[EL] ELB News and Commentary 9/20/18

Thu Sep 20 07:35:26 PDT 2018

Just How Much Will the Crossroads Ruling Change Disclosure Rules for 2018? Probably Not as Much as You Think<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101234>
Posted on September 20, 2018 7:28 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101234> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

In my post<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101205> about the Supreme Court’s denial of a stay in the Crossroads campaign disclosure case, I wrote that it “does not solve all of the current disclosure problems, but this is a victory for transparency.”

I stand by that but it is important not to overstate things. Some have trumpeted the ruling as somehow ending the role of dark money in elections.  It’s not that.

To begin with, groups can run issue ads that don’t expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate to avoid this disclosure rule.

Second, groups will use money funneled via other 501c(4)s, Super PACs, and LLCs to avoid some disclosure rules. If they do this, action from the FEC is years away at best.

Third, the FEC has not (and won’t have time) to set up a new rule in time for the 2018 elections. So there may still be fighting about what exactly groups must do in 2018.

This could be a bigger help in 2020, but by then who knows where things will go, especially as the Supreme Court could shift against disclosure if and when a new Justice joins the Court.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101234&title=Just%20How%20Much%20Will%20the%20Crossroads%20Ruling%20Change%20Disclosure%20Rules%20for%202018%3F%20Probably%20Not%20as%20Much%20as%20You%20Think>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“The Plot to Subvert an Election”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101232>
Posted on September 20, 2018 7:23 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101232> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Deep NYT dive:<https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/20/us/politics/russia-interference-election-trump-clinton.html>

For many Americans, the Trump-Russia story as it has been voluminously reported over the past two years is a confusing tangle of unfamiliar names and cyberjargon, further obscured by the shout-fest of partisan politics. What Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel in charge of the investigation, may know or may yet discover is still uncertain. President Trump’s Twitter outbursts that it is all a “hoax” and a “witch hunt,” in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, have taken a toll on public comprehension.

But to travel back to 2016 and trace the major plotlines of the Russian attack is to underscore what we now know with certainty: The Russians carried out a landmark intervention that will be examined for decades to come. Acting on the personal animus of Mr. Putin, public and private instruments of Russian power moved with daring and skill to harness the currents of American politics. Well-connected Russians worked aggressively to recruit or influence people inside the Trump campaign.

To many Americans, the intervention seemed to be a surprise attack, a stealth cyberage Pearl Harbor, carried out by an inexplicably sinister Russia. For Mr. Putin, however, it was long-overdue payback, a justified response to years of “provocations” from the United States.

And there is a plausible case that Mr. Putin succeeded in delivering the presidency to his admirer, Mr. Trump, though it cannot be proved or disproved. In an election with an extraordinarily close margin, the repeated disruption of the Clinton campaign by emails published on WikiLeaks and the anti-Clinton, pro-Trump messages shared with millions of voters by Russia could have made the difference, a possibility Mr. Trump flatly rejects.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101232&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Plot%20to%20Subvert%20an%20Election%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>

Sen. McCaskill Cites Judge Kavanaugh’s Campaign Finance Views as Her Reason for Voting No on His Supreme Court Nomination<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101230>
Posted on September 20, 2018 7:19 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101230> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Gannett:<https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/09/19/claire-mccaskill-says-shes-voting-no-brett-kavanaugh-president-trumps-supreme-court-nominee/1363181002/>

Sen. Claire McCaskill<https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/09/15/claire-mccaskill-josh-hawley-spar-missouri-press-association-debate/1301678002/> said Wednesday she will vote against federal appellate judge Brett Kavanaugh<https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/19/abortion-crime-race-gays-areas-where-brett-kavanaugh-matters/1008303002/>, President Donald Trump’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Citing “dark money” in politics<https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/politics/elections/2018/09/11/mccaskill-kavanaugh-dark-money-bigger-issue-than-abortion-rights/1254551002/> as the main reason for her opposition, McCaskill released a lengthy statement through her office Wednesday evening. The Missouri Democrat, who is in a heated re-election campaign, stumped in southwest Missouri earlier in the day with stops in Lebanon and Mt. Vernon….

McCaskill has repeatedly said she was focusing on Kavanaugh’s positions on anonymously sourced political spending, known as “dark money,” when she was reviewing documents provided to senators. Her statement cited a 2002 email from Kavanaugh to another attorney as support for her criticism of the judge’s views on money in politics.

“He has revealed his bias against limits on campaign donations which places him completely out of the mainstream of this nation,” McCaskill said. “He wrote, ‘And I have heard very few people say that limits on contributions to candidates are unconstitutional although I for one tend to think those limits have some constitutional problems.’”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101230&title=Sen.%20McCaskill%20Cites%20Judge%20Kavanaugh%E2%80%99s%20Campaign%20Finance%20Views%20as%20Her%20Reason%20for%20Voting%20No%20on%20His%20Supreme%20Court%20Nomination>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme Court<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>

“Inside Facebook’s Election ‘War Room’”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101228>
Posted on September 20, 2018 7:17 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101228> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/technology/facebook-election-war-room.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage>

Facebook invited two New York Times reporters into the War Room before it opens next week to discuss the work of the elections team and some of the tools it has developed to try to prevent interference. The company limited the scope of what The Times could see and publish out of a concern about revealing too much to adversaries who may be looking for vulnerabilities. The company said the War Room was modeled after operations used by political campaigns, which are typically set up in the final weeks before Election Day.

The War Room is a “proactive” way to build systems in anticipation of attacks, Greg Marra, a product manager working on Facebook’s News Feed, said in a conference call with reporters on Wednesday.

One of the tools the company is introducing is custom software that helps track information flowing across the social network in real time, said Mr. Chakrabarti, who joined Facebook about four years ago from Google.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101228&title=%E2%80%9CInside%20Facebook%E2%80%99s%20Election%20%E2%80%98War%20Room%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>

“Corporate Political Activities 2018: Complying with Campaign Finance, Lobbying and Ethics Laws”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101226>
Posted on September 20, 2018 7:01 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101226> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Looking forward to being the luncheon keynote<https://www.pli.edu/Content/Seminar/Corporate_Political_Activities_2018_Complying/_/N-4kZ1z0ztm0?ID=340382&t=NCW8_VANTY> at this PLI event in San Francisco on October 4. There’s also going to be a webcast.

Here’s a link<http://www.pli.edu/corppolitical18> for a 20% discount on the program.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101226&title=%E2%80%9CCorporate%20Political%20Activities%202018%3A%20Complying%20with%20Campaign%20Finance%2C%20Lobbying%20and%20Ethics%20Laws%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“The Hottest Tool in Campaign Finance Law Enforcement Today Is More Than 100 Years Old”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101224>
Posted on September 20, 2018 6:57 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101224> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy<https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/hottest-tool-campaign-law-enforcement-today-more-100-years-old> on the Tillman Act.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101224&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Hottest%20Tool%20in%20Campaign%20Finance%20Law%20Enforcement%20Today%20Is%20More%20Than%20100%20Years%20Old%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

Thanks to Dan Tokaji<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101222>
Posted on September 20, 2018 6:56 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=101222> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

…for guest blogging yesterday when I was out.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D101222&title=Thanks%20to%20Dan%20Tokaji>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://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
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org/>
[signature_383320413]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180920/a2dd4def/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180920/a2dd4def/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 92163 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180920/a2dd4def/attachment-0001.png>