[EL] Brock/Johnston and poor memories

Thu Jan 28 13:11:10 PST 2016

Good points Brad.  One slight quibble.  Independent expenditures by parties
were prohibited until CO Republican Federal Campaign Committee v FEC
(1996).  But I don't think they were talking about that.

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:

> Former Senators  J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.) and William E. Brock,
> (R-Tenn.) in The Hill
> <http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/267079-happy-birthday-to-the-case-that-was-even-worse-than-citizens>
> :
>
> *Both of us were elected to the Senate in the 1970s, and ran our campaigns
> under the Federal Election Campaign Act. FECA put caps on contributions and
> banned corporations from giving at all. Campaign spending was limited and
> independent expenditures were prohibited. …*
>
> *This system worked, and we’re extremely proud to have earned our seats in
> this manner. The money was sufficient to fund a good campaign with enough
> media to get the message out, and we could be sure it was our ideas, not
> our fundraising prowess, that won the day.*
>
>
>
> *-----------*
>
> Well, this is interesting. In fact, neither Senator Johnston nor Senator
> Brock ever ran a campaign for federal office in which “campaign spending
> was limited” or “independent expenditures were prohibited,” let alone both.
> That’s because independent expenditures were not prohibited until the
> Federal Election Campaign Act amendments of 1974, which were struck down by
> the Supreme Court before either man ran another race. Indeed, Senator Brock
> ran 7 campaigns for federal office (I think): for House in 1962, ’64, ’66,
> and ’68, and for  Senate in 1970, ’76, and ’92. He lost the last two of
> those listed. In all of his successful campaigns for federal office, there
> were no “caps on contributions,” at least not on individual contributions,
> because caps on individual contributions were, again, not in place until
> the 1976 election. Johnston ran 4 races for federal office (1972, ’78, ’84,
> and ’90), none under limits on independent expenditures and the last three
> under contribution limits.
>
>
>
> It is also worth noting that Brock benefitted from independent
> expenditures on his behalf in the 1970 Senate campaign against Al Gore,
> Sr.—almost certainly over an inflation adjusted $1 million coordinated by
> White House alone. It appears that Brock also outspent Gore in direct
> spending by quite a bit.
>
>
>
> Finally, while I don’t begrudge people changing their minds, it may still
> be worth noting that both Senator Johnston and Senator Brock voted against
> cloture on bill (i.e. to allow a filibuster to continue), and against final
> passage of the Senate version of the 1974 FECA Amendments that imposed
> those limits (though both eventually voted for the Conference Committee
> report). Senator Brock also introduced an amendment that would have
> exempted the Senatorial and Congressional Campaign Committees of the
> parties from contribution limits. And Brock voted against tabling an
> amendment offered by Senator Buckley that would have removed total
> contribution and spending limits on candidates from the bill.
>
>
>
> *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:* Thursday, January 28, 2016 11:04 AM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] ELB News and Commentary 1/28/16
>
>
> “Voter Registration Doesn’t Point to Iowa Surge for Sanders or Trump”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79348>
>
> Posted on January 28, 2016 8:02 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79348>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Nate Cohn
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/upshot/surge-for-sanders-or-trump-in-iowa-voter-registration-doesnt-suggest-it.html?ref=politics&_r=0>
>  for NYT’s The UpShot.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79348&title=%26%238220%3BVoter%20Registration%20Doesn%E2%80%99t%20Point%20to%20Iowa%20Surge%20for%20Sanders%20or%20Trump%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, election
> administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
> “Nominating Cruz Or Trump Might Not Doom Down-Ballot Republicans”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79346>
>
> Posted on January 28, 2016 7:54 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79346>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Harry Enten
> <http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nominating-cruz-or-trump-might-not-doom-down-ballot-republicans/>
>  for 538.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79346&title=%26%238220%3BNominating%20Cruz%20Or%20Trump%20Might%20Not%20Doom%20Down-Ballot%20Republicans%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> “Why I Dropped Out” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79344>
>
> Posted on January 28, 2016 7:48 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79344>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Part II  <http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-i-dropped-out>in
> the New Yorker from Lessig.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79344&title=%26%238220%3BWhy%20I%20Dropped%20Out%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, political parties
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>
> “Political Money: New Best-Selling Book Genre?”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79342>
>
> Posted on January 28, 2016 7:47 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79342>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Eliza Newlin Carney
> <http://prospect.org/article/political-money-new-best-selling-book-genre> for
> TAP:
>
> *Books about who pays for American elections rarely hit the bestseller
> lists, but a rash of new titles tackling the once-obscure topic of campaign
> financing signals that publishers now regard political money as popular
> fare.*
>
> *Whether your cup of tea is juicy details about the billionaire
> industrialists Charles and David Koch, like those New Yorker writer Jane
> Mayer dishes up in her 450-page narrative Dark Money
> <http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0385535597/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453936996&sr=8-1&keywords=dark+money>,
> or rigorous legal analysis along the lines of what Richard L. Hasen
> delivers in Plutocrats United,
> <http://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-United-Campaign-Distortion-Elections/dp/0300212453/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453937030&sr=8-1&keywords=plutocrats+united> the
> newly hot genre of political money has something to offer.*
>
> *For progressive organizers, California writer and activist Derek
> Cressman’s When Money Talks: The High Price of ‘Free’ Speech and the
> Selling of Democracy
> <http://www.amazon.com/When-Money-Talks-Selling-Democracy/dp/1626565767/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453937131&sr=8-1&keywords=when+money+talks> offers
> a how-to primer on how fed-up citizens can take action. For conservatives,
> law professor Richard Painter’s Taxation Only With Representation
> <http://www.amazon.com/Taxation-Only-Representation-Richard-Painter/dp/1939324122/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453937187&sr=8-1&keywords=taxation+only+with+representation> argues
> that campaign reforms would lead government to both spend less and regulate
> less. For those looking for a middle way, Wendell Potter and Nick Penniman
> explain inNation on the Take
> <http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_18?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=nation+on+the+take&sprefix=nation+on+the+take%2Caps%2C118> how
> special interest money impacts the daily lives of ordinary Americans.*
>
> *None of these books will win fans in every quarter. Some reform advocates
> will wish that Mayer went beyond describing the problem to spelling out
> solutions. And some scholars will quibble that Hasen’s argument for legal
> fixes to promote “political equality” would not withstand constitutional
> muster. Conservatives will dismiss Cressman’s book out of hand, and
> liberals may argue that the books by Painter and by Potter and Penniman
> don’t go far enough.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79342&title=%26%238220%3BPolitical%20Money%3A%20New%20Best-Selling%20Book%20Genre%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Plutocrats
> United <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>
> “The ‘Bleak’ History of Third-Party Presidential Bids”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79340>
>
> Posted on January 28, 2016 7:43 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79340>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Sahil Kapur
> <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-27/the-bleak-history-of-third-party-presidential-bids?cmpid=BBD012816_POL>
>  reports for — wait for it! — Bloomberg.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79340&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20%E2%80%98Bleak%E2%80%99%20History%20of%20Third-Party%20Presidential%20Bids%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in ballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>, campaign
> finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> “Happy birthday to the case that was even worse than Citizens United”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79338>
>
> Posted on January 28, 2016 7:42 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79338>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Former Senators  J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.) and William E. Brock,
> (R-Tenn.) in The Hill
> <http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/267079-happy-birthday-to-the-case-that-was-even-worse-than-citizens>
> :
>
> *Both of us were elected to the Senate in the 1970s, and ran our campaigns
> under the Federal Election Campaign Act. FECA put caps on contributions and
> banned corporations from giving at all. Campaign spending was limited and
> independent expenditures were prohibited. The purpose of all this was to
> protect speech: the speech of those who couldn’t afford to contribute
> massive amounts but whose voice ought to be heard just as much by a
> candidate.*
>
> *This system worked, and we’re extremely proud to have earned our seats in
> this manner. The money was sufficient to fund a good campaign with enough
> media to get the message out, and we could be sure it was our ideas, not
> our fundraising prowess, that won the day.*
>
> *But in 1976, the Supreme Court got it wrong with Buckley v. Valeo: they
> decided that these reasonable limits on political spending to prevent
> corruption were a violation of the First Amendment. That case was the seed
> that reversed decades of jurisprudence, turned the Founders’ conception of
> free speech on its head and, more than thirty years later, germinated the
> infamous Citizens United decision.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79338&title=%26%238220%3BHappy%20birthday%20to%20the%20case%20that%20was%20even%20worse%20than%20Citizens%20United%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
> “Many 2016 candidates don’t disclose bundlers”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79336>
>
> Posted on January 28, 2016 7:40 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79336>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Fredreka Schouten
> <http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/01/27/2016-presidential-candidates-bundlers/79395320/>
>  for USA Today.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79336&title=%26%238220%3BMany%202016%20candidates%20don%26%238217%3Bt%20disclose%20bundlers%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> “Dark Money Dominates Political Ad Spending; Groups that don’t have to
> disclose their donors have accounted for almost two-thirds of political ad
> spending this cycle” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79334>
>
> Posted on January 28, 2016 7:38 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79334>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Bill Allison crunches the numbers.
> <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-28/dark-money-dominates-political-ad-spending>
>
> [image: Share]
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, tax law
> and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
> Adam Lioz on Every Voice Podcast on Buckley at 40
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79332>
>
> Posted on January 28, 2016 7:36 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79332>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Listen. <http://www.demos.org/audio/every-voice-speaks-buckley-40>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79332&title=Adam%20Lioz%20on%20Every%20Voice%20Podcast%20on%20Buckley%20at%2040&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
> “Witness: Cultural differences cause photo ID headaches”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79330>
>
> Posted on January 27, 2016 7:34 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79330>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The latest
> <http://www.journalnow.com/news/elections/witness-cultural-differences-cause-photo-id-headaches/article_efd94926-27a6-5a01-9267-0551cf31e0b7.html>
>  from the NC voter id trial.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79330&title=%26%238220%3BWitness%3A%20Cultural%20differences%20cause%20photo%20ID%20headaches%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>, Voting Rights Act
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
> “The mysterious case of rampant voter fraud has been solved”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79328>
>
> Posted on January 27, 2016 7:28 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79328>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Tom Toles
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2016/01/27/the-mysterious-case-of-rampant-voter-fraud-has-been-solved/?tid=ss_tw>
>  cartoon.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79328&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20mysterious%20case%20of%20rampant%20voter%20fraud%20has%20been%20solved%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
> “As Voter ID Laws Expand, Fewer People Are Getting Drivers Licenses”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79326>
>
> Posted on January 27, 2016 4:27 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79326>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Brentin Mock
> <http://www.citylab.com/politics/2016/01/as-voter-id-laws-expand-fewer-people-are-getting-drivers-licenses/431547/>
>  for Citylab.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79326&title=%26%238220%3BAs%20Voter%20ID%20Laws%20Expand%2C%20Fewer%20People%20Are%20Getting%20Drivers%20Licenses%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
> Big 9th Circuit Win in Judicial Campaign Restrictions Case
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79324>
>
> Posted on January 27, 2016 2:24 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79324>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The Ninth Circuit en banc
> <http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/01/27/11-17634.pdf> has
> unanimously (with one concurring opinion) upheld three judicial conduct
> rules in Arizona. In *Wolfson v. Concannon*, a state judicial candidate
> challenged a rule that prevented him from personally soliciting
> contributions. He also challenged additional provisions which “prohibit
> him, while running for judicial office, from personally soliciting funds
> for a campaign for another candidate or political organization, publicly
> endorsing or making a speech on behalf of another candidate for public
> office, or actively taking part in any political campaign.”
>
> The court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision last term in the
> *Williams-Yulee* case, an unusual case in which Chief Justice Roberts,
> joined by the four more liberal Justices, upheld Florida’s ban on personal
> solicitation of campaign contributions by judicial candidates. Aside from
> the lineup, what made *Williams-Yulee* unusual was that the Court applied
> strict scrutiny (usually “strict in theory and fatal in fact”) yet upheld
> the law.
>
> Today’s en banc Ninth Circuit opinion held the lower court judge erred in
> applying intermediate scrutiny, given *Williams-Yulee*, which was decided
> *after* the trial court (and Ninth Circuit panel) decision.  But under
> strict scrutiny, the Ninth Circuit today held all three laws (and not just
> the personal solicitation provision) survived strict scrutiny: “Arizona can
> properly restrict judges and judicial candidates from taking part in
> political activities that undermine the public’s confidence that judges
> base rulings on law, and not on party affiliation.”
>
> Judge Berzon, concurring, wrote:
>
> *There is, however, a separate, broader governmental basis for regulating
> judicial behavior that goes beyond a concern with biased decisionmaking in
> individual cases. That interest is society’s concern with maintaining both
> the appearance and the reality of a structurally independent judiciary,
> engaged in a decisionmaking process informed by legal, not political or
> broad, nonlegal policy considerations.*
>
> This decision, and especially its unanimity, shows that at least some
> courts will be reading *Wiliams-Yulee *broadly to uphold a variety of
> restrictions on judicial candidate political activities. I think that’s a
> good thing.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79324&title=Big%209th%20Circuit%20Win%20in%20Judicial%20Campaign%20Restrictions%20Case&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, judicial
> elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>
> “Husted: Voter signup shouldn’t be dangerous”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79322>
>
> Posted on January 27, 2016 2:07 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79322>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Ohio SOS Husted
> <http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/01/27/husted-voter-signup-dangerous/79399108/>
> :
>
> *In October, I joined victims’ advocates and members of the Ohio House and
> Senate to announce the Safe at Home initiative, which, once approved by the
> state legislature, will allow the victims of domestic violence, human
> trafficking and other crimes to apply for a confidential address that will
> shield their residence from public record.*
>
> *Safe at Home will create a registry of victim advocates from around Ohio
> who will be specially trained to help victims of stalking or other violence
> establish a confidential post office box within the Secretary of State’s
> Office. Any time one of the program participants needs to register their
> address with a company or government agency, they can use their PO box
> number in my office so their actual location can’t be found by the general
> public. Any mail received through that box will be forwarded to the
> victim’s private home address on a daily basis.*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79322&title=%26%238220%3BHusted%3A%20Voter%20signup%20shouldn%E2%80%99t%20be%20dangerous%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
> “Getting Big Money Out of Politics” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79320>
>
> Posted on January 27, 2016 1:43 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79320>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I talked Plutocrats United with Radio Boston.  Listen
> <http://radioboston.wbur.org/2016/01/27/money-politics>.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79320&title=%26%238220%3BGetting%20Big%20Money%20Out%20of%20Politics%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Plutocrats
> United <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>
> “Why I Ran for President” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79318>
>
> Posted on January 27, 2016 10:46 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79318>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Lessig
> <http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-i-ran-for-president?mbid=rss>at
> The New Yorker.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79318&title=%26%238220%3BWhy%20I%20Ran%20for%20President%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> “The Value of the Right to Vote” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79316>
>
> Posted on January 27, 2016 10:26 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79316>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Stephan Tontrup and Rebecca Morton have posted this draft
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2692760> on SSRN.
> Here is the abstract:
>
> *We conducted a mixed lab and field experiment during a naturally
> occurring election. We offered subjects the opportunity to relinquish their
> voting rights for money. Significantly more participants refused to sell
> their rights than later participated in the election. Subjects were more
> willing to accept money for abstention from voting, than for giving up the
> right to vote itself. In a second experiment we gave subjects an incentive
> to submit a vote. Before and after the election we measured participants
> ‘knowledge about the parties’ and their positions. Even though they would
> not have voted without the incentive, the participants improved their
> knowledge suggesting that they valued their vote. Our findings show that
> people derive strong utility from their democratic rights and status as a
> voter independently of participation in the election. Based on our results
> we develop a new concept of rights utility and conclude that low turnout
> does not translate into democratic apathy and should not be used to justify
> quorum rules and restrict direct participatory rights.*
>
>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79316&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20Value%20of%20the%20Right%20to%20Vote%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in theory <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=41>, voting
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>
> “Corporate political spending can stay secret in Wisconsin”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79314>
>
> Posted on January 27, 2016 10:24 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79314>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The Wisconsin Law Journal reports.
> <http://wislawjournal.com/2016/01/26/corporate-political-spending-can-stay-secret-in-wisconsin/>
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79314&title=%26%238220%3BCorporate%20political%20spending%20can%20stay%20secret%20in%20Wisconsin%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> “Inside the pro-Sanders groups taking on Clinton’s powerhouse allies”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79312>
>
> Posted on January 27, 2016 8:36 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79312>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Matea Gold
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-pro-sanders-groups-taking-on-clintons-powerhouse-allies/2016/01/27/61aa4e00-c440-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?postshare=3281453911717195&tid=ss_tw>for
> WaPo:
>
>
>
> *While she has powerhouse allies such as Planned Parenthood, the National
> Education Association and two big-money super PACs on her side, the
> pro-Sanders effort is being driven by a combination of self-directed
> activists and liberal organizations such as MoveOn and Democracy for
> America.*
>
> *The ad hoc network working on Sanders’s behalf is doing so in keeping
> with the spirit of his anti-establishment bid. But it is also employing
> professional political tactics, such as the use of entities that can raise
> and spend unlimited sums of money on campaigns, thanks to the Supreme
> Court’s Citizens United decision.*
>
> *In some ways, their efforts cut against Sanders’s insistence that, unlike
> Clinton, he does not have a super PAC flanking his campaign — a declaration
> he repeated Tuesday in Des Moines after leading a rally at a union hall
> attended by several nurses in red T-shirts. In other ways, they don’t.
> Although these entities can accept massive checks from individuals and
> corporations — a practice Sanders abhors — they do not appear to be doing
> so, relying instead on small donations from grass-roots supporters.*
>
> *“The difference is a pretty simple difference,” he said. “Hillary Clinton
> goes out raising money for her own super PAC. I don’t have a super PAC, and
> in the best of all possible worlds, which I hope to bring about, we will
> get rid of super PACs, we will overturn Citizens United. I do not have a
> super PAC, I’ve never raised a nickel for a super PAC, I don’t want a super
> PAC.”*
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79312&title=%26%238220%3BInside%20the%20pro-Sanders%20groups%20taking%20on%20Clinton%E2%80%99s%20powerhouse%20allies%26%238221%3B&description=>
>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
> --
>
> 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
>

-- 

Dr. Carl Klarner

Academic / Political Consultant

Klarnerpolitics.com

Former Associate Professor of Political Science

Carl.Klarner at gmail.com

Cell: 812-514-9060
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160128/2d696c85/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/20160128/2d696c85/attachment.png>