[EL] Quick question about the Honest Ads Act

[Nate Persily]

Thank you, Adav.  My mistake and yes, that is an important clarification.
My question is still the same though: do we have examples of enforcement
actions taken against media companies for failure to obey some provision of
campaign finance law?  I continue to get journalists' calls as to whether
Facebook could be held "liable" for anything related to the Russia affair
-- as well as whether there is precedent in TV-related legislation for
holding social media companies liable in future legislation.  Does anyone
know of applicable cases/administrative actions?

----------------

Nate Persily

James B. McClatchy Professor of Law
Stanford Law School
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
(917) 570-3223
npersily at stanford.edu

www.persily.com

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Adav Noti <anoti at campaignlegalcenter.org>
wrote:

> I don’t think the bill makes platforms liable for disclaimer violations.
> I believe the only penalty provision that applies to online platforms is at
> page 20, lines 18-22, which covers violations of “this subsection,” i.e.,
> the political file requirements established by new section 30104(j).  That
> penalty provision doesn’t cover violations of the disclaimer requirements
> in section 30120.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Adav Noti*
> Senior Director, Trial Litigation and Strategy
>
> Campaign Legal Center
> 1411 K St. NW, Washington, DC 20005
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1411+K+St.+NW,+Washington,+DC+20005%0D+202&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> 202.736.2203 <(202)%20736-2203> | @AdavNoti <https://twitter.com/AdavNoti>
>
> anoti at campaignlegalcenter.org
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image001.png at 01D32739.A0DB6BB0]
>
>
>
> *From:* Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu]
> *On Behalf Of *Nate Persily
> *Sent:* Friday, October 20, 2017 10:50 AM
> *To:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>; Rick Hasen <
> rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> *Subject:* [EL] Quick question about the Honest Ads Act
>
>
>
> Yesterday Senators Warner and Klobuchar introduced the Honest Ads Act
> which attempts to provide a disclosure regime for on line ads akin to what
> is required on television.  One of the bill’s provisions makes on-line
> platforms liable for ads on their websites that do not contain the
> appropriate disclaimers.  Can anyone on the list provide me with examples
> of cases in which broadcasters or radio stations were held liable for ads
> that did not comply with applicable campaign finance law?  (This is just a
> factual/empirical question.  I am not trying to start a debate about the
> bill. There will be plenty of time for that.)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 7:41 PM Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
> *Today’s Must-Read: “In North Carolina, Republicans Stung by Court Rulings
> Aim to Change the Judges” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95534>*
>
> Posted on October 18, 2017 7:37 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95534>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Trip Gabriel
> <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/us/north-carolina-republicans-gerrymander-judges-.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fus&action=click&contentCollection=us&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0>for
> the NYT:
>
> * Republicans with a firm grip on the North Carolina legislature — and,
> until January, the governor’s seat — enacted a conservative agenda in
> recent years, only to have a steady stream of laws affecting voting and
> legislative power rejected by the courts.*
>
> *Now lawmakers have seized on a solution: change the makeup of the courts.*
>
> *Judges in state courts as of this year must identify their party
> affiliation on ballots, making North Carolina the first state in nearly a
> century to adopt partisan court elections. The General Assembly in Raleigh
> reduced the size of the state Court of Appeals, depriving Gov. Roy Cooper,
> a Democrat, of naming replacements for retiring Republicans.*
>
> *And this month, lawmakers drew new boundaries for judicial districts
> statewide, which critics say are meant to increase the number of Republican
> judges on district and superior courts and would force many
> African-Americans on the bench into runoffs against other incumbents.*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95534&title=Today%E2%80%99s%20Must-Read%3A%20%E2%80%9CIn%20North%20Carolina%2C%20Republicans%20Stung%20by%20Court%20Rulings%20Aim%20to%20Change%20the%20Judges%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in judicial elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Justice Department Has Communicated With Controversial Election
> Commission, Sessions Confirms” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95532>*
>
> Posted on October 18, 2017 7:33 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95532>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Pema Levy for Mother Jones
> <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/justice-department-has-communicated-with-controversial-election-commission-sessions-confirms/>
> .
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95532&title=%E2%80%9CJustice%20Department%20Has%20Communicated%20With%20Controversial%20Election%20Commission%2C%20Sessions%20Confirms%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in fraudulent fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Jocelyn Benson Enters Michigan Secretary of State Race”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95530>*
>
> Posted on October 18, 2017 7:31 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95530>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP:
> <http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2017/Election-law-expert-Jocelyn-Benson-is-running-again-to-be-Michigan-s-next-secretary-of-state/id-c99ae62465b844a2b29c6be8e5c032b1>
>
> *Election law expert Jocelyn Benson announced Tuesday that she is running
> for Michigan secretary of state, saying no one should have to wait more
> than 30 minutes to renew a driver’s license, register a vehicle or vote.*
>
> *It is the second time the Democrat has sought the position. She was the
> party’s 2010 nominee but lost to Republican Ruth Johnson, who cannot run
> for a third term in 2018.*
>
> *Benson, of Detroit, said the half-hour guarantee should apply to
> residents “no matter where you are in the state,” saying she waited two
> hours to vote in the August 2016 primary election. She launched her
> campaign outside a secretary of state branch in Detroit and at stops in
> Grand Rapids and Lansing.*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95530&title=%E2%80%9CJocelyn%20Benson%20Enters%20Michigan%20Secretary%20of%20State%20Race%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in election law biz <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=51>
>
>
>
> *“Dem Senators Request GAO Probe Of Trump’s Bogus Voter Fraud Commission”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95528>*
>
> Posted on October 18, 2017 7:26 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95528>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> TPM reports.
> <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/democratic-senators-gao-trump-voter-fraud-commission>
>
>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95528&title=%E2%80%9CDem%20Senators%20Request%20GAO%20Probe%20Of%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20Bogus%20Voter%20Fraud%20Commission%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in fraudulent fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
>
> *“Trump Campaign Staffers Pushed Russian Propaganda Days Before the
> Election” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95525>*
>
> Posted on October 18, 2017 7:22 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95525>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Daily Beast:
> <https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-campaign-staffers-pushed-russian-propaganda-days-before-the-election>
>
> *Some of the Trump campaign’s most prominent names and supporters,
> including Trump’s campaign manager, digital director and son, pushed tweets
> from professional trolls paid by the Russian government in the heat of the
> 2016 election campaign.*
>
> *The Twitter account @Ten_GOP, which called itself the “Unofficial Twitter
> account of Tennessee Republicans,” was operated from the Kremlin-backed
> “Russian troll farm,” or Internet Research Agency, a source familiar with
> the account confirmed with The Daily Beast.*
>
> *The account’s origins in the Internet Research Agency were originally
> reported by the independent Russian news outlet RBC
> <http://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/17/10/2017/59e4eb7a9a79472577375776>.
> @Ten_GOP was created on November 19, 2015, and accumulated over 100
> thousand followers before Twitter shut it down. The Daily Beast
> independently confirmed the reasons for @Ten_GOP’s account termination.*
>
> *The discovery of the now-unavailable tweets presents the first evidence
> that several members of the Trump campaign pushed covert Russian propaganda
> on social media in the run-up to the 2016 election….*
>
> *President Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. followed the account until its
> closure on August 23rd of this year
> <https://twitter.com/TrumpsAlert/status/900575918359420928>. Trump Jr.
> retweeted the account three times, including an allegation of voter fraud
> in Florida one week before the election.*
>
> *“BREAKING: #VoterFraud by counting tens of thousands of ineligible mail
> in Hillary votes being reported in Broward County, Florida Please, RT,” the
> tweet read.*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95525&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%20Campaign%20Staffers%20Pushed%20Russian%20Propaganda%20Days%20Before%20the%20Election%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Eric Holder: “Voting Rights: The Struggle of Our Lifetime”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95523>*
>
> Posted on October 18, 2017 7:19 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95523>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Holder has this post
> <https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/voting-rights-the-struggle-of-our-lifetime/>at
> the new *Harvard Law Review *blog.
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95523&title=Eric%20Holder%3A%20%E2%80%9CVoting%20Rights%3A%20The%20Struggle%20of%20Our%20Lifetime%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Fowler: “The Negative Effect Fallacy, Gobbledygook, and the Use of
> Quantitative Evidence in the Supreme Court”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95521>*
>
> Posted on October 18, 2017 7:12 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95521>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The following is a guest post from Anthony Fowler:
> <https://harris.uchicago.edu/directory/anthony-fowler>
>
> *The Negative Effect Fallacy, Gobbledygook, and the Use of Quantitative
> Evidence in the Supreme Court*
>
> *The Supreme Court has a mixed track record when it comes to quantitative
> evidence, and that record was further blemished earlier this month,
> during oral arguments for Gill v. Whitford
> <https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-1161_n6io.pdf>,
> when Chief Justice John Roberts dismissed a quantitative metric as
> “sociological gobbledygook” without providing further explanation. This
> kind of convenient but vacuous argument is, unfortunately, a regular tactic
> for some of the justices. In a recent article in the Journal of Empirical
> Legal Studies <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12158/full>,
> Ryan Enos, Christopher Havasy, and I analyze another argument commonly used
> by the Court to justify the dismissal of quantitative evidence, and we call
> it the negative effect fallacy.*
>
> *ourts often hear cases in which the answers to difficult empirical
> questions are relevant for decisions. Within the context of election law,
> consider Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett. A key question was whether the
> matching funds provision in Arizona’s campaign finance law chilled private
> political speech. The plaintiffs argued that it did; in other words, they
> felt that matching funds have a negative effect on private political
> contributions. Ryan Enos, Conor Dowling, Costas Panagopoulos, and I sought
> to quantitatively assess whether this claim was true, and we found no
> evidence to support it. In an amici brief
> <https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-238_RespondentAmCu4PoliticalScientists.authcheckdam.pdf> and
> a subsequent article in the Election Law Journal
> <http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/elj.2011.0143>, we showed
> that private political contributions did not increase relative to other
> states after an injunction against the matching funds provision. Chief
> Justice Roberts, writing the majority opinion, briefly considered this
> evidence but dismissed it, declaring “it is never easy to prove a
> negative.”*
>
> *What’s going on here? Roberts has conflated the arithmetic and
> philosophical definitions of the word negative. We’ve all heard the adage
> that it’s difficult to prove a negative, meaning that it’s difficult to
> prove the absence of something (e.g., can we prove that Santa Claus does
> not exist?). However, the adage has no bearing on the quantitative
> estimation of an arithmetically negative effect![1]
> <http://electionlawblog.org/#_ftn1> There’s no reason that negative effects
> are harder to detect than positive ones.*
>
> *The negative effect fallacy is not unique to Arizona Free Enterprise or
> election law. This mistake appears to have originated with Elkins v. United
> States in 1960. Again, an empirical question played a crucial role in the
> case. Does the exclusionary rule prevent illegal searches and seizures? In
> principle, quantitative evidence could be brought to bear on this question,
> but Justice Stewart rejected even the possibility by asserting that “it is
> never easy to prove a negative.” Since then, negative effect fallacy has
> been repeated in many Supreme Court and lower court cases across many legal
> domains including free speech, voting rights, and campaign finance. Our
> investigation
> <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12158/full> explains the
> negative effect fallacy in more detail, documents its use in federal
> courts, and provides recommendations regarding the use of quantitative
> evidence in court decisions.*
>
> *How can the greatest legal minds in our nation fall prey to something
> like the negative effect fallacy? And why would they insist that relatively
> simple quantitative methods are gobbledygook? We can only speculate
> regarding the underlying motivations of the judges. Perhaps they don’t
> understand the evidence. Perhaps they don’t like the results and look for
> convenient ways to dismiss them. Perhaps they have legitimate reasons to
> believe the evidence is uncompelling or irrelevant for the case, but they
> fail to articulate those reasons. In any case, the pattern whereby evidence
> is dismissed based on sweeping statements, gut reactions, and logical
> fallacies is a troubling one. At best, these practices hide the justices’
> true reasons for arriving at their decisions, and at worst, the courts
> regularly make bad decisions because they fail to engage with relevant
> evidence.*
>
> *The relevance of quantitative evidence for legal decisions will likely
> not dissipate anytime soon. Does a new voting technology differentially
> impact a particular racial group? Does a campaign finance regulation
> restrict free speech? Does a state’s redistricting plan deviate from a
> reasonable standard of fairness? Courts will have to consider a lot of
> questions like these going forward, and social scientists will continue to
> collect data and develop methods to help them. Whether the justices like it
> or not, answering these questions and making informed decisions requires
> engaging with quantitative evidence and evaluating it on its merits.*
>
> *Anthony Fowler (anthony.fowler at uchicago.edu
> <anthony.fowler at uchicago.edu>) is Associate Professor in the Harris School
> of Public Policy at the University of Chicago. He applies econometric
> methods for causal inference to questions in political science, with
> particular emphasis on elections and political representation.*
>
> *[1]* <http://electionlawblog.org/#_ftnref1>* Even in the canonical usage
> of this adage, the word negative is a red herring because we can always
> write positive statements to be negative, and vice versa. At best, this
> phrase reminds us that induction does not provide certain conclusions, but
> in the case of arithmetically negative statements, the adage has no bearing
> whatsoever.*
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95521&title=Fowler%3A%20%E2%80%9CThe%20Negative%20Effect%20Fallacy%2C%20Gobbledygook%2C%20and%20the%20Use%20of%20Quantitative%20Evidence%20in%20the%20Supreme%20Court%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
>
> *“Judge Pushes Back Against Trump Administration’s View of Emoluments
> Clause” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95515>*
>
> Posted on October 18, 2017 7:05 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95515>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> WSJ:
> <https://www.wsj.com/article_email/judge-pushes-back-against-trump-administrations-view-of-emoluments-clause-1508359374-lMyQjAxMTE3MzE3ODYxNTg2Wj/>
>
> *The hearing Wednesday marked the first public airing of arguments over
> the scope of the provisions and the definition of an “emolument.” Democrats
> in Congress and the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and
> Maryland filed similar lawsuits in June.*
>
> *Brett Shumate, a Justice Department lawyer, told U.S. District Judge
> George Daniels that an emolument should be defined as a benefit conferred
> in return for a personal service provided by the officeholder.*
>
> *“Why doesn’t emolument mean compensation?” asked Judge Daniels, who is
> considering the government’s motion to throw out the case. “Why do we need
> a more complicated definition?”*
>
> *At one point, Mr. Shumate reluctantly agreed that the emoluments clauses
> could reach private business transactions, in response to a question from
> Judge Daniels, who asked whether the Constitution would allow the president
> to accept $1 million from a foreign government seeking his signature on a
> treaty.*
>
> *Under Judge Daniels’ hypothetical, instead of paying the president
> directly, however, the foreign government would buy $1 million in hotdogs
> from the president’s hotdog-vending business.*
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95515&title=%E2%80%9CJudge%20Pushes%20Back%20Against%20Trump%20Administration%E2%80%99s%20View%20of%20Emoluments%20Clause%E2%80%9D>
>
> Posted in conflict of interest laws <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=20>
>
>
>
>
>
> *A.J. Pate: Systemic Poison in the Body Politic
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95512>*
>
> Posted on October 18, 2017 3:28 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=95512>
>  by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The following is a guest post from A.J. Pate:
>
> *Systemic Poison in the Body Politic*
>
> *Ned Foley’s recent commentary,
> <http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/election-law/article/?article=13415> “Of X-Rays,
> CT Scans and Gerrymanders”, was an interesting analogy linking advancements
> in cancer research to advances in identifying partisan gerrymandering.
> However, cancer is an organic disease which attacks disparate parts of the
> body, most of unknown causes, thus unpreventable and most often incurable.
> Two preventable exceptions are lung cancer and skin cancer. But cessation
> of smoking will not cure lung cancer. And total darkness will not cure skin
> cancer.*
>
> *Perhaps a more apt analogy would be people being poisoned by
> self-interested criminals. Partisan gerrymandering is a systemic poisoning
> of the body politic, a deliberate, corrupt process to achieve predetermined
> results by self-interested politicians.*
>
> *Much attention has been fixated recently on scientific solutions, which
> appear to be reaching the outer limits of practical application, improbably
> providing a definitive judicially manageable standard. There are no magic
> cures lurking within those penumbrae, complex calculations incomprehensible
> to most Americans. In concluding his relentless, decades-long pursuit to
> end partisan gerrymandering, absent a bright-line rule, Justice Kennedy
> would not want his valedictory and legacy to end in indeterminacy, “not
> with a bang but with a whimper.”*
>
> *There is a curious silence on one of the most ancient scientific
> principles, dating back to Aristotle, and still viable today. That is
> Occam’s Razor: the simplest effective solution is the best solution. The
> Court should no longer attempt so ineffectively to treat symptoms of this
> poison or search for an antidote, but simply remove the source of the
> poison. Let Occam’s Razor slice through the Gordian Knot of partisan
> gerrymandering.*
>
> *The obvious root source of partisan gerrymandering is the ready
> availability of partisan political data in redistricting software. The
> simplest solution would be for the Court to ban its use as a negative,
> poisonous input into the redistricting process, extrinsic manipulations
> adverse to the constitutional provision of fair and effective
> representation. Banning the use of partisan political data in redistricting
> would be easily judicially manageable at every court level. But, this
> simple prophylactic receives virtually nil attention. Two primary tools
> employed by gerrymanderers are zero deviation
> <https://electionlawblog.org/?p=67794>as a cover and the divided census
> tracts necessary to achieve that dubious goal. Yet there is also a strange
> silence on the root source of partisan gerrymandering and these tools of
> its implementation.*
>
> *This bright-line rule, a simple ban on the use of partisan political
> data, has many distinct and significant advantages, and no disadvantages
> are readily apparent:*
>
>    - *could be implemented immediately by the states with minimal cost by
>    simple software modification*
>    - *would be applied ex ante to statewide maps and subject to forensic
>    analysis before implementation*
>    - *easily manageable by lower courts, drastically reducing years of
>    appeals by shifting focus from ex post quantative litigation to ex
>    ante qualitative compliance*
>    - *would make redistricting process and plans transparent and
>    accessible*
>    - *would make judicial reviews strictly objective and technically
>    neutral, with partisan consequences a nonfactor*
>    - *self-explanatory, easily understood by the general public, becoming
>    one of the most popular decisions the Court could ever deliver.*
>
> *Contrarily, the Court’s worse course would be to become a subjective
> arbiter between the major political parties in divining partisan winners
> and losers in our electoral process, stepping into quicksand in the middle
> of the political thicket. The current Court’s political polarization is
> obvious to the electorate and would render consequential decisions subject
> to intense suspicion of partisan bias, with resultant harm to respect for
> the Court and even the rule of law. The Court’s public approval would be in
> imminent danger of sinking to the depths of used car salesmen and the U.S.
> Congress.*
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: hare]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D95512&title=A.J.%20Pate%3A%20Systemic%20Poison%20in%20the%20Body%20Politic>
>
> Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Rick Hasen
>
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>
> UC Irvine School of Law
>
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=401+E.+Peltason+Dr.,+Suite+1000%0D+Irvine,+CA+92697&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Irvine, CA 92697
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=401+E.+Peltason+Dr.,+Suite+1000%0D+Irvine,+CA+92697&entry=gmail&source=g>
> -8000
>
> 949.824.3072 <(949)%20824-3072> - office
>
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> --
>
> ----------------
>
> Nate Persily
>
> James B. McClatchy Professor of Law
> Stanford Law School
> 559 Nathan Abbott Way
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=559+Nathan+Abbott+Way+%0D+Stanford,+CA+94305&entry=gmail&source=g>
> Stanford, CA 94305
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=559+Nathan+Abbott+Way+%0D+Stanford,+CA+94305&entry=gmail&source=g>
> -8610
> (917) 570-3223
> npersily at stanford.edu
>
> www.persily.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20171020/9db9ead0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4012 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20171020/9db9ead0/attachment.png>