[EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/24/16
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Thu Mar 24 09:29:28 PDT 2016
“Sanders, Clinton want campaign finance overhaul, but face huge
obstacles” [Corrected] <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81178>
Posted onMarch 24, 2016 7:55 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81178>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Carrie Levine
<http://news.yahoo.com/sanders-clinton-want-campaign-finance-090000404.html>for
CPI/Yahoo! News:
Campaign finance reform has become a major issue in the presidential
race — at least on the Democratic side — but even ifHillary Clinton
<https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/12/17107/12-things-know-about-hillary-clinton>orBernie
Sanders
<https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/30/17261/12-things-know-about-bernie-sanders>were
able to win the White House, a wholesale overhaul of the current
system would take a lot more than a president alone.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81178&title=%26%238220%3BSanders%2C%20Clinton%20want%20campaign%20finance%20overhaul%2C%20but%20face%20huge%20obstacles%26%238221%3B%20%5BCorrected%5D&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
On 3/24/2016 8:39 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
>
> My Thoughts on AZ Long Lines: Incompetence, Not Vote Suppression,
> and Blame #SCOTUS First <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81186>
>
> Posted onMarch 24, 2016 8:38 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81186>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The other day, while voting was taking place in AZ, I had a post
> entitled Would Long Lines at AZ Polling Places Have Happened if
> #SCOTUS Hadn’t Killed Voting Rights Act Provision?
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81141> My point was that Maricopa
> County’s decision to cut the number of polling places by 2/3 would not
> have been possible before the Supreme Court decided the 2013 Shelby
> County v. Holder case because to do so Arizona, which had been covered
> by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, would have had to demonstrate
> (and likely would not have been able to demonstrate) that doing so
> would not have made protected minority voters in Maricopa County (lots
> of Latino and Native American voters) worse off. So this review would
> have made a big difference.
>
> Which brings me to my point today. Section 5 worked not only to stop
> intentional minority vote suppression but also bureaucratic
> incompetence. The election administrator of Maricopa County, Helen
> Purcell, made a decision to cut polling places apparently to save
> money (there is always pressure from state and local governments to
> skimp on resources for election administration), and partially out a
> mistaken vast underestimation of election day turnout.
>
> Now people want off with Purcell’s head, claiming intentional voter
> suppression. People are angry, and justifiably so. Bernie Sanders said
> that waiting5 hours to vote is a disgrace.
> <http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/arizona-voting-suppression/index.html>(He’s
> right.) Here’s Clinton’s campaign lawyerMarc Elias
> <https://www.reddit.com/user/Marc_Elias/> saying that both Sanders and
> Clinton voters were disadvantaged (all voters were); here’sthe mayor
> of Phoenix
> <http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/23/maricopa-county-recorder-helen-purcell-admits-fault-long-primary-lines/82165730/>(rightfully)
> calling for a DOJ investigation. Purcell did not help herself by
> giving an interview
> <https://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/watch-az-recorder-refuses-to-take-blame-for-5-hour-waits-after-cutting-polling-places-from-200-to-60/>where
> the first person she blamed for long lines was “the voters:”
>
> **“Just to start, obviously you’ve heard of all the frustration.
> Who is to blame for this, these long lines?” Purcell was asked.
>
> “Well, the voters for getting in line, maybe us for not having
> enough voting places,” she replied.
>
> Purcell has since apologized.
>
> But there’s no good evidence that Purcell was motivated to suppress
> the vote. I have heard from a number of people that Purcell (a
> Republican)is a straight shooter
> <https://twitter.com/bmaz/status/712806583139323904>and works with a
> Democratic head of elections. This seems like a perfect example of
> Hanlon’s razor: don’t explain with malfeasance that which can be
> explained by incompetence.
>
> Purcell screwed up. Maybe she doesn’t deserve to be in office after
> this screw up (thank goodness this was not for the general election
> and the race was not close). But I don’t see evidence she someone like
> a Kris Kobach trying to intentionally make it harder for likely
> Democrats to vote.
>
> But thank John Roberts and Co. that this did not get a closer look
> from federal officials before the election took place.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81186&title=My%20Thoughts%20on%20AZ%20Long%20Lines%3A%20Incompetence%2C%20Not%20Vote%20Suppression%2C%20and%20Blame%20%23SCOTUS%20First&description=>
> Posted inelection administration
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Supreme Court
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting Wars
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
> Super Nerdy #SCOTUS Question for Appellate Gurus
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81184>
>
> Posted onMarch 24, 2016 8:19 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81184>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> When the Supreme Court divides 4-4 in a case coming up on a cert.
> petition, we know that means the lower court ruling stands and that
> there is no precedential value to that decision( i.e., it does not
> mean the lower court decision was right). That means, for example,
> that in the /Zubik /contraception case, if the Court divides 4-4 that
> does not mean the lower court decision was right, and he have the
> prospect of a continued circuit split, with the law in the 8th Circuit
> being different than the law in all the other circuits which have come
> out the other way.
>
> But what about if the Court splits 4-4 in a case that has come up on a
> direct appeal, like /Evenwel/, or /Person/, both cases argued this
> term from a direct appeal. We know ordinarily that a Supreme Court
> opinion not to hear a case and to affirm or dismiss /does/mean the
> lower court got the result right, even if not for the right reasons.
> Is it the same implication if the Court divides 4-4? Are those
> decisions binding across the country?
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81184&title=Super%20Nerdy%20%23SCOTUS%20Question%20for%20Appellate%20Gurus&description=>
> Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
> “Why hasn’t Internet voting caught on? This expert has a nefarious
> theory.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81182>
>
> Posted onMarch 24, 2016 8:00 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81182>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I don’t buy this
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/24/why-havent-online-elections-caught-on-this-expert-has-a-nefarious-theory/>at
> all.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81182&title=%26%238220%3BWhy%20hasn%E2%80%99t%20Internet%20voting%20caught%20on%3F%20This%20expert%20has%20a%20nefarious%20theory.%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted inelection administration
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,internet voting
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=49>
>
>
> “Shadow campaign to deny Trump his delegates begins”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81180>
>
> Posted onMarch 24, 2016 7:56 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81180>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Politico
> <http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/inside-the-shadow-campaign-to-deny-trump-the-gop-nomination-221172>:
>
> Madrid’s visit to South Dakota on Saturday marked one of the
> earliest signs that the shadow campaign for the Republican
> nomination has begun. Kasich and Cruz are scrambling to secure
> commitments from bound delegates to break off on a second-ballot
> and vote against Trump. In many cases, that means asking delegates
> to buck Republican primary voters in the name of settling on a
> nominee.
>
> The fight will heat up in April, when a slew of states — including
> Arizona, Colorado and North Dakota — begin selecting their own
> slate of delegates, using methods ranging from statewide and
> Congressional district conventions to meetings of state party
> leaders to county-level votes or caucuses.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81180&title=%26%238220%3BShadow%20campaign%20to%20deny%20Trump%20his%20delegates%20begins%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,political
> parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,primaries
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=32>
>
>
> “Sanders, Clinton want campaign finance overhaul, but face huge
> obstacles” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81178>
>
> Posted onMarch 24, 2016 7:55 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81178>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Carrie Levine
> <http://www.fairvote.org/trump_moves_into_majority_position_in_gop_nomination_contest>for
> CPI/Yahoo! News:
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81178&title=%26%238220%3BSanders%2C%20Clinton%20want%20campaign%20finance%20overhaul%2C%20but%20face%20huge%20obstacles%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
> “Rep. Brown Investigated by DOJ for Alleged Fraud”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81176>
>
> Posted onMarch 24, 2016 7:52 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81176>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Bloomberg BNA
> <http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=85707329&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0j1b1x6j0&split=0>:
>
> Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) is being investigated by the Justice
> Department regarding allegations that she might have engaged in a
> conspiracy to solicit fraudulent charitable contributions.
> The DOJ investigation was disclosed in a March 23statement
> <http://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/20160323%20PR.pdf>from
> the House Ethics Committee, which said it was delaying its own
> probe of Brown to defer to the department. Ethics Committee
> investigations usually are delayed while a criminal probe is under
> way.
> Details of allegations against Brown were not revealed in the
> Ethics Committee statement. The latest action appeared to be
> related to a recent guilty plea by Carla Wiley, the head of the
> One Door for Education Foundation Inc., an organization linked to
> Brown.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81176&title=%26%238220%3BRep.%20Brown%20Investigated%20by%20DOJ%20for%20Alleged%20Fraud%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted incampaign finance
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,chicanery
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
>
>
> “Trump Moves into Majority Position in GOP Nomination Contest”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81174>
>
> Posted onMarch 24, 2016 7:51 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81174>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> FairVote
> <http://www.fairvote.org/trump_moves_into_majority_position_in_gop_nomination_contest>:
>
> Over the past six months, FairVote hasanalyzed
> <http://www.fairvote.org/new_polls_show_that_gop_split_vote_problem_continues>a
> number of Republican presidential nomination polls and
> collaborated with the College of William and Maryon our own
> national poll
> <http://www.fairvote.org/national_poll_highlights_what_republican_voters_really_think>,
> with an eye toward understanding who would likely win with a
> ranked choice voting rule. Notably, that winner rarely was Donald
> Trump, including in our poll and in most contests won by Trump–
> and indeed, Trump has still not won a primary or caucus with a
> majority of the vote. However, as the field has been reduced to
> Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich, Trump’s frontrunner status is
> seemingly being accepted by more grassroots Republican voters, and
> he is poised to be a majority nominee.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81174&title=%26%238220%3BTrump%20Moves%20into%20Majority%20Position%20in%20GOP%20Nomination%20Contest%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted inalternative voting systems
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=63>,campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
>
> Without Comment, #SCOTUS Denies Montana Republicans Relief from
> Open Primary <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81172>
>
> Posted onMarch 24, 2016 7:50 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81172>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The Court’s order (without any explanation or noted dissent) ishere
> <http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/032316zr_m648.pdf>.
>
> Given how close this came to the election, the denial of relief for
> now is not a big surprise. But this is a case to keep an eye on
> concerning the merits.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81172&title=Without%20Comment%2C%20%23SCOTUS%20Denies%20Montana%20Republicans%20Relief%20from%20Open%20Primary&description=>
> Posted inpolitical parties
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,political polarization
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>
>
>
> “The GOP — and its big funders — scramble to insulate Congress
> from Trump” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81169>
>
> Posted onMarch 24, 2016 7:47 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81169>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> WaPo
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-gop--and-its-big-funders--scramble-to-insulate-congress-from-trump/2016/03/23/44b7734c-f10c-11e5-85a6-2132cf446d0a_story.html>:
>
> Establishment Republicans and their big-money allies are rushing
> to build a multistate defense system to protect Senate and House
> candidates, fearing that the party could lose its hold on Congress
> if Donald Trump is at the top of the ticket in November.
>
> The anxiety about Trump’s potential spillover effect on
> down-ballot races was underscored Wednesday when House Speaker
> Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin lamented the “disheartened” state of the
> campaign and criticized the “identity politics” on display in the
> increasingly toxic race for the GOP presidential nomination.
>
> The efforts are being driven by major players such as the Koch
> brothers’ political network, which has already begun laying
> groundwork in Colorado, Ohio and Pennsylvania, along with the
> Crossroads organizations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
>
> The behemoth Koch operation — which aims to spend almost $900
> million before the November elections — is now considering
> abandoning Trump as a nominee and focusing its resources on behalf
> of GOP congressional candidates.
>
> See alsoBloomberg’s With GOP in Disarray, Super PACs Target Congress
> <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-22/with-gop-in-disarray-super-pacs-target-congress?cmpid=BBD032316_POL>.
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81169&title=%26%238220%3BThe%20GOP%20%E2%80%94%20and%20its%20big%20funders%20%E2%80%94%20scramble%20to%20insulate%20Congress%20from%20Trump%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted incampaign finance
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
>
> “New York’s Coming ConCon Battle”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81167>
>
> Posted onMarch 24, 2016 7:46 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81167>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> J.H. Snider
> <http://www.gothamgazette.com/index.php/opinion/6239-new-yorks-coming-concon-battle>for
> the Gotham Gazette.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81167&title=%26%238220%3BNew%20York%26%238217%3Bs%20Coming%20ConCon%20Battle%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
> Drip, Drip, Drip Dept <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81165>
>
> Posted onMarch 24, 2016 7:33 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81165>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Philly.com
> <http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/capitolinq/Toomey-will-meet-with-SCOTUS-nominee.html?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=27654219&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_snkfZodQt4MEEv3Sn4zFQktQexAuxY9HEWJbdpq1mxNqtlIzUoFFLgyvl2g43GeAGxAPd9bFyBehgZ4lemnYmU8dn2w&_hsmi=27654219>:
>
> In a shift, Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey said Wednesday he will
> meet with Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, but still
> insisted that the high court vacancy should not be filled until
> after November’s election.
>
> “President Obama’s team has asked if I would meet with Judge
> Merrick Garland, and I have agreed to do so out of courtesy and
> respect for both the president and the judge,” Toomey, a
> Republican, said in a statement Wednesday afternoon. “The vacancy
> left by Justice (Antonin) Scalia’s passing will not be filled
> until after the American people weigh in and select a new
> president, and I believe that is the best approach for deciding
> whether to alter the balance of the Supreme Court. I plan on
> making that clear to Judge Garland when I meet with him.”
>
> Toomey had previously suggested that a meeting would not be
> helpful because his concern is with the court’s make up, not the
> individual nominated.
>
> His announcement comesamid a week of protests and rallies
> <http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Sen_Toomey_tries_to_deflect_focus_on_his_Supreme_Court_stance.html>that
> Democrats and liberal groups have staged or planned outside his
> Pennsylvania offices and public events, withdemonstrators urging
> Toomey to “do your job.”
> <http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/capitolinq/Toomey-launches-new-ads-as-Dems-keep-up-SCOTUS-pressure.html>
>
> This isexactly the strategy I’ve recommended
> <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/take-streets-progressive-supreme-court-justice>to
> maximize the chances of a Garland hearing and possible vote.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81165&title=Drip%2C%20Drip%2C%20Drip%20Dept&description=>
> Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
> “NEW POLL: Nearly Half of Voters See SCOTUS Vacancy As Among Most
> Important 2016 Issues” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81163>
>
> Posted onMarch 24, 2016 7:30 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81163>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Fix the Court release <http://fixthecourt.com/2016/03/ftcpollpsb/>.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81163&title=%26%238220%3BNEW%20POLL%3A%20Nearly%20Half%20of%20Voters%20See%20SCOTUS%20Vacancy%20As%20Among%20Most%20Important%202016%20Issues%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
> “Straight Ticket Voting” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81161>
>
> Posted onMarch 24, 2016 7:29 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81161>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> News from Indiana
> <http://www.hoosierlawreview.com/2016/03/23/straight-ticket-voting/>.
> Would this hurt down-ticket Republcians in Indiana if Trump is on top
> of ticket?
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81161&title=%26%238220%3BStraight%20Ticket%20Voting%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted inelection administration
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,political parties
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>
>
>
> What are Donald Trump’s Views on Campaign Finance Regulation?
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81159>
>
> Posted onMarch 23, 2016 3:01 pm
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81159>byRichard Pildes
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=7>
>
> Has Donald Trump expressed any position, or been asked his position,
> on how elections should be financed?
>
> We know he thinks large contributions are corrupting (“I give to
> everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what, when I need
> something from them two years later, three years later, I call them.
> They are there for me. That’s a broken system.”
> <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trumps-surprisingly-honest-lessons-big-money-politics/story?id=32993736>).
> We know he considers SuperPacs a “scam
> <http://www.cnhttp//www.cnbc.com/2015/10/26/donald-trump-latest-super-pacs-are-a-scam.htmlbc.com/2015/10/26/donald-trump-latest-super-pacs-are-a-scam.html>.”
> And a significant part of his appeal to supporters in the primaries is
> that he is self-funding his campaign. As others have pointed out, on
> money in politics, he sounds not all that different from Bernie
> Sanders or Hillary Clinton.
>
> So what is his position on how to fix the system he considers broken?
> Would he favor public financing? Would he favor caps on how much
> outside groups or individuals could spend, which would require
> overturning Buckley? Or caps on how much campaigns could spend too?
> Or other approaches?
>
> I ask in all seriousness. A while back, I noted that historically,
> the demands to regulate the role of money in American democracy had
> often united populist forces on both the right and left of the
> political spectrum. The Jacksonian tradition, to which Trump can
> perhaps be considered an heir, was centrally about reducing the
> perceived influence of big money on American democracy. On the
> Supreme Court, Justices from the Western United States who usually
> were considered somewhat conservative (White and O’Connor) or
> conservative (Rehnquist) had voted to uphold campaign finance
> regulations. In more recent decades, the issue became far more
> polarized in partisan terms, at least among elected officials.
>
> Trump’s indictment of the current system has struck a bell with his
> supporters. Knowing what he would propose to fix the system would be
> of considerable interest.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81159&title=What%20are%20Donald%20Trump%26%238217%3Bs%20Views%20on%20Campaign%20Finance%20Regulation%3F&description=>
> Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>
>
> “Money Can’t Buy Love — or in Some Cases, Even Elections”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81157>
>
> Posted onMarch 23, 2016 7:01 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81157>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Roll Call reports.
> <http://www.rollcall.com/news/home/money-cant-buy-love-cases-even-elections>
>
> See my earlier**Money Can’t Buy Jeb Bush the White House, But It Still
> Skews Politics <http://wapo.st/1KfwFqh>,/Washington Post/, January 14,
> 2016.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81157&title=%26%238220%3BMoney%20Can%26%238217%3Bt%20Buy%20Love%20%E2%80%94%20or%20in%20Some%20Cases%2C%20Even%20Elections%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted incampaign finance
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
>
> “Voting Rights Institute Receives Prestigious MacArthur Grant”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81155>
>
> Posted onMarch 23, 2016 7:00 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81155>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Release.
> <http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/press-releases/voting-rights-institute-receives-prestigious-macarthur-grant>
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81155&title=%26%238220%3BVoting%20Rights%20Institute%20Receives%20Prestigious%20MacArthur%20Grant%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted inelection law biz <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>
>
>
> “Wittman v. Personhuballah – A Standing-Only Recap”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81153>
>
> Posted onMarch 23, 2016 6:59 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81153>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Smart thoughts
> <http://narrowestgrounds.blogspot.com/2016/03/wittman-v-personhuballah-standing-only.html>from
> Asher Steinberg.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81153&title=%26%238220%3BWittman%20v.%20Personhuballah%20%26%238211%3B%20A%20Standing-Only%20Recap%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted inredistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>,Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
> “Trump’s top lawyer helped open political spending floodgates”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81151>
>
> Posted onMarch 23, 2016 6:43 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81151>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Smart Zach Roth
> <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trumps-top-lawyer-helped-open-political-spending-floodgates>for
> MSNBC:
>
> Donald Trump has made his opposition to the flood of big money in
> politics a centerpiece of his front-running campaign, frequently
> lamenting the role of super PACs and the outsized sway of wealthy
> donors like the Koch brothers. But Trump’s top campaign lawyer,
> veteran Republican election attorney Donald McGahn, was a crucial
> player in creating the out-of-control campaign finance system that
> his boss now denounces.
>
> McGahn helped broker Monday’smeeting between Trump and Republican
> congressional leaders
> <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trump-huddle-republicans-dc-law-firm>,
> which took place at the Washington offices of the law and lobbying
> firm Jones Day, where McGahn is a partner. To date, the Trump
> campaign has paid Jones Day more than $500,000, according to
> Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings.
>
> McGahn’s key role on Team Trump undercuts the brash businessman’s
> claim that he’ll reduce the political influence of billionaires
> and special interests. And it suggests that Trump’s campaign may
> intend to tap into other sources of big money, using McGahn’s
> expertise to push the boundaries of the law.
>
> As a member of the FEC from 2008 to 2013, campaign finance
> reformers say, McGahn led the successful conservative effort to
> neuter the agency, with the result that today it is unable to
> respond to even seemingly egregious violations of campaign finance
> law. Soon after McGahn joined the FEC as its chair, its three
> Republican-appointed commissioners have consistently voted as a
> bloc against enforcement, stymieing the agency from taking action
> — a situation that has continued since he left.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81151&title=%26%238220%3BTrump%E2%80%99s%20top%20lawyer%20helped%20open%20political%20spending%20floodgates%26%238221%3B&description=>
> Posted incampaign 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
> hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> http://electionlawblog.org
--
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
hhttp://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/20160324/7d519c99/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160324/7d519c99/attachment.png>
-------------- 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/20160324/7d519c99/attachment-0001.png>
View list directory