[EL] Fwd: CU Tomorrow?

Thu Jan 18 16:24:28 PST 2018

I am just grooving to the statement “Allison is correct, of course.”

Have a great day, y’all.

A.

Commissioner Allison Hayward
Ahayward at fppc.ca.gov
________________________________
From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of Ilya Shapiro <IShapiro at cato.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 8:16:32 AM
To: Steve Klein
Cc: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] Fwd: CU Tomorrow?

Fascinating write-up Steve. Is anyone getting paid to go to that Unrig Summit? I went back-and-forth with the organizer when he invited me—“we really want balance” despite Eric Wang being the only First Amendment guy among the 40+ “reformers” when I checked—but he kept insisting that I pay my own way or have Cato “in-kind” my travel (which locution is as grating as the request). Hope you’re billing someone for your time, Eric, because this seems like a colossal waste of it. And do say hi to J-Law for me.

Ilya Shapiro
Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies
Cato Institute
1000 Mass. Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001
(o) 202-218-4600
(c) 202-577-1134
Twitter: @ishapiro

http://www.cato.org/people/shapiro.html

On Jan 18, 2018, at 7:33 AM, Steve Klein <stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com<mailto:stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com>> wrote:

Thank, you Jeff, for this incisive piece, which includes this nugget:

All of the sources spoke on condition of anonymity because Mueller’s investigation is confidential and mostly involves classified information.

So much for disclosure and the informational interest.

But I digress. In all seriousness, I expect the pressing issue of foreign influence will be further explored at Represent’s “Unrig the System Summit” in just a few short weeks.

All you reformers lucky enough to get per diem (maybe even honorarium?): don’t let indications that foreign money from around the world might be supporting your unrigging effort give you pause.

https://pillaroflaw.org/2017/10/13/did-represent-us-just-bag-a-bunch-of-omaze-ing-foreign-money/

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article195231139.html#storylink=cpy

Like disclosure, fighting foreign money is really a case-by-case platitude.

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Jeff Hauser <jeffhauser at gmail.com<mailto:jeffhauser at gmail.com>> wrote:
In light of indications that Russian oligarchs helped Trump via the NRA ( http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article195231139.html ),

a reminder of this election law listserv debate from 2010.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>>
Date: Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: [EL] CU Tomorrow?
To: Allison Hayward <ahayward at gmu.edu<mailto:ahayward at gmu.edu>>, Jonathan Singer <jonathanhsinger at gmail.com<mailto:jonathanhsinger at gmail.com>>
Cc: election-law at mailman.lls.edu<mailto:election-law at mailman.lls.edu>

Allison is correct, of course, but to further clarify, "foreign nationals" does not include permanent resident aliens.  So foreign citizens can and do make not only expenditures but direct contributions.  I certainly think that that is a good thing and further, that it is constitutionally protected, even though these alien residents are not eligible to vote under most state laws, and have been found not to have a constitutional right to vote.

Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 236-6317<tel:(614)%20236-6317>
http://www.law.capital.edu/Faculty/Bios/bsmith.asp

________________________________
From: Allison Hayward [mailto:ahayward at gmu.edu<mailto:ahayward at gmu.edu>]
Sent: Wed 1/20/2010 5:29 PM
To: Jonathan Singer
Cc: Smith, Brad; election-law at mailman.lls.edu<mailto:election-law at mailman.lls.edu>

Subject: Re: [EL] CU Tomorrow?

HI, Jonathan - I'll give this a shot.

As the law stands right now,  foreign nationals are prohibited from making independent expenditures in federal elections.  They are also prohibited from making decisions related to such expenditures, or from fundraising.  They can. however, volunteer.  Generous, isn't it?  So I am not sure your scenario plays out.

I think this is hard to defend, frankly.  We are  a big, powerful, important country, and our policies affect everybody else quite profoundly.  I do not see why its a good idea, and I don't see how it is constitutional, to insulate American voters from the opinions of foreign nationals, other things being equal.

We aren't talking about foreign funding into candidate coffers.  Just spending.
r>

On Jan 20, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Jonathan Singer wrote:

I'm not sure I understand to what the "no" refers. That foreign nationals and corporations in fact do have a right to make expenditures in American elections? Or something else (in which case which of my questions)?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, and if it's a discussion that has already occurred on [EL] I apologize for bringing it up again. But the flow of foreign capital into American elections is something that interests me, at the least, and presumably some others, too.

Jonathan

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>> wrote:
No.

Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 236-6317<tel:(614)%20236-6317>
http://www.law.capital.edu/Faculty/Bios/bsmith.asp

________________________________
From: Jonathan Singer [mailto:j onathanh Sent: Wed 1/20/2010 4:07 PM
To: Smith, Brad
Cc: <mailto:jonathanhsinger at gmail.com> jboppjr at aol.com<mailto:jboppjr at aol.com>; election-law at mailman.lls.edu<mailto:election-law at mailman.lls.edu>

Subject: Re: [EL] CU Tomorrow?

Okay. So if foreign nationals do not have the right to make campaign expenditures, nor do foreign corporations, why should their money be allowed to play a role in American elections as shareholders in corporations chartered in the United States? If a British national owned a major stake in an American corporation, wouldn't his or her dollars be flowing into our elections if that corporation were allowed to spend unlimited dollars? If a foreign owned company -- say Dubai Ports World -- has a subsidiary chartered in the United States, and that American corporation were allowed to spend freely, would n't DPW e right to spend unlimited amounts of money on American elections simply by chartering a subsidiary in the states?

Or would there be some sort of balancing test to determine the extent to which foreign dollars could be funneled into American elections through corporations chartered in the United States in a way they wouldn't be allowed if not funneled as such? In which case where's the line?

Jonathan

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>> wrote:
Jon,

The reasons h ave noth to do with being a "non-voter."

Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 236-6317<tel:(614)%20236-6317>
http://www.law.capital.edu/Faculty/Bios/bsmith.asp

________________________________
From: election-law-bounces at mailm an.lls.e han Singer
Sent: Wed 1/20/2010 2:51 PM <mailto:election-law-bounces at mailman.lls.edu>

To: <mailto:election-law-bounces at mailman.lls.edu> jboppjr at aol.com<mailto:jboppjr at aol.com>
Cc: election-law at mailman.lls.edu<mailto:election-law at mailman.lls.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] CU Tomorrow?

So are foreign nationals constitutionally protected to spend unlimited amounts of money on American elections? How about foreign governments? They're non-voters.

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:46 AM, <jboppjr at aol.com<mailto:jboppjr at aol.com>> wrote:
I am dying to know the authority for this strange statement:

'"I I wouldn't be surprised if a Justice were

to threaten resignation in protest or make some other especially harsh
statement, if the opinion turns to embrace the conclusion that voters
have no power to regulate the political speech of non-voters.
I know of no court decision that suggests that just because you cannot vote, you cannot speak about politics or that voters have some special power to regulate non-voters.  Where does this come from?  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 1/20/2010 1:11:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, lehto.paul at gmail.com<mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com> writes:
In other places I've been suggesting that there's not only a fight on
the Supr as bad or worse than Bush v. Gore's
wrangling on the court  (we only learned about this subsequent to 2000
for the most part).

I've also been saying that I wouldn't be surprised if a Justice were
to threaten resignation in protest or make some other especially harsh
statement, if the opinion turns to embrace the conclusion that voters
have no power to regulate the political speech of non-voters.

Political parties have recognized associational rights and can kick
out members, but apparently We the People will be deemed to have no
right or power to regulate the political speech of non-members
(non-voters).  This kind of conclusion, namely that there's no power
to regulate activities of non-voters, are shocking and grave, as
directly suggested concerning money in elections by Ex Parte Yarbrough
(holding broad implied powers exist, such as to protect elections from
corruption of money, force, and fraud)

Ex Pa rte Yarb as the First Amendment, the
First Amendment only seems younger because it has been far more
contested and thus spawned much litigation.

Until relatively very recently in our country's history, it has not
been seriously contested that the government lacks power to regulate
finances in elections.  A ruling that affirms any such principle will
be a historical reversal and a revolution against democracy.  Rather
than using such a disturbing  term, justices will instead in their
dissents or concurrences in part draft a list of disturbing
implications, but a revolution in our law is what it adds up to.

As fundamental and important as the first amendment is, there's one
thing even more fundamental, and that is free elections.  Free
elections are those free from corruption, fraud or force, and an
election with unregulated money will not be perceived as legitimate by
at least 75% of the electorate:  All Po litician es or actions, will be deemed "bought and paid for.'

Again, this approach is not mine, it's the approach of the court in Ex
Parte Yarbrough -- see Jonathan Singer's post yesterday on that for a
concise view of how that conservative court unanimously saw the free
use of money as just as dangerous as Klan election violence.

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor

On 1/20/10, Rick Hasen <hasenr at gmail.com<mailto:hasenr at gmail.com>> wrote:
> I meant to write they have orders, not argument, Monday
>
> Rick Hasen wrote:
>>
>> Now They Are Toying With Us
>>
>> The Supreme Court has announced a special sitting Thursday, and my
>> understanding is that one or more opinions will be released.
>>
>> It is hard to imagine why they would do this if not to release Citizens
>> United.
>>
>> But it is odd eve , why not wait until Monday,
>> when they won't have argument in any cases? Here's my thinking: some of
>> the Justices might not be in town Monday (they meet on Friday in
>> conference, but have no arguments on Monday). If some Justices want to
>> read parts of their opinions aloud, especially dissents, they may want the
>> Thursday session to do so in person. I recall Justice Breyer's oral
>> dissent in 2007: "It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly
>> changed so much."
>>
>> Posted by Rick Hasen at 09:34 AM
>>
>> --
>> Rick Hasen
>> William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
>> Loyola Law School
>> 919 Albany Street
>> Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211
>> (213)736-1466<tel:(213)%20736-1466>
>> (213)380-3769<tel:(213)%20380-3769> - fax
>> rick.hasen at lls.edu<mailto:rick.hasen at lls.edu>
>> < a href=" ics/faculty/hasen.html" target="_blank">http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/<http://lls.edu/academics/faculty/>hasen.html
>> http://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org/>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
> Loyola Law School
> 919 Albany Street
> Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211
> (213)736-1466<tel:(213)%20736-1466>
> (213)380-3769<tel:(213)%20380-3769> - fax
> rick.hasen at lls.edu<mailto:rick.hasen at lls.edu>
> http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
> http://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org/>
>
>

--
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box #1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com<mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com>
906-204-40 26
__ ____________________
election-law mailing list
election-law at mailman.lls.edu<mailto:election-law at mailman.lls.edu>
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law at mailman.lls.edu<mailto:election-law at mailman.lls.edu>
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law

--
Jonathan Singer
http://www.mydd.com<http://www.mydd.com/>
Cell: (503) 705-2952<tel:(503)%20705-2952>

--
Jonathan Singer
http://www.mydd.com <http://www.mydd.com/>
/div>

--
Jonathan Singer
http://www.mydd.com<http://www.mydd.com/>
Cell: (503) 705-2952<tel:(503)%20705-2952>
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law at mailman.lls.edu<mailto:election-law at mailman.lls.edu>
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law at mailman.lls.edu<mailto:election-law at mailman.lls.edu>
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

--
Steve Klein
Attorney*

https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephenrklein

*Licensed to practice law in Illinois and Michigan
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180119/10ed0b6a/attachment.html>