[EL] “Democrats are Proving Samuel Alito and John Roberts Wrong” - Fraudulent Blumenthal
Smith, Brad
BSmith at law.capital.edu
Tue Jan 5 08:42:15 PST 2016
Or not.
Here is Blumenthal:
"What was once characterized as a "wild hypothetical" 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."
And here is the Alito exchange he mentions, in full:
JUSTICE ALITO: What troubles me about your
-- what troubles me about your argument, General
Verrilli, and about the district court's opinion is that
what I see are wild hypotheticals that are not obviously
plausible or -- and lack, certainly lack any empirical
support.
Now, you've -- you've chosen to use the same
hypothetical the district court used about the
$3.5 million contribution that would be -- that could be
given by a coordinate -- which involves all of the House
candidates and all of the Senate candidates in a
particular year getting together with all of the -- all
of the parties' national party committees, plus all of
the State party committees, and then -- and that's how
you get up to the $3.5 million figure; isn't that right?
GENERAL VERRILLI: Yes.
JUSTICE ALITO: Now, how -- how realistic is
that? How realistic is it that all of the State party
committees, for example, are going to get money and
they're all going to transfer it to one candidate? For
49 of them, it's going to be a candidate who is not in
their own State. And there are virtually no instances
of State party committees contributing to candidates
from another State.
The hypo that Alito called "wild" involved $3.5 million going to one candidate through over 400 committees; the scenario Blumenthal describes involves fewer than 40 committees getting less than $1 million to a national committee that would have been expected to raise tens of millions even absent the McCutcheon decision.
In other words, Blumenthal is, as is often the case with Blumenthal, just making it up.
And that's before you get to the least restrictive means question, assuming you want to block all this ...
Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
614.236.6317
http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Rick Hasen [rhasen at law.uci.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 10:37 AM
To: law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 1/5/16
“California businessman pushes ballot measure for NASCAR-style disclosure”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78720>
Posted on January 5, 2016 7:30 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78720> by Rick 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 in campaign 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 on January 5, 2016 7:28 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78718> by Rick 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’s new 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 in campaign 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 on January 5, 2016 7:07 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78716> by Rick 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 state moved 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 weeks was 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 in Supreme 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 on January 5, 2016 7:04 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78714> by Rick 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 in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Money Talks”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78712>
Posted on January 5, 2016 7:03 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78712> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Glenn Altschuler<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-c-altschuler/money-talks_b_8912152.html> reviews Plutocrats 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 in campaign 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 on January 5, 2016 7:00 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78710> by Rick 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 campaign claims 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 been criticized 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 in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“Super PACs: The Law and the Politics”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78708>
Posted on January 5, 2016 6:58 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78708> by Rick 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 in campaign 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 on January 5, 2016 6:52 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78706> by Rick 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 theWashington 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 in campaign 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 on January 4, 2016 8:45 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78704> by Rick 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 in bribery<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 on January 4, 2016 8:29 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78702> by Rick 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 in campaign 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 on January 4, 2016 6:21 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78700> by Rick 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 in campaign 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 on January 4, 2016 3:06 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78698> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Here<https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2015cv0722-11> is the opinion (via Josh 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 in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
“What the 1960 Hawaii Presidential Election Meant for Bush v. Gore”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78696>
Posted on January 4, 2016 1:49 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78696> by Rick 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 in Bush 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 on January 4, 2016 1:45 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78694> by Rick 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 in campaign 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 on January 4, 2016 10:10 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78692> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
You can read the majority opinion, three concurring opinions, and dissenting opinions at 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 in campaign 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 on January 4, 2016 9:08 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78690> by Rick 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 in pedagogy<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<mailto: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/fe76d1b1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: share_save_171_16.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160105/fe76d1b1/attachment.png>
View list directory