[EL] ELB News and Commentary 1/5/16
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue Jan 5 07:37:42 PST 2016
“California businessman pushes ballot measure for NASCAR-style
disclosure” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78720>
Posted onJanuary 5, 2016 7:30 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78720>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Carla
Marinucci<http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/california/2016/01/8586846/california-businessman-pushes-ballot-measure-nascar-style-disclos>for
Politico:
Business executive John Cox, a Republican who ran unsuccessfully for
the U.S. House and Senate in Illinois, has moved one step closer to
placing an initiative on the ballot that would require state
legislators to wear the emblems of their top donors.
Cox is the sponsor of a landmark campaign finance initiative which
would require all California state legislators to wear the logos of
their biggest donors in a fashion that’s readily visible to voters —
not unlike shirts worn by NASCAR drivers, which display their sponsors.
Yeah, this would raise some serious constitutional issues if it
qualified and passed.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78720&title=%26%238220%3BCalifornia%20businessman%20pushes%20ballot%20measure%20for%20NASCAR-style%20disclosure%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“How Campaign Finance Reform Contributed to Polarization”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78718>
Posted onJanuary 5, 2016 7:28 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78718>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Seth Masket
<http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/how-campaign-finance-reform-contributed-to-polarization>reviews
LaRaja and Schaffner’snew book
<https://www.press.umich.edu/4882255/campaign_finance_and_political_polarization>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78718&title=%26%238220%3BHow%20Campaign%20Finance%20Reform%20Contributed%20to%20Polarization%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>
“Hawaiians defend against contempt plea”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78716>
Posted onJanuary 5, 2016 7:07 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78716>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Lyle Denniston
<http://lyldenlawnews.com/2016/01/04/hawaiians-defend-against-contempt-plea/>:
A group of Hawaiians seeking to create a new tribal nation inside
the statemoved on Monday
<http://lyldenlawnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Respondents-Nai-Aupuni-and-the-Akamai-Foundations-Opposition-to-Applicants-Motion-for-Civil-Contempt-1-4-2016.pdf>to
head off a contempt order in the Supreme Court. They have done
nothing to violate a Supreme Court order a month ago that blocked an
election to select delegates to a convention to write a
constitution, the group argued.
They told the Court that they were going ahead with a convention,
and contended that they had a First Amendment right to do so. That
appeared to be an attempt to prevent a further attempt to interrupt
the path toward a new nation. Their defense of their actions in
recent weekswas siupported
<http://lyldenlawnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/15A551-State-and-OHA-Memorandum-in-Opposition-to-Motion-for-Contempt.pdf>by
the state government.Several Hawaii residents have formally asked
the Supreme Court to hold in contempt the private group that ran,
and then ended, the election for delegates. The challengers argued
that moving ahead to seat as delegates all those who had were
candidates in the election ran counter to the Supreme Court’s Dec. 2
order that the election votes should not be counted or officially
approved.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78716&title=%26%238220%3BHawaiians%20defend%20against%20contempt%20plea%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,voting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
“Super PAC Donors Are Taking Charge; Unlike 2012, backers of
Republican presidential candidates now seeking to keep a tighter
grasp on their funds” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78714>
Posted onJanuary 5, 2016 7:04 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78714>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WSJ reports.
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/super-pac-donors-are-taking-charge-1451518976>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78714&title=%26%238220%3BSuper%20PAC%20Donors%20Are%20Taking%20Charge%3B%20Unlike%202012%2C%20backers%20of%20Republican%20presidential%20candidates%20now%20seeking%20to%20keep%20a%20tighter%20grasp%20on%20their%20funds%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Money Talks” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78712>
Posted onJanuary 5, 2016 7:03 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78712>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Glenn Altschuler
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-c-altschuler/money-talks_b_8912152.html>reviewsPlutocrats
United
<http://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-United-Campaign-Distortion-Elections/dp/0300212453/>at
Huff Post Books:
In/Plutocrats United/, Richard Hasen, a professor of law and
political science at the University of California, Irvine and the
author of/The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election
Meltdown/, provides a careful and compelling analysis of the role of
money in American politics and proposes a legal strategy to reform
campaign financing to give all Americans a meaningful opportunity to
participate in elections and protect First Amendment rights to free
speech and freedom of the press, without allowing the wealthy (and
non-human entities, including corporations) to exercise undue influence.
Hasen maintains that debates over campaign finance limits should not
turn on whether or not they will reduce corruption. Access, he
acknowledges, may be a legitimate expectation of donors to a
candidate’s campaign – and evidence of outright bribery is scarce. A
better approach would cite “political equality as an interest in its
own right.” Since the Supreme Court called for “one man, one vote”
in/Reynolds v. Sims <https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/23>/(1964) and
struck down the poll tax in/Harper v. Virginia State Board of
Elections <https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/48>/(1966), Hasen points
out, it has recognized that voting rules should give equal political
power to all citizens. The Court has not yet held that each voter
has a constitutional right to equal influence (through the electoral
process) in having his or her preferred policies enacted into law,
but Hasen believes it could and should do so to limit the likelihood
that disparities in resources will be turned into disparities in
political influence.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78712&title=%26%238220%3BMoney%20Talks%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Plutocrats United
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Democrats are Proving Samuel Alito and John Roberts Wrong”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78710>
Posted onJanuary 5, 2016 7:00 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78710>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Paul Blumenthal
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-victory-fund-campaign-finance_5682dcf1e4b0b958f65a9501>for
HuffPo:
What was once characterized as a “wild hypothetical
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/mccutcheon-v-fec-alito_n_4065441.html>” by
Justice Samuel Alito in a 2014 campaign finance case is now a reality.
A joint fundraising committee linking Hillary Clinton to the
national Democratic Party and 33 state parties is routing money
through those state parties and back into the coffers of the
Democratic National Committee. So far, 22 of the state parties
linked to the Hillary Victory Fund have received $938,500 from the
fund and sent the same amount back to the DNC, according to
available campaign finance records. The Clinton campaignclaims to
have raised an additional $18 million
<http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/01/politics/hillary-clinton-fundraising-100-million/> for
the party committees in the final three months of 2015, although
records will not be disclosed until Jan. 31.
The movement of money from a joint fundraising committee through
state parties and to the national party committee has beencriticized
by campaign finance reformers
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/joint-fundraising-committee-hillary-clinton_56006006e4b00310edf819c2>as
a way to get around campaign contribution limits.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78710&title=%26%238220%3BDemocrats%20are%20Proving%20Samuel%20Alito%20and%20John%20Roberts%20Wrong%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Super PACs: The Law and the Politics”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78708>
Posted onJanuary 5, 2016 6:58 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78708>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bauer
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2016/01/super-pac-law-politics/>worth
your time this am.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78708&title=%26%238220%3BSuper%20PACs%3A%20The%20Law%20and%20the%20Politics%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Washington Examiner Runs Q&A with FEC Commissioner Goodman
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78706>
Posted onJanuary 5, 2016 6:52 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78706>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/commissioner-fec-power-grabs-are-the-real-dysfunction/article/2578945>:
*Examiner:*It’s popular in academia, the media and generally in
popular culture to say there needs to be more regulation of federal
campaign spending. Do you feel you’re in the minority?
*Goodman:*If we’re talking about the right of The New York Times,
the/Washington Examiner/or Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post to
spend large amounts of corporate money to publish editorial opinion
about elected politicians and public officials like me, I’m clearly
in the majority of public opinion. If we talk about protecting the
free speech rights of online bloggers, Drudge Report and YouTube
videos, I’m also in the majority.
Now if we could just get the major press organizations to support
everyone else’s right to speak, we might move public opinion to
appreciate the free speech rights at stake in the debate over super
PACs.
The rest of us are not as well-funded as The New York Times,
Washington Post or the/Washington Examiner/, and we cannot own a
printing press or a broadcast facility. The way in which we
disseminate our information through a printing press is by renting
inches in the press owner’s publication, or seconds of a broadcast.
All a super PAC really does is rent 30 seconds of a television
station’s broadcast time or print inches in the Washington Post.
First Amendment rights should not turn on whether I own the printing
press or rent the printing press.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78706&title=Washington%20Examiner%20Runs%20Q%26%23038%3BA%20with%20FEC%20Commissioner%20Goodman&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
“Supreme Court Eyes Ethics, Campaign Finance Law”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78704>
Posted onJanuary 4, 2016 8:45 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78704>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bloomberg BNA
<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=81297976&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0h7h3z6n2&split=0>:
The Supreme Court is set to consider in the coming weeks whether to
grant review in two cases that could reshape the legal landscape for
government ethics and campaign finance.
First, the justices are scheduled to consider at their private
conference Jan. 8 a petition for certiorari from former Virginia
Gov. Robert McDonnell (R) (McDonnell v. U.S.
<http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Robert_F_McDonnell_v_United_States_Docket_No_1500474_US_Oct_15_20>,
U.S. , No. 15-474,reply brief filed, 12/21/15). The petition asks
the high court to overturn McDonnell’s conviction on corruption
charges for taking more than $170,000 in gifts and cash provided by
a Virginia businessman seeking help to promote a product.
A week later, on Jan. 15, the agenda for the justices’ conference
includes a petition asking the high court to strike down a
decades-old federal ban on all direct campaign contributions from
government contractors (Miller v. Federal Election Commission
<http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Robert_F_McDonnell_v_United_States_Docket_No_1500474_US_Oct_15_20>,
U.S., No. 15-428,reply brief filed, 12/22/15).
I think it is much more likely the Court will grant cert. in the
McDonnell case (where the Court has already taken an extraordinary step
in keeping McDonnell out of jail pending a cert. decision) than the
government contractors case (where the Court can leave the status quo,
and is not setting precedent as it does on decisions from three judge
courts).
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78704&title=%26%238220%3BSupreme%20Court%20Eyes%20Ethics%2C%20Campaign%20Finance%20Law%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inbribery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>,campaign finance
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“‘Citizens United’ advisory measure can go on ballot, California
high court says” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78702>
Posted onJanuary 4, 2016 8:29 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78702>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Maura Dolan reports
<http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-supreme-court-ballot-20160104-story.html>for
the LA Times.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78702&title=%26%238220%3B%26%238216%3BCitizens%20United%26%238217%3B%20advisory%20measure%20can%20go%20on%20ballot%2C%20California%20high%20court%20says%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,direct
democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>
Interview on @KCRW Which Way, LA? Talking CA Supreme Court Citizens
United Ruling <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78700>
Posted onJanuary 4, 2016 6:21 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78700>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Listen.
<http://www.kcrw.com/news-culture/shows/which-way-la/could-socal-gas-have-prevented-the-porter-ranch-gas-leak/ca-supreme-court-rules-on-citizens-united-ballot-measure>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78700&title=Interview%20on%20%40KCRW%20Which%20Way%2C%20LA%3F%20Talking%20CA%20Supreme%20Court%20Citizens%20United%20Ruling&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,direct
democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>
Federal Court Rejects Attempt to Force SEC to Write Political
Disclosure Rule <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78698>
Posted onJanuary 4, 2016 3:06 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78698>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here
<https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2015cv0722-11>is
the opinion (viaJosh Gerstein
<https://twitter.com/joshgerstein/status/684148008984940544>).
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78698&title=Federal%20Court%20Rejects%20Attempt%20to%20Force%20SEC%20to%20Write%20Political%20Disclosure%20Rule&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“What the 1960 Hawaii Presidential Election Meant for Bush v. Gore”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78696>
Posted onJanuary 4, 2016 1:49 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78696>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Michael Stern
<http://www.pointoforder.com/2016/01/04/what-the-1960-hawaii-presidential-election-meant-for-bush-v-gore/>at
Point of Order.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78696&title=%26%238220%3BWhat%20the%201960%20Hawaii%20Presidential%20Election%20Meant%20for%20Bush%20v.%20Gore%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inBush v. Gore reflections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=5>
David Ettinger on Today’s Citizens United Ballot Measure Decision of
CA Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78694>
Posted onJanuary 4, 2016 1:45 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78694>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Read it here.
<http://www.atthelectern.com/anti-citizens-united-proposition-can-be-on-the-2016-ballot/>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78694&title=David%20Ettinger%20on%20Today%26%238217%3Bs%20Citizens%20United%20Ballot%20Measure%20Decision%20of%20CA%20Supreme%20Court&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,direct
democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>
California Supreme Court, on 6-1 Vote, Allows Anti-Citizens United
Measure to Go on the Ballot <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78692>
Posted onJanuary 4, 2016 10:10 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78692>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
You can read the majority opinion, three concurring opinions, and
dissenting opinionsat this link
<http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S220289.PDF>. This is a
purely advisory measure, which would advise the California legislature
whether to support or oppose an amendment to “overturn” Citizens United.
If nothing else, the presence of this measure on the ballot could help
boost Democrats’ turnout, as /Citizens United/remains deeply unpopular
among many voters, but especially Democrats.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78692&title=California%20Supreme%20Court%2C%20on%206-1%20Vote%2C%20Allows%20Anti-Citizens%20United%20Measure%20to%20Go%20on%20the%20Ballot&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,direct
democracy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=62>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
AALS Section on Election Law Meeting
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78690>
Posted onJanuary 4, 2016 9:08 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78690>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
From Josh Douglas:
Election Law Professors,
Happy New Year (and happy presidential election year)!
If you will be at the AALS meeting in New York City this week, I
encourage you to attend the Section on Election Law’s session on
“Election Law at the Local Level.” It is on*Friday from
10:30-12:15*. The panel description and speakers list are below.
There will be a business meeting after the session, where we will
elect the Executive Committee. I encourage you to take part in the
Section! If you will not be at the meeting but still want to be
involved, just let me know.
Thanks,
Josh
*Election Law at the Local Level*
*AALS Section on Election Law*
*January 2016 Annual Meeting*
**
Although national election controversies grab the headlines,
decisions made at the local level impact our elections in important
ways – and even contribute to those national issues. Local and state
actors play a front-line role in administering elections for all
levels of government. This panel will focus on how local
jurisdictions handle important issues such as ballot access, voting
rights, early voting, Election Day processes, and post-election
disputes. Panelists will explain how these issues relate to the
smooth running of the election, and how they might impact the 2016
presidential election season. One panelist will be chosen from a
Call for Papers.
*Speakers:*
-Josh Douglas, University of Kentucky College of Law
-David Schleicher, Yale Law School
-Jocelyn Benson, Wayne State
-Trey Grayson, former KY Secretary of State and member of the
Presidential Commission on Election Administration
-Richard T. Ford, Stanford
-Hank Chambers, University of Richmond (Call for Papers Winner)
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78690&title=AALS%20Section%20on%20Election%20Law%20Meeting&description=>
Posted inpedagogy <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=23>
--
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/20160105/b026887b/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/20160105/b026887b/attachment.png>
View list directory