[EL] Federal Contractor Disclosure -- An illegal order?

[Schultz, David A.]

Rarely do I agree with Brad but I too am stumped on this, I thought the
budget deal mooted this,  What have I missed?

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:

> *President Obama
> <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per> is
> seriously considering an executive order that would require companies doing
> business with the federal government to disclose their political
> contributions,*
>
>
>
> Section 735(a) of the budget omnibus, signed by President Obama last month:
>
> Sec. 735. (a) None of the funds made available in this or any other Act
> may be used to recommend or require any entity submitting an offer for a
> Federal contract to disclose any of the following information as a
> condition of submitting the offer:
>
>
>
> (1) Any payment consisting of a contribution, expenditure, independent
> expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication that is
> made by the entity, its officers or directors, or any of its affiliates or
> subsidiaries to a candidate for election for Federal office or to a
> political committee, or that is otherwise made with respect to any election
> for Federal office.
>
> (2) Any disbursement of funds (other than a payment described in paragraph
> (1)) made by the entity, its officers or directors, or any of its
> affiliates or subsidiaries to any person with the intent or the reasonable
> expectation that the person will use the funds to make a payment described
> in paragraph (1).
>
> (b) In this section, each of the terms “contribution”, “expenditure”,
> “independent expenditure”, “electioneering communication”, “candidate”,
> “election”, and “Federal office” has the meaning given such term in the
> Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.
> <http://uscode.house.gov/quicksearch/get.plx?title=2&section=431>).
>
>
>
> Not quite sure how you square the law with the proposed executive order.
>
>
>
> *Bradley A. Smith*
>
> *Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault *
>
> *  Professor of Law*
>
> *Capital University Law School*
>
> *303 East Broad Street*
>
> *Columbus, OH 43215*
>
> *(614) 236-6317 <%28614%29%20236-6317>*
>
> *bsmith at law.capital.edu <bsmith at law.capital.edu>*
>
> *http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp
> <http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp>*
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Rick Hasen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 20, 2016 1:35 PM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] ELB News and Commentary 1/20/16
>
>
> “New Wrinkle in Wis. Campaign Finance Probe”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79164>
>
> Posted on January 20, 2016 10:33 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79164>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Courthouse News Service:
> <http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/01/20/new-wrinkle-in-wis-campaign-finance-probe.htm>
>
> *      MADISON, Wis. (CN) – Two targets of a secret campaign-finance probe
> hamstrung by the Wisconsin Supreme Court say the recently ousted
> investigator made misrepresentations about his searches and subpoenas.*
>
> *     Named pseudonymously in the filing, Unnamed Movants 6 and 7 say
> former special prosecutor Francis Schmitz failed to comply with a court
> order to return property and disclose all search activity.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79164&title=%26%238220%3BNew%20Wrinkle%20in%20Wis.%20Campaign%20Finance%20Probe%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, chicanery
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
> “A Landmark Decision Turns 40: A Conversation on Buckley v. Valeo”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79162>
>
> Posted on January 20, 2016 10:27 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79162>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Wow <https://www.brooklaw.edu/newsandevents/events/2016/01-26-2016> this
> looks like a great event at Brooklyn Law Jan. 26, featuring Judge Buckley!
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79162&title=%26%238220%3BA%20Landmark%20Decision%20Turns%2040%3A%20A%20Conversation%20on%20Buckley%20v.%20Valeo%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
> “Common Cause Backs Student Suit to Force Election Day Registration”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79160>
>
> Posted on January 20, 2016 10:26 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79160>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> See this press release
> <http://www.commoncause.org/press/press-releases/common-cause-backs-student-voter-suit.html>
> .
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79160&title=%26%238220%3BCommon%20Cause%20Backs%20Student%20Suit%20to%20Force%20Election%20Day%20Registration%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
> “Citizens United Consequences: Super Rich Empowered, Ordinary Americans
> Undermined, Democracy Subverted” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79158>
>
> Posted on January 20, 2016 10:04 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79158>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Fred Wertheimer blog
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-wertheimer/citizens-united-consequen_b_9029038.html>on
> Citizens United.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79158&title=%26%238220%3BCitizens%20United%20Consequences%3A%20Super%20Rich%20Empowered%2C%20Ordinary%20Americans%20Undermined%2C%20Democracy%20Subverted%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
> “What is political ‘dark money’ — and is it bad?”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79156>
>
> Posted on January 20, 2016 10:01 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79156>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> CPI primer.
> <http://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/01/20/19156/what-political-dark-money-and-it-bad>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79156&title=%26%238220%3BWhat%20is%20political%20%26%238216%3Bdark%20money%26%238217%3B%20%E2%80%94%20and%20is%20it%20bad%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> “A New Threat to the Viability of Contribution Limits”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79154>
>
> Posted on January 20, 2016 9:54 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79154>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Brent Ferguson has posted this draft
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2718975>on SSRN
> (forthcoming, *Emory Law Journal Online*).  Here is the abstract:
>
> *In July, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that it violates the First
> Amendment to prevent political candidates from coordinating with outside
> spending groups like super PACs if the groups’ ads do not expressly
> advocate the election or defeat of a candidate. The decision is erroneous
> under federal precedent and fundamentally misunderstands the Supreme
> Court’s holdings distinguishing between independent spending and spending
> coordinated with a candidate. Wisconsin’s regulatory scheme will be largely
> inoperable for the time being: Contribution limits will be fairly
> meaningless, at least for sophisticated actors who seek to circumvent them.
> And the logic of the decision leads to the conclusion that candidates have
> the constitutional right to set up campaign accounts that may accept
> unlimited contributions, so long as that money is not used for express
> advocacy.*
>
> *Because the Court’s reasoning lacked a coherent basis or a foundation in
> federal case law, it may not be overly optimistic to think that other state
> or federal courts will reject its reasoning. Yet there are indications that
> at least some regulators and courts may share the Wisconsin Court’s view,
> and there is little doubt that the issue will arise in other states. This
> article will review the law of coordination, as well as recent Supreme
> Court case law relied upon by the Wisconsin Court, to demonstrate the
> Court’s error. It will also address some of the effects the decision will
> have in Wisconsin and elsewhere if other courts similarly depart from
> longstanding precedent.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79154&title=%26%238220%3BA%20New%20Threat%20to%20the%20Viability%20of%20Contribution%20Limits%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> “Illinois election board to decide fate of three St. Clair County judges”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79152>
>
> Posted on January 20, 2016 9:49 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79152>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Interesting
> <http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/illinois-election-board-to-decide-fate-of-three-st-clair/article_23969e59-b665-534d-bff6-e0435433f84d.html>
> :
>
> *Is a judge acting unethically if he maneuvers to keep his job by choosing
> to run in a partisan election, thus avoiding the higher vote threshold
> required for retention in a nonpartisan vote?*
>
> *A small band of sign-waving protesters who marched outside the St. Clair
> County Building here Tuesday morning made that complaint.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79152&title=%26%238220%3BIllinois%20election%20board%20to%20decide%20fate%20of%20three%20St.%20Clair%20County%20judges%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in judicial elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>
> Richard Painter with the Conservative Case for Campaign Finance Reform
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79150>
>
> Posted on January 20, 2016 9:47 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79150>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Can’t wait to read this.  Release:
>
> *Take Back Our Republic Publishes Book by former President George W. Bush
> White House Aide:  *
>
> *“Taxation Only with Representation:  The Conservative Conscience and
> Campaign Finance Reform” by Richard W. Painter*
>
>
>
> *Author Richard Painter was President George W. Bush’s chief White House
> ethics lawyer, and he is now a law professor at the University of
> Minnesota.  He wrote the book throughout 2014 and 2015 with the financial
> support of a full year residential fellowship from Harvard University’s
> Safra Center for Ethics.*
>
> *Painter’s book discusses in detail:*
>
> ·         *How the current system of campaign finance undermines the
> system of participatory democracy envisioned by the original Tea Party and
> the founding fathers of our Country.*
>
> ·         *The fact that conservative political thinkers from Edmund
> Burke to Barry Goldwater have warned against the corrupting influence of
> costly elections.*
>
> ·         *Campaign money is driving the growth of excessive government
> spending and regulation and encourages the growth of inefficient and
> corrupt government sponsored enterprises (GSEs).*
>
> ·         *Campaign money is silencing the voice of social conservatives
> and faith-based voters on virtually every issue, ranging from protection of
> human life and religious freedom to school choice, drugs, pornography and
> gambling.*
>
> ·         *Campaign money is increasingly likely to originate outside the
> United States, giving sovereign wealth funds, foreign governments and even
> terrorist organizations ample opportunity to influence our government and
> undermine our national security and independence.*
>
>
>
> *The principal solution Painter proposes is to allow ordinary voters to
> participate in funding political campaigns out of their tax dollars.   His
> proposed “Taxation only with Representation” amendment or statute can be
> enacted at the national or state level and does not run afoul of any
> existing first amendment rights in the Constitution.  It provides:*
>
> *Neither the government of the United States nor any state or subdivision
> thereof shall levy an income tax, sales tax, property tax, inheritance tax
> or any other tax upon any natural person over 18 years of age who is a
> citizen of the United States or upon his or her estate unless the United
> States government or the state levying said taxes pays an amount totaling
> at least two hundred dollars within the same calendar year or within the
> immediately following calendar year to the campaign of one or more
> candidates for elected federal or state or local office chosen by such
> citizen for whom such citizen is also eligible to vote or running for
> office in the state in which the citizen resides.  A citizen’s right to
> designate taxpayer funded political contributions pursuant to this
> amendment is waived in any year in which the citizen fails to designate a
> recipient of such payment or dies before designating a recipient of such
> payment. Every five years after adoption of this amendment, Congress shall
> by statute or, in the event Congress shall not enact such a statute, the
> United States Treasury shall by regulation, adjust the taxpayer funded
> political contribution amount to be more or less than two hundred dollars
> to reflect changes in the purchasing power of the United States dollar
> within the preceding five years. *
>
> *Painter proposes that the private sector develop innovative solutions to
> bring more small donors into the fray.  For example, a “Democracy Dollars”
> program in which retailers would, in place of making their own
> contributions to PACs, allow customers to give money to candidates of their
> choice based on customer loyalty points.  Painter urges that when the
> private sector tries to help citizens solve the campaign finance problem,
> government must not be allowed to stand in the way.*
>
> *Take Back Our Republic has printed 5,000 copies in the first printing,
> more than 1,000 of which will be distributed in New Hampshire and Iowa in
> late January and early February.*
>
> *The book can be found on Amazon.com
> <http://www.amazon.com/Taxation-Only-Representation-Richard-Painter/dp/1939324122/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453239273&sr=8-1&keywords=taxation+only+with+representation> or
> at or by contacting Take Back Our Republic at 334-329-7258 <334-329-7258>.
> A complimentary PDF version is attached as well.*
>
>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79150&title=Richard%20Painter%20with%20the%20Conservative%20Case%20for%20Campaign%20Finance%20Reform&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> “Political Self-Interest II: The Boundaries of “Ingratiation and Access””
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79148>
>
> Posted on January 20, 2016 9:43 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79148>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> More Bauer
> <http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2016/01/political-self-interest-ii-boundaries-ingratiation-access/>
>  on McDonnell.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79148&title=%26%238220%3BPolitical%20Self-Interest%20II%3A%20The%20Boundaries%20of%20%E2%80%9CIngratiation%20and%20Access%E2%80%9D%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in bribery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>, campaign finance
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> “The Nine Presidential Candidates Who Don’t Want Your Support”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79146>
>
> Posted on January 20, 2016 9:30 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79146>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> That is
> <http://youthrights.org/2016/01/19/the-nine-presidential-candidates-who-dont-want-your-support/>,
> if you are under 18.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79146&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Nine%20Presidential%20Candidates%20Who%20Don%26%238217%3Bt%20Want%20Your%20Support%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> “President Obama May Require Federal Contractors to List Campaign Gifts”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79143>
>
> Posted on January 20, 2016 9:27 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79143>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NYT
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/us/president-obama-may-require-federal-contractors-to-list-campaign-gifts.html?_r=0>
> :
>
> *President Obama
> <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per> is
> seriously considering an executive order that would require companies doing
> business with the federal government to disclose their political
> contributions, White House officials said on Tuesday, a step long awaited
> by activists to reduce the influence of secretive corporate donations in
> elections.*
>
> *The directive, known as the “dark money” executive order, would mandate
> that government contractors publicly report their contributions to groups
> that spend money to influence campaigns. Advocates inside and outside the
> White House believe the executive order would prompt some companies to
> spend less, by exposing their donations to public scrutiny.*
>
> That last sentence is very telling. As I argue in Plutocrats United
> <http://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-United-Campaign-Distortion-Elections/dp/0300212453/>,
> I believe many of those who push for greater shareholder transparency are
> less interested in protecting shareholders than in deterring corporate
> spending.
>
>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79143&title=%26%238220%3BPresident%20Obama%20May%20Require%20Federal%20Contractors%20to%20List%20Campaign%20Gifts%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> “What Kind of Man Spends Millions to Elect Ted Cruz?”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79141>
>
> Posted on January 20, 2016 9:22 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79141>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Interesting Bloomberg report.
> <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2016-01-20/what-kind-of-man-spends-millions-to-elect-ted-cruz-?cmpid=BBD012016_POL>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79141&title=%26%238220%3BWhat%20Kind%20of%20Man%20Spends%20Millions%20to%20Elect%20Ted%20Cruz%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> DC Plutocrats United Event POSTPONED Due to Expected Blizzard
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79136>
>
> Posted on January 20, 2016 8:58 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79136>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> With a blizzard watch
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/01/20/blizzard-watch-severe-snowstorm-likely-friday-through-sunday/>now
> posted for DC, and talk of a possible historic storm, I’m afraid the
> Plutocrats United event with Trevor Potter in DC, set for Friday, is being
> postponed.  I hope we will announce a new date soon.
>
> The New York events with the Brennan Center
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78230> for tomorrow are STILL ON.  Hope to
> see you there.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79136&title=DC%20Plutocrats%20United%20Event%20POSTPONED%20Due%20to%20Expected%20Blizzard&description=>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
> “The Wait Is Over for Ex-Lawmakers Ready to Lobby”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79134>
>
> Posted on January 19, 2016 9:01 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79134>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Roll Call reports.
> <http://www.rollcall.com/news/The-Wait-Is-Over-for-Ex-Lawmakers-Ready-to-Lobby-245502-1.html>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79134&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Wait%20Is%20Over%20for%20Ex-Lawmakers%20Ready%20to%20Lobby%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in legislation and legislatures
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>, lobbying
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
> “Decoding the Maze Part 2: Wisconsin Overhauls Campaign Finance Laws”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79132>
>
> Posted on January 19, 2016 8:57 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79132>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Mike Wittenwyler and Jodi Jensen have written this analysis
> <http://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/InsideTrack/Pages/Article.aspx?Volume=8&Issue=2&ArticleID=24570>
>  for the Wisconsin Bar Journal.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79132&title=%26%238220%3BDecoding%20the%20Maze%20Part%202%3A%20Wisconsin%20Overhauls%20Campaign%20Finance%20Laws%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> “Huckabee supports campaign finance reforms”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79130>
>
> Posted on January 19, 2016 8:51 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79130>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Unlimited contributions
> <http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/01/19/huckabee-campaign-finance-iowa-caucus/79001022/>
>  to candidates with full disclosure.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79130&title=%26%238220%3BHuckabee%20supports%20campaign%20finance%20reforms%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> “Unlikely Advocates Push To Give 16-Year-Olds A Vote — And A Voice”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79128>
>
> Posted on January 19, 2016 8:47 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79128>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NPR reports.
> <http://www.npr.org/2016/01/18/463489043/unlikely-advocates-push-to-give-16-year-olds-a-vote-and-a-voice>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79128&title=%26%238220%3BUnlikely%20Advocates%20Push%20To%20Give%2016-Year-Olds%20A%20Vote%20%E2%80%94%20And%20A%20Voice%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
> “The GOP debates have become like Super Bowl parties for top donors”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79126>
>
> Posted on January 19, 2016 9:27 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79126>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Matea Gold
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-gop-debates-have-become-like-super-bowl-parties-for-top-donors/2016/01/18/9f578660-b95e-11e5-b682-4bb4dd403c7d_story.html>
>  at Wapo on what is literally plutocrats united.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79126&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20GOP%20debates%20have%20become%20like%20Super%20Bowl%20parties%20for%20top%20donors%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, Plutocrats United
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>
>
> --
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>



-- 
David Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
Hamline University
Department of Political Science
1536 Hewitt Ave
MS B 1805
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858 (voice)
651.523.3170 (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
Twitter:  @ProfDSchultz
My latest book:  Presidential Swing States:  Why Only Ten Matter
https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739195246/Presidential-Swing-States-Why-Only-Ten-Matter
FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160120/8ec1c466/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160120/8ec1c466/attachment.png>