[EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/30/16
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Mar 30 09:14:36 PDT 2016
Troubling Problems, Maybe Hacking, with AZ Primary Involving
Switching Party Registrations <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81340>
Posted onMarch 30, 2016 9:13 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81340>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
U.S. Uncut: <http://usuncut.com/politics/arizona-election-fraud-primary/>
Arizona’s Secretary of State has confirmed that election fraud took
place in the Arizona primary on March 22.
During yesterday’s testimony at the Arizona state capitol in
Phoenix, Secretary of State Michele Reagan was asked what her office
was doing to investigate the claims that registration for thousands
of voters had been changed from Democrat or Republican to
independent. As/US Uncut/previously reported
<http://usuncut.com/politics/5-examples-voter-suppression-arizona-primary/>,
thousands of voters were given provisional ballots, which aren’t
actually counted, due to their party registration mysteriously
showing up in the system as “independent” or “no party declared.”
Reagan answered “yes” when asked if she knew for certain voter
registration had been changed prior to the primary election, then
followed up by saying:
“This was something that/I/know happens, and I know it happened to
people in this room. It’s not hearsay. It happened to someone in my
own office. One of my employees was registered as a particular
party, went to go vote, and I don’t want to divulge his personal
details, but it happened to him.”
Michael McDonald
<https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/715185041647792128>: Claim,
substantiated by AZ SoS, is that thousands of AZ voters had their party
reg switched from Dem to Indy or Rep
Doug Chapin
<https://twitter.com/HHHElections/status/715188126767972353>: This could
explain why so many AZ “independents” showed up last week …
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81340&title=Troubling%20Problems%2C%20Maybe%20Hacking%2C%20with%20AZ%20Primary%20Involving%20Switching%20Party%20Registrations&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,voting technology
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40>
“Arizona House passes campaign finance bill easing dark money rules”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81338>
Posted onMarch 30, 2016 9:08 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81338>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
AP
<http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/arizona-house-passes-campaign-finance-bill-easing-dark-money-rules>:
PHOENIX – Political donors could spend unlimited amounts on food and
beverages to throw extravagant fundraisers without having to
disclose a single dollar under a sweeping campaign finance bill the
Arizona House passed Monday.
GOP Secretary of State Michele Reagan’s office is backing the
campaign finance overhaul that critics call a back-door attempt to
expand the influence of anonymous political spending in Arizona
elections.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81338&title=%26%238220%3BArizona%20House%20passes%20campaign%20finance%20bill%20easing%20dark%20money%20rules%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Democrats See Split Supreme Court Decision as a New Tool to Fill
Vacancy” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81336>
Posted onMarch 30, 2016 9:05 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81336>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Carl Hulse
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/30/democrats-see-split-supreme-court-decision-as-a-new-tool-to-fill-vacancy/>for
the NYT.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81336&title=%26%238220%3BDemocrats%20See%20Split%20Supreme%20Court%20Decision%20as%20a%20New%20Tool%20to%20Fill%20Vacancy%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inpolitical parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,political polarization
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=68>
“Can Trump become so unpopular that Democrats take back the House?”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81334>
Posted onMarch 30, 2016 9:04 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81334>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Paul Kane writes
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/can-trump-become-so-unpopular-that-democrats-take-back-the-house/2016/03/29/34ff8176-f5c4-11e5-8b23-538270a1ca31_story.html>for
WaPo.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81334&title=%26%238220%3BCan%20Trump%20become%20so%20unpopular%20that%20Democrats%20take%20back%20the%20House%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Eatonville mayor suspended by governor after arrest over
voter-fraud allegations” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81332>
Posted onMarch 30, 2016 9:00 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81332>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Orlando Sentinel
<http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/orange/os-anthony-grant-mayor-eatonville-2-20160329-story.html>:
Gov.Rick Scott
<http://www.orlandosentinel.com/topic/politics-government/government/rick-scott-PEPLT00007609-topic.html>suspended
Eatonville Mayor Anthony Grant on Tuesday evening following his
indictment on voter-fraud charges earlier in the week.
“It is in the best interests of the residents of the Town of
Eatonville, and the citizens of the State of Florida, that Grant be
immediately suspended from the public office that he now holds,” the
governor’s executive order reads.
Grant, 50, and two others are accused of intimidating and bribing
voters in the 2015 election that led to Grant’s victory. In six
cases examined, a grand jury found that Grant, Mia Antionette
Nowells and James Randolph unlawfully marked absentee ballots or
forced people to vote for them, according to the 25-count indictment
released Monday.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81332&title=%26%238220%3BEatonville%20mayor%20suspended%20by%20governor%20after%20arrest%20over%20voter-fraud%20allegations%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inchicanery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
Justice Thomas Asks Texas to Respond to Voter ID Emergency #SCOTUS
Application <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81329>
Posted onMarch 30, 2016 8:46 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81329>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Docket. Response due April 11.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81329&title=Justice%20Thomas%20Asks%20Texas%20to%20Respond%20to%20Voter%20ID%20Emergency%20%23SCOTUS%20Application&description=>
Posted inelection 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>
“Should Congressional Staffers Get A Pay Bump?”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81327>
Posted onMarch 30, 2016 8:37 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81327>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Lee Drutman talks
<http://www.npr.org/2016/03/29/472309542/should-congressional-staffers-get-a-pay-bump>to
NPR.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81327&title=%26%238220%3BShould%20Congressional%20Staffers%20Get%20A%20Pay%20Bump%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inlegislation and legislatures <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>
“For Some SuperPACs Backing Ted Cruz, It’s Time To Unite Against
Trump” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81325>
Posted onMarch 30, 2016 8:36 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81325>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Peter Overby reports
<http://www.npr.org/2016/03/24/471762400/ted-cruz-banks-on-alliance-of-superpacs-in-race-against-donald-trump>for
NPR.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81325&title=%26%238220%3BFor%20Some%20SuperPACs%20Backing%20Ted%20Cruz%2C%20It%26%238217%3Bs%20Time%20To%20Unite%20Against%20Trump%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
Seton Hall Campaign Finance Event <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81323>
Posted onMarch 30, 2016 8:32 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81323>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I earlier blogged <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=80770>about this Free
Speech for
Peopleevent<http://freespeechforpeople.org/join-us-seton-hall/>Friday.
You can now accessthe agenda <https://t.co/OctGmeL8zN>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81323&title=Seton%20Hall%20Campaign%20Finance%20Event&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“Taking on Citizens United” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81321>
Posted onMarch 30, 2016 8:28 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81321>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub withan NYT oped
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/opinion/taking-n-citizens-united.html?ref=opinion&_r=0>:
Throughout Citizens United/,/the court described corporations as
“associations of citizens”: “If the First Amendment has any force,”
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote, “it prohibits Congress from fining
or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply
engaging in political speech.” In other words, when it comes to
political speech, which the court equated with political
contributions and expenditures, the rights that citizens hold are
not lost when they gather in corporate form.
Foreign nationals are another matter. They are forbidden by law from
directly or indirectly making political contributions or financing
certain election-related advertising known as independent
expenditures and electioneering communications. Government
contractors are also barred from making contributions.
Thus, when the court spoke of “associations of citizens” that have
the right to participate in American elections, it can only have
meant associations of American citizens who are allowed to contribute.
But many American corporations have shareholders who are foreigners
or government contractors. These corporations are not associations
of citizens who are allowed to contribute. They are an inseparable
mix of citizens and noncitizens, or of citizens and federal
contractors….
Arguably, then, for a corporation to make political contributions or
expenditures legally, it may not have any shareholders who are
foreigners or federal contractors. Corporations with easily
identifiable shareholders could meet this standard, but most
publicly traded corporations probably could not.
Bloomberg BNA
<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=86071307&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0j1j2a6e9&split=0>:
he threat of foreign money influencing U.S. elections is a focus of a
new regulatoryproposal
<http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2016/documents/mtgdoc_16-14-a.pdf>set to be
discussed by the Federal Election Commission on March 31.
Democratic FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub drafted a motion calling
for a new rule on foreign money—as well as campaign money from
government contractors—and asked to place the issue on theagenda
<http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2016/agenda20160331.shtml>for the
commission’s next open meeting.
Weintraub told Bloomberg BNA that she hopes the proposal will at
least raise awareness of the threat that illegal money could seep
into U.S. elections through obscure corporations without voters even
knowing about it.
Her draft motion calls for a new FEC rule to “assist those accepting
corporate contributions or making corporate expenditures in
complying with existing campaign finance law,” which has long banned
money from foreigners and contractors.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81321&title=%26%238220%3BTaking%20on%20Citizens%20United%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
Koch Bros. Involved of Funding Efforts Against Confirming Judge
Garland? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81319>
Posted onMarch 29, 2016 1:11 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81319>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Daily Beast
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/29/billionaires-try-to-buy-the-supreme-court.html?via=desktop&source=twitter>:
From the beginning, Wellspring was set up as a dark-money conduit,
effectively laundering billionaire donations so no one would have to
be accountable for them. Wellspring donated $7.8 million in 2008,
for example, in part to other Koch-funded fronts like Americans for
Prosperity.
But Wellspring was different in one key respect. Unlike most of the
libertarian “Kochtopus”—which would eventually fund the Astroturf
Tea Party movement—Wellspring worked closely with the Republican
establishment. Corkery herself was a co-chair of the National Women
for Mitt Finance Committee. The operations were initially run by
Rick Wiley, a former Republican National Committee official.
Wellspring also coordinated with Republican mega-donors, including
Sheldon Adelson’s Freedom’s Watch.
The marriage didn’t last long, though. After the 2008 election loss,
the Koch brothers turned back to their roots, funding front groups
like Americans for Prosperity andCenter to Protect Patient Rights
<http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/09/a-story-on-politicos-website.html>to
oppose Obamacare and theTea Party movement
<http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/20/dark_money_jane_mayer_on_how>to
oppose mainstream Republicans.
From 2008 to 2011, Wellspringraised $24 million
<http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/11/wellsprings-flow/>but not
one donor’s name is known. (There are rumors that itsfunders now
include
<http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/03/the-jcn-story-building-a-secretive-gop-judicial-machine/>the
Templeton Foundation and hedge fund mogul Paul Singer, both contacts
of Corkery’s.) Intriguingly, however, 10 of Wellspring’s grantees
(in the period 2008-11)also received money
<http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/11/wellsprings-flow/>from the
Koch-funded Center to Protect Patient Rights, and Wellspring works
with consultants who used to work with Koch Industries.
Whoever is paying for it, we do know that Wellspring is giving JCN$7
million a year
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/right-wing-groups-gearing-up-onslaught-merrick-garland-supreme-court>,
the lion’s share of that group’s budget, and that Corkery’s husband
Neil is JCN’s treasurer. JCN, in turn, announced a $3 million
campaign to oppose any Supreme Court confirmation hearings—just the
latest of itsbig spends on judicial battles across the country
<http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/03/the-jcn-story-building-a-secretive-gop-judicial-machine/>.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81319&title=Koch%20Bros.%20Involved%20of%20Funding%20Efforts%20Against%20Confirming%20Judge%20Garland%3F&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“‘Five Questions’ With Retiring Leon County Supervisor Ion Sancho”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81316>
Posted onMarch 29, 2016 12:51 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81316>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Doug Chapin:
<http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2016/03/29/five-questions-with-retiring-leon-county-supervisor-ion-sancho/>
Ion Sancho of Leon County (Tallahassee) FL, one of Florida’s (and
the nation’s) most experienced and outspoken county election
officials, is retiring at the end of the year after almost three
decades on the job. Recently, he gave a“five questions” interview
with Sunshine State News
<http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/news-service-florida-has-five-questions-ion-sancho>–
and I thought it was too good not to share.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81316&title=%26%238220%3B%26%238216%3BFive%20Questions%26%238217%3B%20With%20Retiring%20Leon%20County%20Supervisor%20Ion%20Sancho%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“West Virginia May Become 3rd Automatic Voter Signup State”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81314>
Posted onMarch 29, 2016 12:50 pm
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81314>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Very interesting
<http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/west-virginia-3rd-automatic-voter-signup-state-37851449>in
West Va:
A push to automatically sign up voters that began with new laws in
Oregon and California will soon likely hit a third, notably less
liberal state — West Virginia.
The proposed change has taken a less-than-conventional route to the
governor’s desk.
After condemning a Republican voter ID bill as the “voter
suppression act,” Democrats offered an amendment to include
automatic registration when people get driver’s licenses or IDs. The
Republican-led Legislature accepted it without much resistance.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81314&title=%26%238220%3BWest%20Virginia%20May%20Become%203rd%20Automatic%20Voter%20Signup%20State%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
Response from Ralph Nader on My Post About His Oped on Running as a
Third Party Candidate <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81312>
Posted onMarch 29, 2016 11:02 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81312>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
I received the following “Response on Behalf of Ralph Nader” from Oliver
Hall. (While I am happy to post the questions, I don’t have time to
answer these interrogatories (though I do want to write something at
some point about “spoiler” candidates). Readers are welcome to submit
their own answers if they want to take the time):
Dear Professor Hasen,
In your March 25, 2016 blog post,
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81243>“Ralph Nader: Why Bernie
Sanders Was Right to Run as a Democrat,” you wrote that it’s
“amazing that Nader can write this without mentioning his spoiler
role in Florida in Bush v. Gore.”
You then quote “a reader” who quotes a New York Times editorial
asserting that Nader is a “‘political narcissist’ whose ego has ‘run
amuck.’”
We’re used to hearing this kind of rhetoric from partisan Democrats
who want to blame a scapegoat for the outcome of the 2000
presidential election. But when it comes from someone like you, a
political scientist, election law expert, and faculty member of UC
Irvine’s Center for the Study of Democracy – that’s what’s really
amazing.
As you must recognize, the “spoiler” charge is fundamentally
anti-democratic, in that it relegates all candidates other than
Republicans and Democrats to the status of second-class citizens,
who presumptively lack legitimacy to participate in elections on an
equal basis with the major party nominees. If you are concerned
about minor party or independent candidates splitting the vote,
there are solutions our major-party controlled legislatures could
enact tomorrow, like instant run-off voting, which protect the
rights of all citizens equally. But opposing a candidate’s mere
participation in an election, on the ground that it might “spoil”
the outcome, is inconsistent with the freedom of association and
political equality guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Further, by repeating disparaging comments about Mr. Nader’s
character, you imply that he had no reason to run for public office,
except to satisfy the narcissism others impute to him. That is
simply astounding. You know as well as anyone that the major parties
have rigged our electoral system to suppress competition by means of
overly restrictive and discriminatory ballot access laws,
gerrymandering, winner-take-all elections including, at the
presidential level, the archaic and unnecessary Electoral College,
and campaign finance laws strongly tilted to favor Republicans and
Democrats. You also know that Mr. Nader has developed a
comprehensive critique of that system, and of a political process
controlled by two major parties which, in turn, have been largely
captured by corporate interests – with predictable consequences for
substantive outcomes. You may disagree with that critique, but to
ignore it entirely, while suggesting that Mr. Nader had no
legitimate reason to run for public office, is disingenuous.
Your post thus invites a number of questions. In the interest of
fairness, and to clarify the basis of your position, we request that
you post this response submitted on Mr. Nader’s behalf, as well as
your answers to the questions below.
1. By what principle do you designate a particular candidate, in
contrast with all other candidates in an election, as a
“spoiler”, and how do you reconcile that principle with the
freedom of association and political equality guaranteed by the
First and Fourteenth Amendments?
2. Since you believe Mr. Nader was a “spoiler” in the 2000
presidential election, does that mean you believe the other
seven candidates on Florida’s presidential ballot, each of whom
received more votes than the margin of difference between Bush
and Gore, were also “spoilers”?
3. If your answer to question 2 is No, then why do you designate
Mr. Nader as a “spoiler”, but not those other seven candidates?
4. If your answer to question 2 is Yes, then why do you accord the
Republican and Democrat privileged status as the only
non-spoiler candidates in the election, when the Constitution
itself does not accord them that status?
5. Can you identify any other individual or group whose lawful
participation in an election you would oppose, on the ground
that it could “spoil” the outcome, and state your reasons or
justification for that position?
6. How do you know that if Mr. Nader hadn’t run in 2000, a majority
of his 97,488 Florida voters would have voted for Gore instead
of staying home?
7. How do you know that if Mr. Nader hadn’t run in 2000, a majority
of his 97,488 Florida voters would have voted for Gore instead
of voting for Bush or one of the other seven presidential
candidates on the ballot?
8. How do you know that Mr. Nader’s candidacy in 2000 didn’t
increase Gore’s vote total among progressives, by causing a
statistically significant “mobilization effect,” the result of
which was that “some large number but small proportion of the
Gore vote would not have voted for Gore had Ralph Nader not been
in the race and reminded them what a left agenda could feel
like,” as professor Solon Simmons concluded in a 2004 study
(attached)?
9. How do you know that Mr. Nader’s candidacy in 2000 didn’t
increase Gore’s vote total among independents, by enabling Gore
to run more effectively as a centrist, as professor Robert
Fellmeth argues in a 2000 op-ed for the San Diego Union-Tribune
(attached)?
10. If you are unable to provide evidence to support your position
in response to questions 6 through 9, how can you claim to know
the true impact of Mr. Nader’s candidacy on the outcome of the
2000 presidential election?
We look forward to your response
Sincerely,
Oliver Hall
/Counsel to Ralph Nader/
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81312&title=Response%20from%20Ralph%20Nader%20on%20My%20Post%20About%20His%20Oped%20on%20Running%20as%20a%20Third%20Party%20Candidate&description=>
Posted inballot access <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=46>,third
parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=47>
“POST-MAP-ASK: Towards a More Democratic, Modern Lobbying Process”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81310>
Posted onMarch 29, 2016 10:38 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81310>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Christine Mahoney and Lee Drutman atNew America
<https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/post-map-ask/>:
American democracy faces a fundamental challenge. The legislative
process is increasingly overwhelmed by lobbyists, particularly those
representing large corporations and business associations. These
lobbyists overwhelm congressional offices and their increasingly
stretched-too-thin policy staff. As a result, narrow business
interests tend to wield disproportionate influence in Washington.
Business power is not a new issue, but the amount of political
activity on behalf of large corporations today is truly
unprecedented, especially in comparison to the shrinking resources
Congress allocates for its own policy staff. The $2.6 billion in
reported annual corporate lobbying spending is now more than the $2
billion combined budget for the entire Senate ($860 million) and the
entire House ($1.18 billion).
While resources are not destiny, they do matter. They determine
which perspectives make it to key decision-makers, and which
perspectives don’t. They shape which policy choices are possible,
and which policy choices are impossible.
/*POST-MAP-ASK: Towards a More Democratic, Modern Lobbying Process
<https://static.newamerica.org/attachments/12905-post-map-ask/Post-Map-Ask.b8ff1af67b5f4efab53e72fcb76bb5ae.pdf>*/looks
at the ways in which the chaotic legislative lobbying process
amplifies the resource imbalances, overwhelms congressional
staffers, and influences public policy outcomes. The report makes
the case for a process that ensures more accountability, more
transparency, and better representation for a more diverse group of
citizens.
Authors*Lee Drutman*and*Christine Mahoney*propose a new system for
advocacy: POST, MAP, and ASK.
* *By Post*, Drutman and Mahoney suggest that advocacy groups
should post their policy positions and papers to website
maintained by the Library of Congress.
* *By Map*, they refer to a process during which the Library of
Congress would map out the positions, creating a tool for both
congressional offices and the general public to easily see who
stands where.
* *By Ask*, they mean that relevant congressional committees would
then ask for comments from groups that are missing.
Read the full report*here
<https://static.newamerica.org/attachments/12905-post-map-ask/Post-Map-Ask.b8ff1af67b5f4efab53e72fcb76bb5ae.pdf>*.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81310&title=%26%238220%3BPOST-MAP-ASK%3A%20Towards%20a%20More%20Democratic%2C%20Modern%20Lobbying%20Process%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inlobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>
--
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/20160330/9c0e3ec8/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/20160330/9c0e3ec8/attachment.png>
View list directory