[EL] Fwd: CU Tomorrow?
Steve Klein
stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com
Thu Jan 18 17:07:59 PST 2018
I’ll stick with respond just to this:
> Really? Campaign finance laws that restrict candidates from raising money from foreign nationals are about ensuring that the people who are ultimately elected to government are primarily accountable to people who live in the US. It’s a fundamental principle of representative democracy.
Hi, Kathy,
If you’d bothered to read my linked post, you would have found links that show the efforts of campaign finance regulation advocates to go far, far beyond candidate elections into issue advocacy and the like. If you’d care to distinguish the FEC’s Mindgeek MUR (and certain reformers’ broad opinions on it) from Represent’s ballot measure efforts in South Dakota, I’m all ears.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 18, 2018, at 8:00 PM, Kathay Feng <kfeng at commoncause.org> wrote:
>
> Steve, you might start with some known facts, instead of just hurling innuendos. But maybe that’s the best you have got.
>
> First, lots of people are going to the Unrig Summit, and I don’t know of any of the speakers, reformers or otherwise, who are getting honorariums or are otherwise paid. If you know of someone who is, I’d be happy to lobby RepresentUs to support the rest of us.
>
> Second, I guess the point of your post is that, 1: RepresentUs raised money for itself through the web, 2: the winner of the prize appears to be in London, so 3: RepresentUs is hypocritical for taking an online donation / bid from someone who may be a foreign national, and 4) that must mean that all reformers are just as hypocritical because no one has demanded to comb through their donation records to establish the immigration status of all their donor/bidders.
>
> Really? Campaign finance laws that restrict candidates from raising money from foreign nationals are about ensuring that the people who are ultimately elected to government are primarily accountable to people who live in the US. It’s a fundamental principle of representative democracy.
>
> I am not sure how that concern applies to a non-profit organization. Last time I checked, Josh Silver was not running for office, and RepresentUs is not trying to serve as anyone’s elected representative in government. They don’t get to pass laws that impact on constituents, though they certainly exercise their first amendment rights to advocate for certain policies.
>
> I get that maybe you are cynical about their message or policy ideas, or even their star power. But I think it would benefit the robust marketplace exchange of ideas that this listserv is trying to promote if your arguments were rooted in facts and logic.
>
> Kathay Feng
> Executive Director, California Common Cause
> National Redistricting Director, Common Cause
>
>
> From: Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Allison Hayward
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 4:24 PM
> To: Ilya Shapiro <ishapiro at cato.org>; Steve Klein <stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com>
> Cc: Election Law <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Fwd: CU Tomorrow?
>
> 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> 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> 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>
> Date: Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 5:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [EL] CU Tomorrow?
> To: Allison Hayward <ahayward at gmu.edu>, Jonathan Singer <jonathanhsinger at gmail.com>
> Cc: 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
> http://www.law.capital.edu/Faculty/Bios/bsmith.asp
>
> From: Allison Hayward [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
>
> 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> 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
> 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: jboppjr at aol.com; 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> 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
> 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
>
> To: jboppjr at aol.com
> Cc: 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> 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 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> 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
> >> (213)380-3769 - fax
> >> rick.hasen at lls.edu
> >> < a href=" ics/faculty/hasen.html" target="_blank">http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
> >> 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
> > (213)380-3769 - fax
> > rick.hasen at lls.edu
> > http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
> > http://electionlawblog.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> P.O. Box #1
> Ishpeming, MI 49849
> lehto.paul at gmail.com
> 906-204-40 26
> __ ____________________
> election-law mailing list
> election-law at mailman.lls.edu
> http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
>
> _______________________________________________
> election-law mailing list
> election-law at mailman.lls.edu
> http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Singer
> http://www.mydd.com
> Cell: (503) 705-2952
>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Singer
> http://www.mydd.com
> /div>
>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Singer
> http://www.mydd.com
> Cell: (503) 705-2952
> _______________________________________________
> election-law mailing list
> election-law at mailman.lls.edu
> http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> election-law mailing list
> 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
> 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
> 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/20180118/06bca839/attachment.html>
View list directory