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72631>in my earlier
coverage of this case:
A important unanimous
decision<http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/05/20/12-15913.pdf>by
Judge Fisher (joined by Kozinski and Watford) in the 9th Circuit as
a challenge to the federal contractor ban remains pending. The 9th
Circuit held the ban satisfied exacting scrutiny, even after
/McCutcheon/, and even though it is a ban, rather than a limit on
contributions, citing the danger of pay to play.
The bulk of the opinion also upheld a variety of reporting,
disclaimer, and disclosure requirements required by Hawaii law. And
the court included dicta affirming the special importance of
disclosure in the Citizens United era:
Although not directly relevant to A-1’s challenge – because A-1’s
political activities are self-financed and it receives no
contributions – we also note the heightened importance of
noncandidate committee disclosure requirements now that the limit on
contributions to noncandidate committees has been permanently
enjoined. A single contributor may provide thousands of dollars to
independent committees, and yet avoid disclosing its identity if the
committee makes all the expenditures itself. The noncandidate
committee definition acts to ensure that the contributor’s identity
will be disclosed to the voting public. Hawaii’s efforts to provide
transparency would be incomplete if disclosure was not required in
such circumstances.
The opinion is in /A-1 A-Lectrician v. Snipes./
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77877&title=%23SCOTUS%20Rejects%20Another%20Challenge%20to%20Campaign%20Finance%20Disclosure%20and%20Disclaimer%20Rules&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“High Court Rejects Fee Dispute in Texas Redistricting Case”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77875>
Posted onNovember 30, 2015 7:21 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77875>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_VOTING_RIGHTS_FEES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>:
The Supreme Court won’t hear an appeal from lawyers for former Texas
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis and others seeking
$360,000 in legal fees after challenging state redistricting plans.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77875&title=%26%238220%3BHigh%20Court%20Rejects%20Fee%20Dispute%20in%20Texas%20Redistricting%20Case%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Warren Buffett-Funded Group Signs on as Democracy Alliance
‘Partner’” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77873>
Posted onNovember 30, 2015 7:20 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77873>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
The Washington Free Beacon
<http://freebeacon.com/politics/warren-buffett-funded-group-signs-on-as-democracy-alliance-partner/?utm_source=hootsuite>reports.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77873&title=%26%238220%3BWarren%20Buffett-Funded%20Group%20Signs%20on%20as%20Democracy%20Alliance%20%E2%80%98Partner%E2%80%99%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“In Scalia lecture, Kagan discusses statutory interpretation”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77871>
Posted onNovember 30, 2015 7:02 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77871>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Report
<http://today.law.harvard.edu/in-scalia-lecture-kagan-discusses-statutory-interpretation/>andvideo
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpEtszFT0Tg>(viaHow Appealing
<http://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/112815.html#064496>).
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77871&title=%26%238220%3BIn%20Scalia%20lecture%2C%20Kagan%20discusses%20statutory%20interpretation%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted instatutory interpretation
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=21>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Op-Ed: States Are Falling Short In Providing Voter Access”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77869>
Posted onNovember 30, 2015 6:53 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77869>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Brenda Wright and Adam Ambrogi write
<http://www.nationallawjournal.com/home/id=1202743430966?kw=Op-Ed:%20States%20Are%20Falling%20Short%20In%20Providing%20Voter%20Access&cn=20151130&pt=Daily%20Headlines&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&slreturn=20151030095215>for
the /National Law Journal./
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77869&title=%26%238220%3BOp-Ed%3A%20States%20Are%20Falling%20Short%20In%20Providing%20Voter%20Access%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,NVRA (motor voter)
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=33>
“Ben Carson’s Book Tour Draws Campaign Finance Complaint”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77867>
Posted onNovember 30, 2015 6:50 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77867>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT reports.
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/24/ben-carsons-book-tour-draws-campaign-finance-complaint/?_r=1>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77867&title=%26%238220%3BBen%20Carson%E2%80%99s%20Book%20Tour%20Draws%20Campaign%20Finance%20Complaint%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Not Authorized” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77865>
Posted onNovember 30, 2015 6:49 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77865>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bauer <http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2015/11/authorized/>on Super
PACs.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77865&title=%26%238220%3BNot%20Authorized%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Ned Foley Stocking Stuffer <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77863>
Posted onNovember 29, 2015 3:52 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77863>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
What do you give the election law nerd who has everything?
I’d suggest Ned Foley’s new book,Ballot Battles
<https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ballot-battles-9780190235277?cc=us&lang=en&>.
I’ve read this in draft and I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to
know how we’ve handled close and crucial elections throughout the
Nation’s history. It didn’t start (nor will it end) with /Bush v. Gore/.
Ned will be guest blogging soon about his great book. It is careful,
scholarly, and entertaining.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77863&title=Ned%20Foley%20Stocking%20Stuffer&description=>
Posted inrecounts <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=50>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
Must-Read Nick Confessore on Money in Illinois Politics in the
Citizens United Era <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77861>
Posted onNovember 29, 2015 3:48 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77861>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Deep dive
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/us/politics/illinois-campaign-money-bruce-rauner.html?smid=tw-nytpolitics&smtyp=cur&_r=0>in
the New York Times on the rise of ouremerging plutocracy
<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>and
the lack of capacity of campaign finance laws to deal with it:
The families remaking Illinois are among a small group around the
country who have channeled their extraordinary wealth into political
power, taking advantage of regulatory, legal and cultural shifts
that have carved new paths for infusing money into campaigns.
Economic winners in an age of rising inequality, operating largely
out of public view, they are reshaping government with fortunes so
large as to defy the ordinary financial scale of politics. In the
2016 presidential race, a New York Times analysis found last
month,just 158 families
<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html>had
provided nearly half of the early campaign money.
Many of those giving, like Mr. Griffin, come from the world of
finance, an industry that has yielded more of the new political
wealth than any other. The Florida-based leveraged-buyout pioneer
John Childs, the private equity investor Sam Zell and Paul Singer, a
prominent New York hedge fund manager, all helped elect Mr. Rauner,
as did Richard Uihlein, a conservative businessman from the Chicago
suburbs.
Most of them lean Republican; some are Democrats. But to a
remarkable degree, their philosophies are becoming part of a widely
adopted blueprint for public officials around the country: Critical
of the power of unions, many are also determined to reduce spending
and taxation, and are skeptical of government-led efforts to
mitigate the growing gap between the rich and everyone else….
To bring about a revolution in the Illinois Capitol, in Springfield,
Mr. Rauner and his allies have created what amounts to a new
campaign economy, in which union money has long been the financial
lifeblood of both parties. Contributing millions to his own
campaign, Mr. Rauner triggered a state law that removes limits on
campaign contributions when a wealthy candidate spends heavily on
his or her own race.
The law, intended to limit the influence of the wealthy by providing
a level playing field, had the opposite effect: Freed of the
restraints, supporters of Mr. Rauner poured millions more into his
campaign, breaking state records. About half of the $65 million he
spent through last year’s election came from himself and nine other
individuals, families or companies they control. Mr. Quinn, the
incumbent, spent about $32 million, with many unions making
mid-six-figure contributions.
Mr. Rauner’s biggest donor was Mr. Griffin, who gave $5.5 million
and put his private plane at Mr. Rauner’s disposal. Mr. Rauner’s
allies spent millions on political advocacy groups, research
organizations and party committees. The Chicago Sun-Times reversed
its no-endorsement policy to back Mr. Rauner, who was a part-owner
of the paper before he ran for governor.
“He didn’t have to play by the same rules as other candidates,” said
Bill Hyers, the chief strategist to Mr. Quinn. “He just kept on
spending.”
Never before in modern Illinois politics had so few people provided
so much of the money for campaigns. The size of the average
contribution in last year’s general election almost tripled over
those made in the previous governor’s race, according to a Times
analysis of campaign records collected by Illinois Sunshine, a
project of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform….
Around the same time that Mr. Rauner began running for governor, a
group of researchers based at Northwestern University published
findings from the country’sfirst-ever representative survey of the
richest one percent of Americans
<http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/%7Ejnd260/cab/CAB2012%20-%20Page1.pdf>.
The study, known as the Survey of Economically Successful Americans
and the Common Good, canvassed a sample of the wealthy from the
Chicago area. Those canvassed were granted anonymity to discuss
their views candidly.
Their replies were striking. Where merely affluent Americans are
more likely to identify as Democrats than as Republicans, the
ultrawealthy overwhelmingly leaned right. They are far more likely
to raise money for politicians and to have access to them; nearly
half had personally contacted one of Illinois’s two United States
senators.
Where the general public overwhelmingly supports a high minimum
wage, the one percent are broadly opposed. A majority of Americans
supported expanding safety-net and retirement programs, while most
of the very wealthy opposed them. And while Americans are not
enthusiastic about higher taxes generally, they feel strongly that
the rich should pay more than they do, and more than everyone else pays.
“Probably the biggest single area of disconnect has to do with
social welfare programs,” said Benjamin I. Page, a political
scientist at Northwestern University and a co-author of the study.
“The other big area has to do with paying for those programs,
particularly taxes on high-income and wealthy people.”
Illinois, Mr. Page added, is “a case study of the disconnect in
action — between what average citizens want the government to do and
what it does.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77861&title=Must-Read%20Nick%20Confessore%20on%20Money%20in%20Illinois%20Politics%20in%20the%20Citizens%20United%20Era&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,Plutocrats United
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>
“Donors gave a super PAC $6 million. Candidates actually got about
$140,000.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77859>
Posted onNovember 29, 2015 3:38 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77859>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
LAT:
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-ben-carson-fundraising-20151125-story.html?utm_content=buffer0c675&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer>
Before he entered the race for the White House,Ben Carson
<http://www.latimes.com/topic/health/ben-carson-PECLB0015321-topic.html>signed
on to a campaign to raise money to fight Obamacare. When Juanita
McMillon saw his name, she was eager to get out her checkbook.
“I think he is sincere, and I think he is honest, and I think he is
exactly what we need,” said McMillon, 80, from the small town of De
Kalb in northeast Texas. She gave $350.
Her money went to the American Legacy PAC, an organization with ties
to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. With Carson as the face of
its Save Our Healthcare campaign, American Legacy raised close to $6
million in 2014 — and spent nearly all of it paying the consultants
and firms that raised the money. Just 2% was donated to Republican
candidates and committees, financial reports show.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77859&title=%26%238220%3BDonors%20gave%20a%20super%20PAC%20%246%20million.%20Candidates%20actually%20got%20about%20%24140%2C000.%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
BIG Campaign Finance News: La. GOP Soft Money Lawsuit Gets 3-Judge
Court, Likely Ticket to SCOTUS <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77857>
Posted onNovember 27, 2015 2:44 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77857>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I know it is late on Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, but here’s some
very big news. It sounds technical, but it really, really matters.
A federal district courthas
held<http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/lagop_dc_opinion.pdf>that the
Louisiana GOP, under the guidance of tenacious campaign finance lawyer
Jim Bopp, has the right to have a challenge to McCain-Feingold’s soft
money ban applied to state parties through a three-judge court. Getting
there took some very clever drafting, as the court recognized:
Close observers of the campaign-finance arena may be experiencing
twinges of déjà vu. Last year, these same plaintiffs, represented by
the same counsel, were among those who mounted similar challenges to
the soft-money ban before this Court. See Rufer v. FEC, 64 F. Supp.
3d 195 (D.D.C. 2014); RNC v. FEC (“RNC II”), No. 14-cv-00853 (D.D.C.
Aug. 19, 2014). This Court declined to convene a three-judge court
to hear those challenges. While the Court found that the plaintiffs
had presented “substantial, non-frivolous” constitutional claims, it
concluded they lacked standing to bring those claims before a
three-judge court because their central alleged
injury—being prevented from accepting unlimited contributions to
fund “independent” election activity—could have been redressed only
by invalidating the longstanding base party contribution limits in
FECA. Rufer, 64 F. Supp. 3d at 198. BCRA three-judge courts,
however, are empowered to decide only constitutional challenges to
provisions of BCRA itself. Id. Having been deprived of a direct
ticket to the Supreme Court, the Rufer and RNC II plaintiffs
abandoned their appeal of the Court’s ruling, and at least some of
them regrouped to fight another day.
That day has now come, and the Court is again presented with the
same two questions: Are Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims
substantial, and are their alleged injuries redressable by a BCRA
three-judge court? The Court this time answers yes to both. As in
Rufer and RNC II, Plaintiffs have presented substantial
constitutional claims. While the Supreme Court has twice upheld
BCRA’s soft-money ban, and recently affirmed that it is still
intact, its ruling in McCutcheon created widespread uncertainty over
the central question presented here: whether truly independent
campaign expenditures by political parties—if there can be such a
thing—pose the type of corruption risk that the Supreme Court has
held is necessary to justify limiting federal election spending.
Given this uncertainty, Plaintiffs’ claims cannot be fairly
characterized as “frivolous,” “obviously without merit,” or “so
foreclosed by” Supreme Court precedent that there is “no room for
the inference that the question sought to be raised can be the
subject of controversy.” Feinberg v. FDIC, 522 F.2d 1335, 1339 (D.C.
Cir. 1975) (quoting Ex parte Poresky, 290 U.S. 30, 32 (1933)).
But unlike in the prior cases, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs
here have standing to present their claims to a three-judge court.
The core injury alleged by the Rufer and RNC II plaintiffs could not
have been redressed without striking down FECA’s base limits, which
a BCRA three-judge court may not do. Assiduously avoiding a frontal
assault on the base limits, Plaintiffs here re-characterize their
injury as simply being prevented from spending funds from
state-party-committee accounts on federal election activity, without
regard to the FECA base limits. Make no mistake, a ruling for
Plaintiffs on the merits would render largely meaningless FECA’s
limits on contributions to state- and local-party committees:
Depending on the contribution limits in the relevant state, if any,
an individual or corporation would be able to contribute sums in
excess of the existing FECA-imposed federal limits to a state party,
and the party could then deposit those funds in a state account and
use them to engage in “independent” federal election activity on a
scale that would be impossible under existing law. Plaintiffs have
nevertheless established standing because, technically speaking, the
relief they seek can be achieved by invalidating BCRA’s soft-money
ban while leaving FECA’s base limits in place. Clever indeed, but
not too clever by half as the FEC suggests. The Court will,
accordingly, grant Plaintiffs’ motion to convene a three-judge
district court to hear their claims as required by BCRA § 403.
Why are the stakes so high? I explained it in August in The
McCain-Feingold Law May Doom Itself
<http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202734808860/OpEd-The-McCainFeingold-Act-May-Doom-Itself?cmp=share_twitter>,/National
Law Journal/, Aug. 16, 2015:
Tucked within the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (the formal name
for “McCain-Feingold”) is a provision requiring that certain
constitutional challenges to the law be heard by a three-judge
court, with direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. This special
jurisdictional provision makes it much more likely that within the
next few years the Supreme Court will strike limits on the amounts
people and entities can contribute to the political parties in
so-called party soft money.
If the court does so, it would be knocking down the second of
McCain-Feingold’s two pillars. The court knocked down the first
pillar—the limits on corporate and union spending—in the 2010
case/Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission/.
It may seem hard to believe that procedural rules for court
challenges could make a difference as to the fate of campaign
financing in the United States, but it matters. When a case comes up
to the Supreme Court through the normal process of federal district
court or state court decision followed by appellate court review,
the losing side files a petition for writ of certiorari.
A Supreme Court decision to deny certiorari has no precedential
value; no one can cite a certiorari denial as proof the Supreme
Court believes the lower court got it right.
But in a rare set of cases (these days confined to certain campaign
finance, redistricting and voting-rights cases) pursuant to federal
statute are heard initially by a three-judge federal district court
with direct appeal to the Supreme Court. In these cases, a court
decision to affirm a three-judge court or to dismiss the appeal does
count as a decision that the lower court got right, even if not
necessarily for its reasoning. This fact makes it much more likely
that the Supreme Court will hear such cases.
Justices have said the jurisdictional provision matters.
Since I wrote this oped, Chief Justice Roberts at the oral argument in
Shapiro v. McManushas confirmed <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77284>his
feeling of the obligation to take three-judge court cases:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I mean, the other
alternative is it’s a three-judge district court, and
then we have to take it on the merits. I mean, that’s a
serious problem because there are a lot of cases that
come up in three-judge district courts that would be the
kind of case – I speak for myself, anyway– that we
might deny cert in, to let the issue percolate. And now
with the three-judge district court, no, we have to
decide it on the merits…
As I concluded in my August oped:
The Roberts Court has proved itself quite deregulatory in
campaign-finance cases. It has struck down or narrowed severely
every campaign-finance limit it has ever considered. Further, in the
2014 McCutcheon case, Roberts suggested a soft money ban is
unconstitutional.
But the court has also proven itself willing to not hear every
campaign-finance case to come its way. Twice, for example, it turned
down certiorari petitions testing whether the ban on direct campaign
contributions by corporations violates the First Amendment. In 2010,
over the dissents of justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and
Clarence Thomas, it turned down a certiorari petition in yet another
case Republicans brought to challenge the soft-money rules
If the Republican Party of Louisiana is able to convince the courts
this time that the three-judge court is the appropriate route to
hear its soft-money challenge, then there’s a good chance the court
will not only take the case, but will strike down what remains of
McCain-Feingold.
Read
more:http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202734808860/OpEd-The-McCainFeingold-Act-May-Doom-Itself#ixzz3sjc1ZVbf
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77857&title=BIG%20Campaign%20Finance%20News%3A%20La.%20GOP%20Soft%20Money%20Lawsuit%20Gets%203-Judge%20Court%2C%20Likely%20Ticket%20to%20SCOTUS&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Texas: Crystal City Mayor, Councilmen recall not moving forward due
to ‘absurd’ interpretation of high signature bar requirement”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77855>
Posted onNovember 27, 2015 2:04 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77855>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
This item
<http://recallelections.blogspot.com/2015/11/texas-crystal-city-mayor-councilmen.html>appears
at the Recall Elections Blog.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77855&title=%26%238220%3BTexas%3A%20Crystal%20City%20Mayor%2C%20Councilmen%20recall%20not%20moving%20forward%20due%20to%20%26%238216%3Babsurd%26%238217%3B%20interpretation%20of%20high%20signature%20bar%20requirement%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inrecall elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=11>
Some Evidence Justice Kennedy’s Order Could Affect Voting in Hawaii
Election <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77853>
Posted onNovember 27, 2015 1:45 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77853>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
In my earlier post<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77839>on Justice
Kennedy’s order today, I noted the potential for a kind of Heisenberg
observer effect:
Here too, the argument for not announcing the results must be one
concerned about the legitimacy of the election: announcing the
results, only to have the election declared illegal later, could
potentially undermine the voters’ faith in the process.
But how many people now won’t vote, hearing that the election may
not be valid? Doesn’t Justice Kennedy’s order itself affect the
legitimacy, and potentially the outcome, of the election?
This AP report
<http://khon2.com/2015/11/27/supreme-court-justice-blocks-native-hawaiian-vote-count-certification-of-winners/>on
Justice Kennedy’s order seems to confirm that supporters of this voting
are worried it will affect voting itself:
Nai Aupuni, the nonprofit organization guiding the election process,
is encouraging voters to continue casting votes, said Bill Meheula,
an attorney representing the group.
“Reorganizing a government is not easy and it takes the courage and
will of the candidates to take the first step to unify Hawaiians,”
he said in a statement. “Help them by voting now.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77853&title=Some%20Evidence%20Justice%20Kennedy%26%238217%3Bs%20Order%20Could%20Affect%20Voting%20in%20Hawaii%20Election&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,voting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
“Supreme Court Justice Intervenes in Native Hawaiian Election”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77851>
Posted onNovember 27, 2015 1:07 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77851>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Adam Liptak reports
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/politics/supreme-court-justice-intervenes-in-native-hawaiian-election.html>for
the NYT.
My earlier coverage ishere <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77839>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77851&title=%26%238220%3BSupreme%20Court%20Justice%20Intervenes%20in%20Native%20Hawaiian%20Election%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,voting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
Breaking: Justice Kennedy Enjoins Counting of Ballots in Hawaii
Election <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77839>
Posted onNovember 27, 2015 8:59 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77839>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Justice Kennedy, in his capacity as Circuit Justice for the Ninth
Circuit, hasenjoined the counting
<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2623111-hawaii.html>of ballots
in an upcoming election in which only those with Native Hawaiian
ancestry may vote. (Via Adam Liptak
<https://twitter.com/adamliptak/status/670281321625862144>).
I had blogged <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77790>on Tuesday about this
case, linking toLyle Denniston’s analysis
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/11/hawaiians-protest-vote-on-future-tribal-plan/>of
the case and the emergency application
<http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Akina-Application.pdf> in
the case.
What does Justice Kennedy’s action mean? I think it means there’s a
fairly good chance this issue eventually ends up on the merits at the
Supreme Court, where the Court’s earlier decision inRice v. Cayetano
<https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17123522563063952153&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr> renders
this election procedure potentially a violation of the Fifteenth
Amendment’s prohibition on racial criteria for voting.
Also interesting is the remedy: allow the election but don’t allow the
counting of the ballots. The applicants did not ask to stop the
election, which is set for November 30, but to enjoin the counting of
votes. That’s the remedy that Justice Kennedy ordered:
IT IS ORDERED that the respondents are enjoined from counting the
ballots cast in, and certifying the winners of, the election
described in the application, pending further order of the
undersigned or of the Court.
This reminds me of the dispute between Justices Scalia and Stevens
[corrected] in the /Bush v. Gore/stay order
<http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docs/florida2000/12-09_ussupreme_staygranted.pdf>over
whether to halt the counting of certain ballots in the state of Florida
(which had been ordered by the Florida Supreme Court) while the U.S.
Supreme Court continued the case. Justice Scalia said that allowing the
count to go forward, only to potentially have those results reversed by
the Supreme Court, would cast a cloud of illegitimacy over George Bush’s
election (“The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does
in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner, and to the country,
by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his
election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a
recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance
democratic stability requires.”). Justice Stevens, in contrast, said
that stopping the counting (and essentially allowing the clock to run
out) cast a cloud over the legitimacy of the election (“Preventing the
recount from being completed will inevitably cast a cloud on the
legitimacy of the election”).
Here too, the argument for not announcing the results must be one
concerned about the legitimacy of the election: announcing the results,
only to have the election declared illegal later, could potentially
undermine the voters’ faith in the process.
But how many people now won’t vote, hearing that the election may not be
valid? Doesn’t Justice Kennedy’s order itself affect the legitimacy,
and potentially the outcome, of the election?
OK, now back to your Black Friday shopping.
UPDATE: It has been pointed out to me that this could be in the nature
of an administrative stay, pending further order of the Court while the
Court is on a holiday schedule. Nonetheless, the point about the order
potentially affecting the election itself still stands.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77839&title=Breaking%3A%20Justice%20Kennedy%20Enjoins%20Counting%20of%20Ballots%20in%20Hawaii%20Election&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,voting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
“Other viewpoint: Tossed ballots show need to update law”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77837>
Posted onNovember 27, 2015 8:41 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77837>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Editorial
<http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2015/11/27/1-tossed-ballots-show-need-to-update-law.html>from
the Akron Beacon Journal:
There was disturbing news from the Summit County Board of Elections
last week. The absentee ballots of 861 voters who mailed their
selections to the board were disqualified, even though they had done
nothing wrong. What their ballots lacked was a postmark, or at least
the kind required by Ohio law.
The disqualified ballots from the Nov. 3 election represent 9
percent of the mailed-in absentee ballots in the county. No one
familiar with Ohio’s role in presidential elections could ignore
easily the thought that such a disqualification rate next year —
multiplied across this battleground state — could throw the national
results into controversy and lawsuits.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77837&title=%26%238220%3BOther%20viewpoint%3A%20Tossed%20ballots%20show%20need%20to%20update%20law%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inabsentee ballots <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=53>,election
administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“Tighter Lid on Records Threatens to Weaken Government Watchdogs”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77835>
Posted onNovember 27, 2015 8:37 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77835>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
What happened to the Obama administration’s commitment to be the most
transparent Administration? Not looking good. NYT
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/politics/tighter-lid-on-records-threatens-to-defang-government-watchdogs.html?ref=politics&_r=0>:
The continuing Honduran inquiry is one of at least 20 investigations
across the government that have been slowed, stymied or sometimes
closed because of a long-simmering dispute between the Obama
administration and its own watchdogs over the shrinking access of
inspectors general to confidential records, according to records and
interviews.
The impasse has hampered investigations into an array of programs
and abuse reports — from allegations of sexual assaults in thePeace
Corps
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/p/peace_corps/index.html?inline=nyt-org>to
theF.B.I.
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_bureau_of_investigation/index.html?inline=nyt-org>’s
terrorism powers, officials said. And it has threatened to roll back
more than three decades of policy giving the watchdogs unfettered
access to “all records” in their investigations.
“The bottom line is that we’re no longer independent,” Michael E.
Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general, said in an
interview.
The restrictions reflect a broader effort by the Obama
administration to prevent unauthorized disclosures of sensitive
information — at the expense, some watchdogs insist, of government
oversight.
Justice Department lawyers concluded in a legal opinion this summer
that some protected records, like grand jury transcripts, wiretap
intercepts and financialcredit reports
<http://topics.nytimes.com/your-money/credit/credit-scores/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>,
could be kept off limits to government investigators. The
administration insists there is no intention of curtailing
investigations, but both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have
expressed alarm and are promising to restore full access to the
watchdogs.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77835&title=%26%238220%3BTighter%20Lid%20on%20Records%20Threatens%20to%20Weaken%20Government%20Watchdogs%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inconflict of interest laws
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>,ethics investigations
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=42>
“A K Street How-To, Courtesy of Wall Street”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77833>
Posted onNovember 27, 2015 8:26 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77833>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bloomberg reports
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-11-12/a-k-street-how-to-courtesy-of-wall-street>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77833&title=%26%238220%3BA%20K%20Street%20How-To%2C%20Courtesy%20of%20Wall%20Street%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inlobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
“The 2016 ballot wars begin” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77831>
Posted onNovember 27, 2015 8:24 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77831>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/2016-election-candidates-on-ballot-216191#ixzz3shUG8c1g>:
Barring a major organizational misfire, there’s little doubt that
the top-tier Republicans with big money operations – Jeb Bush, Marco
Rubio, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump – will be on the ballot
nationwide. But for everyone else – including Chris Christie, John
Kasich and Rand Paul, whose campaigns say they are on track to be on
the ballot everywhere – ballot access is an expensive challenge.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77831&title=%26%238220%3BThe%202016%20ballot%20wars%20begin%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Steven H. Sholk, ’81, Has ‘Unwavering Dedication’ to Mastering Law,
Campaign Finance, and Cooking” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77829>
Posted onNovember 27, 2015 8:04 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77829>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Nice profile
<http://www.pageturnpro.com/UNC-School-of-Law/69356-Carolina-Law-Fall-Winter-2015-Private-Practice,-Public-Service/index.html#22>in
UNC Law’s magazine.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77829&title=%26%238220%3BSteven%20H.%20Sholk%2C%20%26%238217%3B81%2C%20Has%20%26%238216%3BUnwavering%20Dedication%26%238217%3B%20to%20Mastering%20Law%2C%20Campaign%20Finance%2C%20and%20Cooking%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection law biz <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>
“Shelby challenger John Martin accuses fellow rival Jonathan
McConnell of urging him to drop out, reimbursing him if he did”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77827>
Posted onNovember 26, 2015 1:16 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77827>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Al.com
<http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/11/shelby_challenger_john_martin.html#incart_river_index>:
One of the candidates looking to unseat U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby,
R-Ala., in the Republican primary is claiming fellow GOP challenger
Jonathan McConnell urged him to drop out of the race and promise to
reimburse his expenses if he did so.
John Martin <http://www.johnmartin2016.com/>, a Dothan former Army
Ranger who filed to run in the March 1 primary, posted the
allegations earlier this month to Facebook, describing the offer as
“illegal.”
Alabama Political Reporter
<http://www.alreporter.com/more-accusations-against-us-senate-candidate-mcconnell/>:
US Senate candidate John Martin has charged opponent Jonathan
McConnell of offering him money to drop out of the Republican
primary. If true, this would not be the first time McConnell has
been accused with violating campaign rules.
The Auburn Plainsman in 2003 reported McConnell violated several
campaign rules in his bid for Auburn student body president,
including attempting to gather students’ student ID numbers and pins
to cast votes for his campaign.
In 2003, SGA Sen. Michael Joffrion accused McConnell of violating
seven campaign rules. The Auburn E-Board determined, “Of the seven
violation categories outlined in Joffrion’s contention, E-Board
found there was enough evidence to support six of the allegations,”
wrote student reporterBrooklyn Noel
<https://aurora.auburn.edu/handle/11200/47904>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77827&title=%26%238220%3BShelby%20challenger%20John%20Martin%20accuses%20fellow%20rival%20Jonathan%20McConnell%20of%20urging%20him%20to%20drop%20out%2C%20reimbursing%20him%20if%20he%20did%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,chicanery
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
“GOP rider would boost party spending”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77825>
Posted onNovember 25, 2015 3:26 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77825>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/congress-campaign-finance-cash-rider-216220> on
news that will ruin Fred Wertheimer’s Thanksgiving:
Senate Republicans plan to insert a provision into a must-pass
government funding bill that would vastly expand the amount of cash
that political parties could spend on candidates, multiple sources
tell POLITICO.
The provision, which sources say is one of a few campaign-finance
related riders being discussed in closed-door negotiations over a
$1.15-trillion omnibus spending package, would eliminate caps on the
amount of cash that parties may spend in coordination with their
candidates.
Pushed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a longtime foe of
campaign finance restrictions, the coordination rider represents the
latest threat to the increasingly rickety set of rules created to
restrict the political fundraising and spent in elections.
Campaign finance watchdogs argue that it would allow wealthy donors
to curry even more influence with members of Congress. And they
cried foul over the possibility that the provision could be slipped
into the omnibus spending bill that Congress is working to pass
before a Dec. 11 deadline to avoid a government shutdown.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77825&title=%26%238220%3BGOP%20rider%20would%20boost%20party%20spending%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“The New Attack on ‘One Person, One Vote'”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77823>
Posted onNovember 25, 2015 2:15 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77823>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ari Berman
<http://www.thenation.com/article/the-new-attack-on-one-person-one-vote/>on
Evenwel.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77823&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20New%20Attack%20on%20%E2%80%98One%20Person%2C%20One%20Vote%27%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Judge: GOP, Constitution Party exempt from open primary rule”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77821>
Posted onNovember 25, 2015 11:21 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77821>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP reports
<http://www.standard.net/Government/2015/11/25/Judge-GOP-Constitution-Party-exempt-from-open-primary-rule-1>from
Utah.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77821&title=%26%238220%3BJudge%3A%20GOP%2C%20Constitution%20Party%20exempt%20from%20open%20primary%20rule%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inpolitical parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
Happy Thanksgiving! <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77819>
Posted onNovember 25, 2015 8:46 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77819>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I am thankful for family, friends, and colleagues, and you, my
readers–with your great tips, suggestions, and ever vigilant reading and
willingness to tell me when I’ve gotten something wrong.
Blogging will be light until Monday.
Enjoy the break!
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77819&title=Happy%20Thanksgiving%21&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Libre, Backed by Koch Brothers, Aims to Raise G.O.P. Standing With
Hispanics” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77816>
Posted onNovember 25, 2015 8:44 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77816>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/26/us/politics/libre-backed-by-koch-brothers-aims-to-raise-gop-standing-with-hispanics.html?ref=politics&_r=0>:
The approach — a free Thanksgiving turkey in exchange for some
personal information — captures the mission of Libre, a
multimillion-dollar effort financed by the conservative billionaire
Koch brothers and devoted to winning over Hispanics, with the
message that economic freedom and smaller-government principles will
yield opportunity and prosperity.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77816&title=%26%238220%3BLibre%2C%20Backed%20by%20Koch%20Brothers%2C%20Aims%20to%20Raise%20G.O.P.%20Standing%20With%20Hispanics%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“NAACP seeks to halt implementation of North Carolina voter ID law”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77814>
Posted onNovember 25, 2015 8:43 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77814>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Reuters reports.
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/25/north-carolina-election-law-idUSL1N13K0OV20151125#hj8bAuw8HBL4EsIf.97>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77814&title=%26%238220%3BNAACP%20seeks%20to%20halt%20implementation%20of%20North%20Carolina%20voter%20ID%20law%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
“Redistricting case brings partisan politics, immigration and
federalism before SCOTUS” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77812>
Posted onNovember 25, 2015 8:34 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77812>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Mark Walsh previews
Evenwel<http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/redistricting_case_brings_partisan_politics_immigration_and_federalism_befo>for
the ABA Journal.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77812&title=%26%238220%3BRedistricting%20case%20brings%20partisan%20politics%2C%20immigration%20and%20federalism%20before%20SCOTUS%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Fraudulent Fraud Squad on the Witch Hunt for Government Campaign
Finance Listserv Emails <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77810>
Posted onNovember 25, 2015 8:30 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77810>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Theusual
<https://pjmedia.com/trending/2015/11/24/conservative-group-empower-texans-faces-political-persecution>
suspects
<http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2015/11/16/state-speech-regulators-demand-names-of-donors-to-conservative-groups/?singlepage=true>.
Myearlier<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60748>experience
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60581>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77810&title=Fraudulent%20Fraud%20Squad%20on%20the%20Witch%20Hunt%20for%20Government%20Campaign%20Finance%20Listserv%20Emails&description=>
Posted inchicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>,fraudulent fraud
squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>
“Campaign Watchdogs: Pro-Rubio TV Ads Are Breaking The Law”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77808>
Posted onNovember 25, 2015 8:11 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77808>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NBC News reports.
<http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/campaign-watchdogs-pro-rubio-tv-ads-are-breaking-law-n468526>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77808&title=%26%238220%3BCampaign%20Watchdogs%3A%20Pro-Rubio%20TV%20Ads%20Are%20Breaking%20The%20Law%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,tax law
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
“A Cautionary Tale About Booking Through @Expedia”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77806>
Posted onNovember 25, 2015 8:08 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77806>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Gary Leff of the always-excellent “View from the Wing” travel
blogwrites<http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2015/11/24/41371/>of
my “Alice in Wonderland <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77740>experience
with Expedia.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77806&title=%26%238220%3BA%20Cautionary%20Tale%20About%20Booking%20Through%20%40Expedia%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Data-Mining Firm Searches for Voters by Combing High School
Yearbooks” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77804>
Posted onNovember 25, 2015 8:06 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77804>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Sasha Issenberg
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-11-24/a-new-data-mining-technique-to-uncover-new-hampshire-influencers>for
Bloomberg.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77804&title=%26%238220%3BData-Mining%20Firm%20Searches%20for%20Voters%20by%20Combing%20High%20School%20Yearbooks%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Tax documents show how secret money infects campaigns on both
sides” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77802>
Posted onNovember 25, 2015 8:04 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77802>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Stephen Spaulding blogs
<http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/261257-tax-documents-show-how-secret-money-infects-campaigns-on-both>at
The Hill.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77802&title=%26%238220%3BTax%20documents%20show%20how%20secret%20money%20infects%20campaigns%20on%20both%20sides%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,tax law
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
“Redistricting jury should pick Florida’s new plan”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77800>
Posted onNovember 25, 2015 7:59 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77800>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
J.H. Snider oped
<http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/commentary/fl-viewpoint-redistricting-20151123-story.html>in
the Sun-Sentinel.
He has also written Board, independent of Legislature, key to
constitution fix
<http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-opinion/article/Board-independent-of-Legislature-key-to-6650698.php> for
the /Albany Times Union./
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77800&title=%26%238220%3BRedistricting%20jury%20should%20pick%20Florida%26%238217%3Bs%20new%20plan%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
“What Today’s CEOs Can Learn from George Steinbrenner”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77798>
Posted onNovember 24, 2015 7:40 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77798>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ciara Torres-Spellicy blogs.
<https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/what-today%E2%80%99s-ceos-can-learn-george-steinbrenner>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77798&title=%26%238220%3BWhat%20Today%26%238217%3Bs%20CEOs%20Can%20Learn%20from%20George%20Steinbrenner%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Evenwel and Minority Representation”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77796>
Posted onNovember 24, 2015 5:30 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77796>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
David Gans
<http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/11/evenwel-and-minority-representation.html>:
Next month, the Supreme Court will consider Sue Evenwel’s bid to
change the way state and local governments draw election districts.
Demanding that state and local governments across the nation change
the way they draw legislative lines, Evenwel argues that it is
unconstitutional for states to draw districts based on total
population, creating districts of substantially equal numbers of
people. Evenwel’s arguments—which fly in the face of our
Constitution’s promise ofequal representation
<http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/briefs/Evenwel_v_Abbott_Amicus_Final.pdf>for
all—would undermine minority representation both inTexas
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/10/21/the-supreme-court-should-seize-the-chance-to-strike-down-voter-discrimination/>,
the state Evenwel is suing, and throughout the nation. Recent
events in Yakima, Washington, provide a good example.
The town of Yakima—an agricultural community 140 miles east of
Seattle—is forty percent Hispanic, but, until this year, had never
elected a person of Hispanic origin to the town’s city council.
This year, a federal district court held that Yakima’s at-large
system of elections for city council violated the Voting Rights Act
by denying Hispanic voters an equal opportunity to elect their
candidate of choice, and ordered the town to draw single-member
districts composed of substantially equal population. Earlier this
month, in elections held under these court-ordered boundaries,three
<http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/3rd-latina-elected-to-yakima-city-council/>Hispanic
candidates
<http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/in-wake-of-lawsuit-latinos-win-yakima-city-council-seats/>won
election to office, ending the exclusion of Hispanics from elected
office.
But the town of Yakima is now using every avenue to undo these
historic gains, claiming—as Evenwel does—that the Constitution does
not permit state and local governments to draw districts composed of
substantially equal numbers of people if those districts do not
contain approximately the same number of eligible voters. Yakima
argues that the Hispanic voters’ claim under the Voting Rights Act
should be dismissed because creating single-member districts in
order to make it possible for the Hispanic community to elect its
candidate of choice would result in “severe malapportionment of
eligible voters.” Represented by defense counsel in the Voting
Rights Act litigation, Yakima has even gone so far as to file
anamicus brief
<http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/14-940-tsac-Yakima-WA.pdf>in
the Supreme Court supporting Evenwel’s attack on the principle of
equal representation for equal numbers of people.
As this example illustrates, Evenwel’s far-reaching arguments, if
accepted by the Court, would not only wreak havoc with our
democracy, requiring states to change the way they draw district
lines, but it would also make it harder to draw election boundaries
that ensure that racial minorities have an equal chance to elect
representatives of their choice. Evenwel’s argument would undermine
the protections afforded by the Voting Rights Act and take political
power away from urban population centers where racial minorities
overwhelmingly live, giving it to whiter, more rural areas. This is
no accident. Ed Blum—the mastermind behind Evenwel’s case—wants
tostop states from creating majority-minority districts
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/blum-profile-evenwel-redistricting-supreme-court>that
help ensure equal political opportunities for all regardless of
race. Denying equal representation to unnaturalized immigrants,
children, and others who lack the franchise won’t alone accomplish
Blum’s goal, but it would make it harder to draw election boundaries
that ensure that minorities have a fair chance at the polls. Among
the losers—if Blum succeeds in eliminating the guarantee of equal
representation for equal numbers of people—will be racial minorities
in places like Yakima, who will, once again, find it harder to have
their voices heard.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77796&title=%26%238220%3BEvenwel%20and%20Minority%20Representation%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,voting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>,Voting Rights Act
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Fee-Fight Fallout From Voting Rights Decision Reaches High Court”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77794>
Posted onNovember 24, 2015 5:28 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77794>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Marcia Coyle
<http://www.nationallawjournal.com/supremecourtbrief/home/id=1202743318550?kw=Fee-Fight%20Fallout%20From%20Voting%20Rights%20Decision%20Reaches%20High%20Court&cn=20151124&pt=Supreme%20Court%20Brief%20Headlines&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&slreturn=20151024202648>:
Fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 blockbuster voting rights
decision has reached the justices in two multimillion-dollar battles
over attorney fees.
If the high court agrees to step into either fight, the justices
could be drawn into a debate over who qualifies as a “prevailing
party” under the fee provision in the Voting Rights Act that’s
designed to encourage private enforcement of the voting guarantees
in the Constitution.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77794&title=%26%238220%3BFee-Fight%20Fallout%20From%20Voting%20Rights%20Decision%20Reaches%20High%20Court%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,Voting
Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
“Campaign for Accountability Statement on Sheldon Adelson”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77792>
Posted onNovember 24, 2015 5:25 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77792>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Release
<http://campaignforaccountability.org/campaign-for-accountability-statement-regarding-sheldon-adelson/>:
On November 3, 2015, the Campaign for Accountability (“CfA”)
announced that it had asked the Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs and the Federal Election
Commission to investigate Sheldon Adelson and the Las Vegas Sands
Corporation to determine the extent of their connection to organized
crime in China and whether funds tied to Chinese organized crime may
be reaching American campaign committees.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77792&title=%26%238220%3BCampaign%20for%20Accountability%20Statement%20on%20Sheldon%20Adelson%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
Race and Election Law Case May Come Quickly to #SCOTUS
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77790>
Posted onNovember 24, 2015 9:43 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77790>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Lyle Denniston
<http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/11/hawaiians-protest-vote-on-future-tribal-plan/>@SCOTUSBlog:
A group of Hawiians, some of whom won’t be able to vote in a special
election on November 30 that is a prelude to recognizing a new
Indian-like tribe including many residents, asked the Supreme Court
to temporarily stop the completion of that election until their
challenge can be decided. Inan application
<http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Akina-Application.pdf>filed
Thursday night, the challengers argued that the election is
based along strict racial lines, and is thus unconstitutional under
the Fifteenth Amendment.
The election — favored by the state and endorsed by the federal
Department of the Interior — will be limited to a voter roll made up
of people who can qualify as “native Hawaiians.” The election will
choose delegates to a convention to write a constitution for what
would be a new government entity, similar to a traditional Indian
tribe. The aim is to give those who qualify a right of
“self-determination.”
The challengers did not ask the Justices to stop the actual
balloting a week from Monday, but did request that the Court
temporarily bar counting and formal certification of the result.
So far, their plea for temporary relief has been denied by a federal
trial judge and by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. The Interior Department entered the case in the Ninth
Circuit to oppose any interruption of the election process. It
intends, the department said in court filings, to start a process
that would recognize a “native Hawaiian” community in Hawaii as a
self-governing, sovereign entity, like an Indian tribe.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77790&title=Race%20and%20Election%20Law%20Case%20May%20Come%20Quickly%20to%20%23SCOTUS&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,voting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
“Supreme Court Digs Into Redistricting”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77788>
Posted onNovember 24, 2015 9:13 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77788>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Kimberly Robinson
<http://www.bna.com/supreme-court-digs-n57982063909/>of BNA digs in to
Evenwel, Harris, and Shapiro v. McManus.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77788&title=%26%238220%3BSupreme%20Court%20Digs%20Into%20Redistricting%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Gov. Beshear Restores Right to Vote to Certain Offenders”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77786>
Posted onNovember 24, 2015 8:30 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77786>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
BIG
news<http://www.lex18.com/story/30594983/gov-beshear-restores-right-to-vote-to-certain-offenders>from
the departing governor of Kentucky.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77786&title=%26%238220%3BGov.%20Beshear%20Restores%20Right%20to%20Vote%20to%20Certain%20Offenders%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Bernie Sanders’s Rejection of ‘Super PACs’ Is Not Universal”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77784>
Posted onNovember 24, 2015 7:46 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77784>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT reports.
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/24/bernie-sanderss-rejection-of-super-pacs-is-not-universal/?ref=politics&_r=0>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77784&title=%26%238220%3BBernie%20Sanders%E2%80%99s%20Rejection%20of%20%E2%80%98Super%20PACs%E2%80%99%20Is%20Not%20Universal%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“How GOP campaigns are strategizing for Super Tuesday’s delegate
bonanza” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77782>
Posted onNovember 24, 2015 7:44 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77782>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WaPo reports.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-gop-campaigns-are-strategizing-for-super-tuesday-delegate-bonanza/2015/11/22/17bbfca4-8fa1-11e5-ae1f-af46b7df8483_story.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77782&title=%26%238220%3BHow%20GOP%20campaigns%20are%20strategizing%20for%20Super%20Tuesday%E2%80%99s%20delegate%20bonanza%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,political
parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
“State, Utah GOP appear headed to court over election law — again”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77780>
Posted onNovember 24, 2015 7:38 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77780>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
KSL:
<https://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=37484610&nid=757&title=state-utah-gop-appear-headed-to-court-over-election-law-mdash-again>
A federal judge Monday permanently barred the state from forcing
political parties to hold open primary elections and dismissed all
other claims in the Utah Republican Party’s lawsuit.
As U.S. District Judge David Nuffer closed the case, the Utah GOP
and the state continued to wrangle over the meaning of part of the
law, setting the stage for another court battle, possibly before the
Utah Supreme Court.
Meantime, Gov. Gary Herbert told the Republican State Central
Committee over the weekend that he wishes he would have vetoed the
controversial new election law and let voters decide the issue as
proposed by the Count My Vote initiative.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77780&title=%26%238220%3BState%2C%20Utah%20GOP%20appear%20headed%20to%20court%20over%20election%20law%20%E2%80%94%20again%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inpolitical parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>
“The Reform Debate and the Parties”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77778>
Posted onNovember 24, 2015 7:31 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77778>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bauer blogs.
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2015/11/reform-debate-parties/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77778&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Reform%20Debate%20and%20the%20Parties%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,political
parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,political polarization
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>
“The Citizen United President?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77776>
Posted onNovember 24, 2015 7:30 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77776>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Robert Weisman oped i
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/11/24/citizens-united-president-campaign-finance-reform-column/76225654/>n
USA Today:
Will Barack Obama be remembered for standing by helplessly
as/Citizens United/eroded the very foundations of our electoral
democracy?
That may be an unfortunate part of his legacy if he fails to take
action soon to do something — anything — about the billions of
dollars in corporate and super-rich money flooding over the
electoral terrain.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77776&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Citizen%20United%20President%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Bipartisan Support for Limits on Campaign Spending”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77774>
Posted onNovember 24, 2015 7:28 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77774>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
More from that Pew stud
<http://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/6-perceptions-of-elected-officials-and-the-role-of-money-in-politics/>y
I linked to yesterday:
Opinions on campaign finance and its effects on the political system
are widely shared; majorities across demographic and partisan groups
say there should be limits on campaign spending, that money’s impact
on politics has increased and that the high cost of campaigns is
driving away good candidates.Concern about money's influence on
politics crosses partisan lines
<http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/11/Elected-officials-10.png>
Partisan differences on all three measures are modest. Republicans
and Republican-leaning independents (72%) are less likely than
Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (84%) to say that
there should be limits on campaign spending. However, support for
spending limits is high even among conservative Republicans and
leaners –roughly two-thirds (68%) think there should be limits on
how much individuals and organizations can spend.
Democrats and leaners are somewhat more likely to say that the high
cost of campaigns today discourages good candidates: 68% say this
compared with 62% of Republicans and leaners.Widespread belief that
new laws would curb role of money in politics
While most Americans believe that new laws would be effective in
reducing the role of money in politics, there are educational and
partisan differences in how widely these views are held.
Fully three-quarters of those with post-graduate degrees say new
laws would be effective in this regard, compared with 57% of those
with no more than a high school education.
More Democrats and leaners (71%) than Republicans and leaners (58%)
say that new laws would be effective in limiting the influence of
money in politics. Nonetheless, majorities across all educational
and partisan categories say that new laws could be written that
would effectively reduce the role of money in politics.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77774&title=%26%238220%3BBipartisan%20Support%20for%20Limits%20on%20Campaign%20Spending%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
NBC Giving Equal Time to Presidential Candidates
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77766>
Posted onNovember 23, 2015 4:29 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=77766>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
From Arizona’s Politics:
AZ’s Politics BREAKING: BLACK FRIDAY…and SATURDAY: NBC’s 60 Minutes of
Equal Time For GOP Presidential Candidates Will Be Spread Out This
Weekend
<http://arizonaspolitics.blogspot.com/2015/11/azs-politics-breaking-black-fridayand.html>
BREAKING: NBC Grants At Least Four GOP Candidates Equal Time Following
Donald Trump’s “Saturday Night Live Hosting” Gig, VP Tells Arizona’s
Politics
<http://arizonaspolitics.blogspot.com/2015/11/breaking-nbc-grants-at-least-four-gop.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D77766&title=NBC%20Giving%20Equal%20Time%20to%20Presidential%20Candidates&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Post navigation
--
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/20151130/bf301fe4/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/20151130/bf301fe4/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Elected-officials-10.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7639 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151130/bf301fe4/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Elected-officials-11.png
Type: image/png
Size: 12347 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151130/bf301fe4/attachment-0002.png>
View list directory