[EL] ELB News and Commentary 5/19/16

Wed May 18 21:05:07 PDT 2016

    “Trump’s deal with the RNC shows how big money is flowing back to
    the parties” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82894>

Posted onMay 18, 2016 8:58 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82894>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo 
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-deal-with-the-rnc-shows-how-big-money-is-flowing-back-to-the-parties/2016/05/18/4d84e14a-1d11-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html>:

    The deal Donald Trump struck with the Republican National Committee
    this week thatallows wealthy supporters to give nearly
    $500,000<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/17/donors-can-give-nearly-500000-to-new-joint-fundraising-effort-between-trump-and-rnc/>to
    finance his campaign and get-out-the-vote activities made it
    official: The parties are back in the big-money business.

    Fourteen years after a landmark campaign-finance overhaul clamped
    down on the flow of unregulated money to party coffers, both
    Republicans and Democrats are raising huge contributions again with
    gusto.

    Thanks to a pivotal 2014 Supreme Court decision and an expansion of
    party fundraising slipped into an appropriations bill later that
    year, the RNC and its Democratic counterpart have been able to
    vastly increase their top donor levels by pooling numerous accounts
    and affiliates together into jumbo joint fundraising committees.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82894&title=%26%238220%3BTrump%E2%80%99s%20deal%20with%20the%20RNC%20shows%20how%20big%20money%20is%20flowing%20back%20to%20the%20parties%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,political 
parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=25>

    “Montana Officials Seek To Delay Implementation Of Campaign Finance
    Ruling” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82892>

Posted onMay 18, 2016 8:51 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82892>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Montana Public Radio reports. 
<http://mtpr.org/post/montana-officials-seek-delay-implementation-campaign-finance-ruling#stream/0>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82892&title=%26%238220%3BMontana%20Officials%20Seek%20To%20Delay%20Implementation%20Of%20Campaign%20Finance%20Ruling%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

    “De Blasio’s Elections Strategy, Under Scrutiny, Recalls
    Predecessor’s” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82890>

Posted onMay 18, 2016 8:45 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82890>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/nyregion/de-blasios-elections-strategy-under-scrutiny-recalls-predecessors.html?smid=tw-nytmetro&smtyp=cur&_r=0>:

    Yet the current investigations focus less on the flow of money than
    on whether Mr. de Blasio’s team went too far in trying to direct it.

    Contributions to individual candidates are capped at a relatively
    low level. But much larger contributions are permitted to party
    committees, and the law allows those committees to transfer an
    unlimited amount of money to candidates.

    It is illegal, however, for the party committees to agree with
    donors in advance that the money is destined for individual
    campaigns, a process referred to as earmarking the donations. And
    that is a line that investigators believe Mr. de Blasio may have
    crossed in 2014 by directing donations to small county committees
    that then transferred the money to local candidates.

    “The line between legal and illegal is razor-thin,” Ms. Lerner said.
    “Certainly it is a critical legal difference, but in the real world,
    they’re practically identical.”

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82890&title=%26%238220%3BDe%20Blasio%E2%80%99s%20Elections%20Strategy%2C%20Under%20Scrutiny%2C%20Recalls%20Predecessor%E2%80%99s%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

    “Campaign complaint against Rick Hill dismissed”
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82888>

Posted onMay 18, 2016 8:41 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82888>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The latest from Montana 
<http://helenair.com/news/local/campaign-complaint-against-rick-hill-dismissed/article_c479c96f-aadd-5f98-ae92-796403cf952d.htm>:

    A day after a federal judge in an order striking down Montana’s
    campaign contribution limits as unconstitutional criticized the
    state’s Commissioner of Political Practices’ investigations into
    former candidate for governor Rick Hill, the commissioner dismissed
    a complaint against Hill.

    Jonathan Motl on Wednesday said litigation has reached a point where
    basic justice requires Hill “be released from any consequence of his
    2012 election activity.”

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82888&title=%26%238220%3BCampaign%20complaint%20against%20Rick%20Hill%20dismissed%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

    “Bernie Sanders, Eyeing Convention, Willing to Harm Hillary Clinton
    in the Homestretch” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82886>

Posted onMay 18, 2016 7:38 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82886>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT: 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/bernie-sanderss-campaign-accuses-head-of-dnc-of-favoritism.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0>

    While Mr. Sanders says he does not want Mr. Trump to win in
    November, his advisers and allies say he is willing to do some harm
    to Mrs. Clinton in the shorter term if it means he can capture a
    majority of the 475 pledged delegates at stake in California and
    arrive at the Philadelphia convention with maximum political power.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82886&title=%26%238220%3BBernie%20Sanders%2C%20Eyeing%20Convention%2C%20Willing%20to%20Harm%20Hillary%20Clinton%20in%20the%20Homestretch%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

    “California’s Election Laws, Secretary of State Wage War on Term
    ‘Independent'” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82884>

Posted onMay 18, 2016 5:31 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82884>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Richard Winger 
<http://ivn.us/2016/05/18/californias-election-laws-secretary-state-wage-war-on-term-independent/>:

    California election laws and election officials seem determined to
    stamp out the word “independent.” The state seems eager to suppress
    that word, on voter registration forms, on ballots, and even in the
    Official Statewide Voter Guide.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82884&title=%26%238220%3BCalifornia%E2%80%99s%20Election%20Laws%2C%20Secretary%20of%20State%20Wage%20War%20on%20Term%20%26%238216%3BIndependent%27%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inthird parties <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=47>

    Two Witnesses Accidentally Offer Identical Congressional Testimony
    Prepared by Lobbying Firm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82882>

Posted onMay 18, 2016 1:19 pm 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82882>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Oops. 
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congressional-hearing-medicare_us_573c9202e4b0646cbeebaeaf?f4wm437eas22fn7b9>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82882&title=Two%20Witnesses%20Accidentally%20Offer%20Identical%20Congressional%20Testimony%20Prepared%20by%20Lobbying%20Firm&description=>
Posted inlegislation and legislatures 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=27>,lobbying 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28>

    Johnstone: Thoughts on Montana Campaign Finance Decision
    <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82880>

Posted onMay 18, 2016 11:00 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82880>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

The following is a guest post fromAnthony Johnstone 
<http://www.umt.edu/law/faculty/directory/default.php?ID=3218>:

    The Purcell Principle
    <http://%3Chttp//ssrn.com/abstract=2545676%3E>is absent in the Lair
    v. Motl court’s repeatedly bad timing. Recall its last order
    invalidating Montana’s contribution limits came down just a month
    before the 2012 general election. Now, even though the general
    election is in November, the primary election (subject to its own
    per-election contribution limits) is in just three weeks!

    Yet a separate state law principle should mitigate the disruption to
    ongoing Montana campaigns. In a2013 Article
    <http://%3Chttp//ssrn.com/abstract=2229543%3E>I criticized the Lair
    court’s failure to recognize Montana law’s severability doctrine in
    its partial invalidation of several state campaign statutes. By
    relying on Randall v. Sorrell for its remedy instead, “In effect the
    Lair court answered a question about the Montana legislature’s
    intent behind the Montana law with what three U.S. Supreme Court
    justices thought was the Vermont legislature’s intent in enacting a
    different Vermont law.”

    This time, the court properly left the remedial impact of its order
    to state law in the first instance. In its conclusion, the court
    writes: “Defendants have suggested that the contribution limits
    pre-dating Initiative 118-which the Court notes were significantly
    higher for individuals and political committees, but quite a bit
    lower for political parties-should spring into effect in the event
    the Court declares the 2011 contribution limits unconstitutional.
    The Court expresses no opinion on this point, as it was neither a
    subject at trial nor in the briefing submitted on summary judgment.
    The Court leaves this question for the Montana Attorney General to
    consider.”

    Picking up on this cue, yesterday the Montana Commissioner of
    Political Practicesannounced
    <http://%3Chttp//politicalpractices.mt.gov/default.mcpx%3E>:

    * * * Under Montana law, the Court’s ruling striking the current
    limits effectively reinstates the political committee and individual
    contribution limits that were in place before the 1994 enactment.
    These limits apply to the election cycle rather than to each
    election. By statute, contribution limits must be adjusted for
    inflation. Based on the Court ruling and the statutory inflation
    factor, the contribution limits that currently apply are as follows:
    2016 Contribution limits for individuals/political committees [per
    election cycle] Governor/Lieutenant Governor: $1,990 [from $660 per
    election] Other Statewide offices: $990 [from $330 per election]
    District Court Judge, PSC, State Senate: $530 [from $170 per
    election] All other elected offices, including House: $330 [from
    $170 per election] The above limits are reinstated under a policy
    adopted today by the Commissioner’s Office. The Policy is adopted
    under the reasoning, authority and direction set by the Montana
    Supreme Court in State ex. rel. Woodahl v. District Court, 162 Mont.
    283, 290, 511 P. 2d 318, 322 (1973): “[a]n unconstitutional
    amendment to a law leaves the section intact as it had been before
    the attempted amendment.” This issue is further addressed by AG
    Opinion Vol. 51, No. 2. * * *

    So Rick was incorrect to write “there are NO individual contribution
    limits in Montana.” It was part of the 1994 enactment that was
    unconstitutional, and the court’s analysis focused on the record
    developed under those relatively low contribution limits. With its
    invalidation, prior law—not NO law—takes its place. This might be a
    problem if prior law set more restrictive contribution limits. But
    the new (old) limits arewell within the mainstream for contribution
    limits
    <http://%3Chttp//www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/campaign-contribution-limits-overview.aspx%3E>,
    especially considering Montana’s relatively low-cost politics
    <http://%3Chttp//ssrn.com/abstract=2394937%3E>. (Campaign finance is
    a salient issue for Montana voters, and the current candidates for
    governor not onlysaid
    <http://%3Chttp//helenair.com/news/politics/state/updated-us-judge-strikes-down-montana-campaign-contribution-limits/article_7dbd5093-778f-5f58-b80f-38315bfe92b9.html%3E>they
    will abide by the limits just invalidated but also called on other
    candidates to do the same.) Of course, the plaintiffs may rehash
    their constitutional challenge to the new (old) limits, and to the
    even earlier and higher limits set by Montana in the Watergate Era.
    If those relatively high limits are in jeopardy too, we should not
    expect most state and federal contribution limits to survive the
    kind of scrutiny this court applied. So withRick
    <http://%3Chttp//electionlawblog.org/?p=82847%3E>, the litigants,
    and the Ninth Circuit, we now turn our attention to a certain
    short-handed federal court in Washington, D.C.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82880&title=Johnstone%3A%20Thoughts%20on%20Montana%20Campaign%20Finance%20Decision&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

    “Obama Foundation Donors Attended Private White House Events With
    The President” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82878>

Posted onMay 18, 2016 10:51 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82878>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

MapLight: 
<http://maplight.org/content/obama-foundation-donors-attended-private-white-house-events-with-the-president>

    In January 2015, President Barack Obama held a small, private
    gathering at the White House residence with Hollywood actress Julia
    Roberts and major Democratic donors. The night’s guest list included
    two couples who had recently made six-figure donations to the
    foundation raising money to build Obama’s presidential library in
    Chicago.

    The exclusive event drew scant public attention. For one, it wasn’t
    on the president’s public schedule: a White Houseadvisory
    <http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/obama-guidance-and-press-schedule-jan-31-feb-1-2015/>simply
    said he had “no public events scheduled” that day. And theWhite
    House visitor log
    <https://open.whitehouse.gov/dataset/1-31-15/w44t-kgac>, released
    three months later, didn’t highlight Roberts’ attendance. She
    visited under hermarried name
    <http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/george-clooney-julia-roberts-sue-318636>,
    along with her husband, cinematographer Danny Moder.

    Some of the other visitors to the White House residence that evening
    were titans in their own industries. One couple in attendance,
    private equity executive Mark Gallogly and his wife Lise Strickler,
    hadrecently contributed
    <https://s.bsd.net/obamafound/main/page/file/ead513296b1f2380c7_9em6iz0fc.pdf>$340,000
    to the Barack Obama Foundation. Tom Campion, founder of the surf
    wear clothing chain Zumiez, and his wife, Sonya, donated $500,000 to
    the foundation in the months before the event.

    Obama
    <https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2015/03/04/dnc-payments-white-house/>
    has
    <https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-rewards-biggest-donors-white-house-visits-133040474.html>
    frequently
    <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/us/politics/13donor.html?_r=0>
    opened
    <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/politics/obamas-backers-seek-deep-pockets-to-press-agenda.html?ref=nicholasconfessore&_r=0>the
    White House doors to the wealthy donors who have financed his
    political campaigns, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and
    Organizing for Action, a nonprofit the president created to mobilize
    grassroots supporters to advocate for his agenda. Those doors have
    also been opened to those making substantial contributions to
    Obama’s private foundation, as it seeks funding for the construction
    of a monument to his presidency.

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82878&title=%26%238220%3BObama%20Foundation%20Donors%20Attended%20Private%20White%20House%20Events%20With%20The%20President%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted incampaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>,campaigns 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

    “Researcher Tells Court Voter ID Laws Are A ‘Hindrance’ To Elections
    Process” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82876>

Posted onMay 18, 2016 10:49 am 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82876>byRick Hasen 
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Wisconsin Public Radio reports. <http://www.wpr.org/node/928456>

Share 
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82876&title=%26%238220%3BResearcher%20Tells%20Court%20Voter%20ID%20Laws%20Are%20A%20%26%238216%3BHindrance%26%238217%3B%20To%20Elections%20Process%26%238221%3B&description=>
Posted inUncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

-- 
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/20160518/c95c32ff/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/20160518/c95c32ff/attachment.png>