[EL] ELB News and Commentary 9/30/15
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Sep 30 07:18:37 PDT 2015
Democrats Still Addicted to Koch <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76286>
Posted onSeptember 30, 2015 7:12 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76286>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico reports
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/koch-brothers-senate-democrats-214242>that
Democrats will use the Koch Brothers and Citizens United critiques as a
fundraising strategy in 2016.
As I will argue inPlutocrats United
<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>,
many Democrats have played lip service to the cause of campaign finance
reform, but behind the scenes have done things to loosen the campaign
finance rules even further. And that starts with President Obama.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76286&title=Democrats%20Still%20Addicted%20to%20Koch&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Bauer on Hasen on the Roberts Court at 10 on Campaign Finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76284>
Posted onSeptember 30, 2015 7:10 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76284>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bauer
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2015/09/assigning-responsibility-implosion-role-court/>:
In judging the Robert’s Court record on campaign finance,Rick Hasen
finds
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2639902>that
progressives have little to cheer about, except that it might have
been worse. He looks into the reasons why the Court majority has
moved more slowly toward deregulation than some might have
predicted, and, as one might expect, his analysis is
insightful./Election Law’s Path in the Roberts Court’s First Decade:
A Sharp Right Turn But with Speed Bumps and Surprising
Twists/(August 4, 2015). UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No.
2015-70. Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2639902. But he
also assigns the Court heavy responsibility for the state of reform.
Hasen writes that, as a result of decisions like/Citizens
United/and/McCutcheon/, the Roberts Court majority has “caused the
existing campaign finance system to slowly implode,” launching
reform into a” death spiral” and erecting “structural impediments”
that prevent further reform.
To be sure, the Court’s rulings have contributed to the collapse of
the ‘70s reforms, and there is no doubt that its jurisprudence
complicates the pursuit of reform programs—that is, certain reform
programs that follow the very Watergate-era model that has largely
come apart. But an account focused on the Court skips to the middle
of the story; it leaves too much out.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76284&title=Bauer%20on%20Hasen%20on%20the%20Roberts%20Court%20at%2010%20on%20Campaign%20Finance&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme
Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
McGinnis on Hasen on the Supreme Court at the 2016 Election
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76282>
Posted onSeptember 30, 2015 7:08 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76282>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Responding tomy piece
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/supreme-court-greatest-civil-rights-cause>@TPM,
John McGinnis says I’mfurther politicizing
<http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/09/29/dont-further-politicize-the-court/>the
Court. I’m afraid that horse left the barn long ago, and no amount of
originalist scholarship will change that. As I write, regardless of
methodology (Alito, for example, is no originalist), it has become
increasingly true that Democratic- and Republican-appointed Justices
reach results that are different from one another on the most contested
issues.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76282&title=McGinnis%20on%20Hasen%20on%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20at%20the%202016%20Election&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Supreme Court Protesters Take First Amendment Challenge to Court”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76280>
Posted onSeptember 29, 2015 3:33 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76280>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
BLT
<http://www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/id=1202738512226/Supreme-Court-Protesters-Take-First-Amendment-Challenge-to-Court?cmp=share_twitter&slreturn=20150829183024> on
the @99Rise campaign finance protestors:
Can a whisper be disruptive? When does speech become loud? A federal
district judge in Washington considered those questions on Tuesday
in a constitutional challenge to a ban on protest activity at the
U.S. Supreme Court.
Five protesters charged with disrupting Supreme Court arguments on
April 1 are_challenging a law
<http://www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/id=1202726550255?>_that bans
certain types of disruptions and demonstrations inside and outside
of the court. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper was skeptical
that the protesters could challenge sections of the law they weren’t
being prosecuted for—provisions, for example, that deal with conduct
outside the court.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76280&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%20Protesters%20Take%20First%20Amendment%20Challenge%20to%20Court%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Super PAC Contributions Can Be Considered Bribes: Judge”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76276>
Posted onSeptember 29, 2015 3:15 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76276>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Paul Blumenthal
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/super-pac-contributions-bribes_560ae580e4b0768126ff7494>for
HuffPo:
A district court judge on Monday dismissed fourcorruption charges
against Sen. Robert Menendez
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/01/menendez-fbi-corruption_n_6926202.html>(D-N.J.)
and his donor Salomon Melgen, but denied motions to toss out other
charges including, notably, the senator’s solicitation of
contributions for a super PAC.
Lawyers for the senator had asked the court to dismiss charges
related toMenendez’s solicitation of
$700,000<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/03/bob-menendez-citizens-united_n_7000350.html>from
Melgen for Senate Majority PAC, a super PAC run by former aides to
Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that made independent expenditures to
support Menendez’s 2012 reelection.
The basis for dismissal offered by Menendez’s lawyers were the
Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United and 2013 McCutcheon
decisions. Those two cases redefined corruption as only explicit
bribery, excluding influence and access. The senator’s lawyers
argued that this redefinition of corruption and Citizens United’s
declaration that independent expenditures “do not give rise to
corruption or the appearance of corruption” provided freedom of
speech protections for all “efforts to influence and obtain access
to elected officials,” including any campaign contribution.
Judge William Walls disagreed, ruling that the charges related to
the super PAC contributions made by a corporation run by Melgen and
solicited by Menendez would stand. In his opinion, Walls writes that
“the Constitution does not protect an attempt to influence a public
official’s acts through improper means.” (Read Walls’ decision here
<http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/119110259301.pdf>.)
I’m quoted in the article saying that there is no real tension between
the logic of Citizens United and this holding. One can bribe a Senator
by promising to give money to the Senator’s mother. Even though the
Senator cannot control the mother’s spending, if the Senator
subjectively values the money given to the mother then there can be a bribe.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76276&title=%E2%80%9CSuper%20PAC%20Contributions%20Can%20Be%20Considered%20Bribes%3A%20Judge%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted inbribery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>,campaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
New Data on Campaign Spending in NJ
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76274>
Posted onSeptember 29, 2015 3:05 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76274>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NJ ELEC
<http://www.elec.state.nj.us/pdffiles/press_releases/pr_2015/pr_09292015.pdf>:
“An unprecedented wave of independent special interest spending drove
the cost of the 2013 legislative general election to $53.3 million, the
most ever without adjusting for inflation, according to anew analysis
<http://www.elec.state.nj.us/pdffiles/whitepapers/white26.pdf>by
the Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC)…. The latest white paper
also includes a first-ever historical review of self-financed
candidacies by legislators and other New Jersey candidates. It found
that at least 101 legislative candidates since the 1980s have spent at
least $15,000 on their campaigns. The combined outlay- $9.8 million in
inflation adjusted dollars. Among the top 50 self-funders identified by
the analysis, 18 were legislative candidates (a few also ran for other
offices).”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76274&title=New%20Data%20on%20Campaign%20Spending%20in%20NJ&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Legislator Says Gift Ban Violates His Freedom of Speech”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76270>
Posted onSeptember 29, 2015 2:59 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76270>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Lee Fang forThe Intercept
<https://theintercept.com/2015/09/24/state-senator-files-lawsuit-says-ban-lobbyist-gifts-violates-freedom-speech/>:
Supreme Court, in its/Citizens United/ decision, ruled that
corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts
in elections. Now politicians in Kentucky are claiming they have a
Constitutional right to receive gifts from lobbyists.
In a lawsuitfiled
<http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/23/4052685_gop-state-senator-suing-to-overturn.html?rh=1>in
U.S. District Court, Republican Kentucky state Sen. John
Schickel, along with two Libertarian political candidates, are suing
to overturn state ethics laws, claiming that the campaign
contribution limit of $1,000 and a ban on gifts from lobbyists and
their employers are a violation of their First and Fourteenth
Amendment rights.
The lawsuit notes that lobbyists and the employers of lobbyists are
prohibited by Kentucky law from inviting legislators to parties,
offering gifts, or paying for food for legislators. “This infringes
on the legislator’s, lobbyist’s, and employer of lobbyist’s right to
freedom of association, and freedom of speech,” Schickel claims in
the suit.
Reminds me of anApril Fool’s posting of mine.
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=71438>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76270&title=%E2%80%9CLegislator%20Says%20Gift%20Ban%20Violates%20His%20Freedom%20of%20Speech%E2%80%9D&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
--
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/20150930/289f3581/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/20150930/289f3581/attachment.png>
View list directory