[EL] ELB News and Commentary 5/10/16
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue May 10 07:41:29 PDT 2016
“This Dark Money Group Spent Big On A Montana Judicial Race. Now We
Know Why.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82657>
Posted onMay 10, 2016 7:39 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82657>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Paul Blumenthal
<http://this%20dark%20money%20group%20spent%20big%20on%20a%20montana%20judicial%20race.%20now%20we%20know%20why./>for
HuffPo:
This was certainly the case in Sheehy’s 2012 race, although the
public didn’t know it at the time.
The Montana Growth Network was launched that year by Jason Priest
and Ed Walker, then both Republican state senators. It went on to
spend $900,000 on the state Supreme Court race, more money than the
Sheehy and McKinnon campaigns combined. Because the group was
organized as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit under the federal tax code, it
was not required to disclose its donors. Any interest those donors
had in the race was obscured, as was any potential conflict that the
group’s favored candidate, McKinnon, might later face on the bench.
Three years passed before the identities of the billionaire
businessmen funding the ads came to light, following an
investigation by Montana’s Commissioner of Political Practices. The
December 2015 probe found that the Montana Growth Network
hadviolated state election laws
<http://politicalpractices.mt.gov/content/2recentdecisions/HamlettvMontanaGrowthNetworkDecision>and
forced the nonprofit to disclose its funders.
The largest portion of the group’s money came from two of America’s
richest men. San Francisco billionaire Charles Schwab, the founder
of the eponymous discount brokerage firm, donated $300,000. James
Cox Kennedy, the Atlanta-based chairman of media giant Cox
Enterprises, gave $100,000. Schwab is worth a reported $6.4 billion,
while Kennedy is worth $10.2 billion — ranking both of them among
Forbes’ wealthiest 400 Americans.
The probe also revealed that the two billionaires had a direct stake
in a case moving through Montana’s courts at the time of the 2012
election. While neither are residents of Montana, they both own
large estates there. The two properties include streams and rivers
to which the owners would like to restrict access. But Montana has
some of the most liberal laws for recreational waterway use in the
country: The state’s 1972 constitution allows broad public access to
those waterways.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82657&title=%26%238220%3BThis%20Dark%20Money%20Group%20Spent%20Big%20On%20A%20Montana%20Judicial%20Race.%20Now%20We%20Know%20Why.%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,judicial
elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>
“Donald Trump, in Switch, Turns to Republican Party for Fund-Raising
Help” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82655>
Posted onMay 10, 2016 7:35 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82655>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
NYT
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/10/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign.html?ref=politics>:
Donald J. Trump
<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/donald-trump-on-the-issues.html?inline=nyt-per>took
steps to appropriate much of theRepublican National Committee
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_national_committee/index.html?inline=nyt-org>’s
financial and political infrastructure for his presidential campaign
on Monday, amid signs that he and the party would lag dangerously
behind the Democrats in raising money for the general election.
Mr. Trump, who by the end of March had spent around $40 million of
his fortune on the primaries, has said that he may need as much as
$1.5 billion for the fall campaign, but that he will seek to raise
it from donors rather than continue to self-finance.
But Mr. Trump has no fund-raising apparatus to resort to, no network
of prolific bundlers to call upon, and little known experience with
the type of marathon, one-on-one serial salesmanship and
solicitousness that raising so much money is likely to require —
even if individuals can contribute up to the current limit of
$334,000 at a time to the party. And he has to do it all in six
months, with a deeply divided party that is still absorbing the fact
that Mr. Trump is its standard-bearer….
Republican Party
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org>officials
have pressed Mr. Trump to sign a joint fund-raising agreement, which
would allow him to raise money for the national committee and for
his own campaign simultaneously. That, in turn, would also give Mr.
Trump a defensible answer for why, after months of railing against
Wall Street executives and special interests, he recently turned to
a former Goldman Sachs executive, Steven Mnuchin, to corral large
checks for his campaign.
Both Mr. Trump’s aides and party officials were caught by surprise
by the abrupt end of the primary contest last week, when Mr. Trump
carried Indiana, prompting Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Gov. John
Kasich of Ohio to withdraw from the race. But the two sides have
hurried to wrap up a joint fund-raising agreement, and one is close
to being signed, according to people close to the national committee
who were not authorized to speak publicly.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82655&title=%26%238220%3BDonald%20Trump%2C%20in%20Switch%2C%20Turns%20to%20Republican%20Party%20for%20Fund-Raising%20Help%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Why Dark Money Is Bad Business” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82653>
Posted onMay 10, 2016 7:02 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82653>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Kathleen Donovan-Maher and Steven Groopman have writtenthis NYT oped.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/10/opinion/why-dark-money-is-bad-business.html?_r=0>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82653&title=%26%238220%3BWhy%20Dark%20Money%20Is%20Bad%20Business%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,tax law
and election law <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22>
“Kennedy to retire after 33 years as Wisconsin’s top elections
official” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82651>
Posted onMay 10, 2016 6:58 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82651>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
WisPolitics.com
<http://elections.wispolitics.com/2016/05/kennedy-to-retire-after-33-years-as.html>:
Next month as the GAB is replaced by two new entities.
Kennedy, who turned 64 in March, told WisPolitics.com today he
decided last year he wanted to retire after 2016. He moved up his
timeline after the GOP-led Legislature voted to replace the GAB with
the new Elections and Ethics commissions.
“Once the Legislature made the decision to restructure the agency, I
didn’t see any reason why I’d want to be part of the new structure,
and even if I did, it would have been a very short-term situation
because of the timetable I had for myself was already in place,”
Kennedy said.
Kennedy has become a lightning rod for criticism Republicans have
lobbed at the GAB over the past several years, including the
agency’s involvement in John Doe probes. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos,
R-Rochester, vowed at a WisPolitics.com luncheon in October 2014
that the GAB would not exist in its current format in two years and
declared Kennedy “has to go.”
Kevin Kennedy is a class act and did an excellent job in his position.
The politicization of election administration in Wisconsin by the state
legislature in getting rid of the GAB is sad and unjustified.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82651&title=%26%238220%3BKennedy%20to%20retire%20after%2033%20years%20as%20Wisconsin%26%238217%3Bs%20top%20elections%20official%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,election law biz
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>
“Trump Takes the Money; Don’t buy that Donald Trump is a campaign
finance reformer” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82649>
Posted onMay 10, 2016 6:52 am
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82649>byRick Hasen
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
David Donnelly
<http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-05-09/trump-is-no-money-in-politics-reformer>for
US News.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82649&title=%26%238220%3BTrump%20Takes%20the%20Money%3B%20Don%26%238217%3Bt%20buy%20that%20Donald%20Trump%20is%20a%20campaign%20finance%20reformer%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
“FEC Seeks to Derail Soft-Money Challenge”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82647>
Posted onMay 9, 2016 5:14 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82647>byRick
Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Bloomberg BNA:
<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=89164551&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0j4b9r7g2&split=0>
The Federal Election Commission is seeking to derail a challenge to
limits on “soft-money” contributions to political parties before the
case is put on a fast track to the Supreme Court (Republican Party
of La. v. Federal Election Commission
<http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/REPUBLICAN_PARTY_OF_LOUISIANA_et_al_v_FEDERAL_ELECTION_COMMISSION/3>,
D.D.C., No. 15-cv-1241,motion4/29/16).
FEC lawyers filed a motion to dissolve a three-judge court appointed
late last year to decide the soft-money challenge brought on behalf
of the Louisiana Republican Party and two local Republican
committees. The case was filed by James Bopp, a prominent Republican
election lawyer with the Bopp Law Firm in Terre Haute, Ind.
The latest FEC motion cited depositions of party officials to argue
that the Louisiana Republicans’ suit is pointless because the
parties bringing the case are not actually constrained by the
federal campaign finance laws they are challenging. While Bopp has
argued that federal contribution limits restrict the state and local
parties from accepting large contributions, the FEC lawyers said the
party officials acknowledged there are no such contributions that
have been promised even if the legal barriers are removed.
If this gambit works, it will put off for another day what portends to
bethe next major campaign finance issue
<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/supreme-court-soft-money/480978/>heading
to SCOTUS.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82647&title=%26%238220%3BFEC%20Seeks%20to%20Derail%20Soft-Money%20Challenge%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>,political parties
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>,Supreme Court
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Trump aides huddle with RNC to plot big-money strategy”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82645>
Posted onMay 9, 2016 3:42 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82645>byRick
Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico
<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-hammering-out-party-fundraising-agreement-222984>:
Donald Trump’s campaign is hashing out the details of an agreement
with Republican Party leaders that could allow the presumptive GOP
presidential nominee to raise six-figure checks for his presidential
campaign, multiple sources with direct knowledge of the negotiations
tell POLITICO.
The fundraising agreement was among the subjects discussed at a
Monday meeting at the Republican National Committee’s Washington
offices between top RNC officials, including chairman Reince
Priebus, and senior Trump aides, including campaign manager Corey
Lewandowski, senior adviser Paul Manafort and political director
Rick Wiley, according to the sources.
Story Continued Below
The talks represent the first formal steps towards a merger between
the official apparatus of the Republican Party and a candidate who
many party leaders scorned until recently, and about whom there
remains deep leeriness in some Republican quarters.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82645&title=%26%238220%3BTrump%20aides%20huddle%20with%20RNC%20to%20plot%20big-money%20strategy%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Voter Suppression Is the Only Way Donald Trump Can Win”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82643>
Posted onMay 9, 2016 3:41 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82643>byRick
Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Ari Berman writes
<http://www.thenation.com/article/voter-suppression-is-the-only-way-donald-trump-can-win/>for
The Nation.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82643&title=%26%238220%3BVoter%20Suppression%20Is%20the%20Only%20Way%20Donald%20Trump%20Can%20Win%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
“CfA Files Fraud Complaint Against Former KS Election Official Brian
Newby” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82641>
Posted onMay 9, 2016 7:55 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82641>byRick
Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Release
<http://campaignforaccountability.org/cfa-files-fraud-complaint-against-former-ks-election-official-brian-newby/>:
Today, Campaign for Accountability (CfA)called on
<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2827524-CfA-Newby-Complaint-5-9-16.html>Kansas
Attorney General Derek Schmidt to investigate former Johnson County
Election Commissioner Brian Newby for flagrantly violating Kansas
criminal law by submitting false expenses, misusing public funds,
and conspiring to cover up his conduct. Mr. Newby held his Kansas
position for ten years, departing in November 2015 to serveas the
executive director <http://www.eac.gov/about_the_eac/staff.aspx>of
the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
/Read the complaint here
<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2827524-CfA-Newby-Complaint-5-9-16.html>./
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82641&title=%26%238220%3BCfA%20Files%20Fraud%20Complaint%20Against%20Former%20KS%20Election%20Official%20Brian%20Newby%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Election Assistance Commission
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=34>
“If you registered to vote at the DMV, check again”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82639>
Posted onMay 9, 2016 7:36 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82639>byRick
Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
LAT reports.
<http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-dmv-voter-registration-20160509-snap-story.html>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82639&title=%26%238220%3BIf%20you%20registered%20to%20vote%20at%20the%20DMV%2C%20check%20again%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>
“GOP rallies around court blockade; Republicans are crushing the
Democrats in the spending battle over Garland — and it’s only going
to get more expensive” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82637>
Posted onMay 9, 2016 7:22 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82637>byRick
Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politico reports.
<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/gop-supreme-court-merrick-garland-222898>
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82637&title=%26%238220%3BGOP%20rallies%20around%20court%20blockade%3B%20Republicans%20are%20crushing%20the%20Democrats%20in%20the%20spending%20battle%20over%20Garland%20%E2%80%94%20and%20it%26%238217%3Bs%20only%20going%20to%20get%20more%20expensive%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inSupreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
“Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News”
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82635>
Posted onMay 9, 2016 7:21 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82635>byRick
Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Gizmodo
<http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006>:
Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to
conservative readers from the social network’s influential
“trending” news section, according to a former journalist who worked
on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories
about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and
other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential
section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s
users….
The former curator was so troubled by the omissions that they kept a
running log of them at the time; this individual provided the notes
to Gizmodo. Among the deep-sixed or suppressed topics on the list:
former IRS official Lois Lerner, who was accused by Republicans of
inappropriately scrutinizing conservative groups; Wisconsin Gov.
Scott Walker; popular conservative news aggregator the Drudge
Report; Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL who was murdered in 2013;
and former Fox News contributor Steven Crowder. “I believe it had a
chilling effect on conservative news,” the former curator said.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82635&title=%26%238220%3BFormer%20Facebook%20Workers%3A%20We%20Routinely%20Suppressed%20Conservative%20News%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Judging Congressional Elections” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82633>
Posted onMay 9, 2016 7:06 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82633>byRick
Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Lisa Manheim has postedthis
draft<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2770643>on SSRN
(forthcoming, Georgia Law Review). Here is the abstract:
A pivotal clause of our Constitution suffers from uncertainty and
neglect. The result has scrambled the law of contested congressional
elections. These high-stakes disputes turn on questions of
procedure, and in particular on questions of forum. Yet across the
country, an unpredictable and ad hoc set of regimes governs these
fundamental questions. The culprit behind the confusion is Article
I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution, which states that
“Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections . . . of its own
Members.” This command may seem straightforward, if a bit unsettling
— it allows Congress to decide who has won its own elections.
Despite its effect on the outcome of congressional elections, and
notwithstanding its potential to influence the partisan makeup of
each House, the provision is beset by dangerous and unrecognized
ambiguity. It provides no guidance as to whether, or how, courts
should assist each House of Congress in adjudicating these
congressional election contests. No federal authority has fully
entered the debate, much less ended it, and states have taken
diametrically opposing views. The result is cacophony. Some states
adjudicate electoral disputes, while others refuse. Still others
warp their courts’ procedures in response. The only consistent
element of congressional election procedure is inconsistency.
This Article is the first to expose the interpretive vacuum, the
current state of the law, and the harm it all inflicts. It
recognizes that precisely because there is no centralized body of
law on which scholars and political actors can focus, this area has
been plagued by an absence of scholarship, as well as an absence of
doctrine — and this Article responds to both. It reveals the
patchwork procedural landscape as it currently exists, arguing that
the ad hoc system poses serious threats to democratic governance and
legitimacy. It then offers a novel theory of Article I, Section 5 —
a theory that could help to mitigate some of the harmful practical
effects that plague the current regime. It concludes by calling on
Congress to enact the procedural reforms this Article proposes. Such
reforms are necessary to promote and safeguard democratic ideals in
contested congressional elections.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82633&title=%26%238220%3BJudging%20Congressional%20Elections%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inlegislation and legislatures <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>
Quote of the Day: Dysfunctional FEC Edition
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82631>
Posted onMay 9, 2016 7:02 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82631>byRick
Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
“He was consequential like a sledgehammer was consequential…he did his
best to undermine the law.”
—FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub
<https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/05/09/19636/two-very-different-donalds-one-white-house-goal>on
Don McGahn, former FEC Commissioner and currently Donald Trump’s
election lawyer.
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82631&title=Quote%20of%20the%20Day%3A%20Dysfunctional%20FEC%20Edition&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,federal
election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
“Donald Trump wrongly says noncitizens can vote when there is
same-day voter registration” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82629>
Posted onMay 9, 2016 7:00 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82629>byRick
Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Politifact<http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/08/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrongly-says-noncitizens-can-vote-whe/>rates
Trump statement “False.”
Share
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82629&title=%26%238220%3BDonald%20Trump%20wrongly%20says%20noncitizens%20can%20vote%20when%20there%20is%20same-day%20voter%20registration%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inelection administration
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,fraudulent fraud squad
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>
--
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/20160510/f39acc28/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/20160510/f39acc28/attachment.png>
View list directory