[EL] Federal Contractor Disclosure -- An illegal order?
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Jan 20 16:08:05 PST 2016
Here's a response from Larry Norden which did not go through:
*From:*Norden, Lawrence
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 20, 2016 5:50 PM
*To:* 'Smith, Brad'; Lisa Gilbert; Schultz, David A.
*Cc:* law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
*Subject:* RE: [EL] Federal Contractor Disclosure -- An illegal order?
It’s the same language. See also this report:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/16/obama-executive-order-government-contractor-disclosure_n_1154322.html
On 1/20/16 5:44 PM, Smith, Brad wrote:
>
> That’s not the same language, is it? Unless “grant” and “loan” now
> mean “contract.”
>
> /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/
>
> /bsmith at law.capital.edu <mailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu>/
>
> /http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp/
>
> *From:*Norden, Lawrence [mailto:NordenL at mercury.law.nyu.edu]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 20, 2016 5:43 PM
> *To:* Lisa Gilbert; Schultz, David A.; Smith, Brad
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* RE: [EL] Federal Contractor Disclosure -- An illegal order?
>
> Indeed, the language first appeared in 2011, and was deliberately
> negotiated by Democrats, as reported in this contemporaneous article
> from the Washington Times
> <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/16/congress-overturns-incandescent-light-bulb-ban/>:
>
> Democrats also forced Republicans to remove provisions that would have
> prevented [the President] from requiring government contractors to
> disclose their political contributions — though they cannot be
> required to disclose them as part of an application for a loan or grant.
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of
> *Lisa Gilbert
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 20, 2016 5:33 PM
> *To:* Schultz, David A.; Smith, Brad
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Federal Contractor Disclosure -- An illegal order?
>
> Any executive order would be focused on those that are already federal
> contractors. This language in the budget simply prevents disclosure
> from being a prerequisite for getting a new contract . This language
> wasn’t new in this budget, but has been around for several years.
>
> Lisa
>
> _____________________________________________
>
> Lisa Gilbert
>
> Director-Public Citizen's Congress Watch
>
> 215 Pennsylvania Ave., SE | Washington, D.C. 20003
>
> T: (202) 454-5188 | C: (551) 404-5200
>
> follow me at Lisa_PubCitizen
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of
> *Schultz, David A.
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 20, 2016 5:28 PM
> *To:* Smith, Brad
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Federal Contractor Disclosure -- An illegal order?
>
> 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
> <mailto: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§ion=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 <tel:%28614%29%20236-6317>/
>
> /bsmith at law.capital.edu <mailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu>/
>
> /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>
> [mailto: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 <mailto: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./
>
> 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!
>
> 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>.
>
> 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.
>
> 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>
>
> 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./
>
> 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./
>
> 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
> <tel:334-329-7258>. A complimentary PDF version is attached as well./
>
> *//*
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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>
>
> 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.
>
> 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>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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>
>
> 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.
>
> 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 <tel:949.824.3072> - office
> 949.824.0495 <tel: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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto: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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
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/20160120/1f1b5a8e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160120/1f1b5a8e/attachment.png>
View list directory