[EL] ELB News and Commentary 8/9/19

Fri Aug 9 07:13:59 PDT 2019

John Gore Leaving DOJ: “DOJ Official Behind Failed Census Citizenship Question To Leave Department”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106848>
Posted on August 9, 2019 7:10 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106848> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NPR:<https://www.npr.org/2019/08/08/749573662/doj-official-behind-failed-census-citizenship-question-to-leave-department>

John Gore, the main Justice Department official behind the Trump administration’s failed push to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, is set to leave the department Friday.

A person familiar with the matter tells NPR Gore plans to spend time with his family while he is “discerning next steps.”

Gore, who has been serving as the principal deputy assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, is among the administration officials currently facing allegations of providing false testimony<https://www.npr.org/2019/07/16/742259233/trump-officials-face-cover-up-allegations-after-failed-citizenship-question-push> and concealing evidence as part of the lawsuits over the citizenship question. In a recent court filing<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6239356-Aug-3-2019-Exhibit-Index.html#document/p91/a516128>, Gore denied the claims made by advocacy groups represented by the ACLU, New York Civil Liberties Union and the Arnold & Porter.

Gore did not immediately respond to an email and a phone call requesting comment.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D106848&title=John%20Gore%20Leaving%20DOJ%3A%20%E2%80%9CDOJ%20Official%20Behind%20Failed%20Census%20Citizenship%20Question%20To%20Leave%20Department%E2%80%9D>
Posted in census litigation<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=125>, chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, Department of Justice<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=26>

“A Better Hope for Campaign Finance Reform”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106846>
Posted on August 9, 2019 7:03 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106846> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Ed McCaffery has posted this draft on SSRN<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3431204>. Here is the abstract:

There is too much money in American politics, and too much of it comes from too few citizens. Mega-donors like Sheldon Adelson or Tom Steyer make $100 million political expenditures every election cycle. Attempts to limit such large political contributions have failed at every level: judicially, legislatively, and administratively. Much of the academic literature has joined the real world’s sense of despair. This Article takes a new tack. By changing our tax system from an income to a consistent progressive spending tax, the true cost of political expenditures by mega-donors could increase tenfold. By using a strategy of taxing that has been applied to such “bads” as alcohol and cigarettes for centuries, and by identifying high-end spending or consumption in general as such a social “bad,” this Article offers hope for solving what seems to be a hopeless problem.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D106846&title=%E2%80%9CA%20Better%20Hope%20for%20Campaign%20Finance%20Reform%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

“Trump’s Opponents Want to Name His Big Donors. His Supporters Say It’s Harassment.”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106844>
Posted on August 8, 2019 6:24 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106844> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT:<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/08/us/politics/castro-trump-donors.html>

But the Supreme Court’s support for campaign finance disclosure laws has a built-in exemption for people who can show a realistic threat of harassment, and the renewed scrutiny on Trump donors has also raised questions about what qualifies as donor harassment and who is entitled to privacy.

“A big question is, has the internet changed that calculus?” said Richard L. Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine. “The general conservative view is that conservatives are being targeted for their general views and that there’s a lot of harassment going on.”…

In the past, Republicans supported disclosure because they opposed public financing of elections and contribution limits. “But then McConnell basically brought the party around to where they haven’t supported efforts to close loopholes in disclosure laws,” Mr. Wertheimer said.

Some legal scholars have argued that in the internet age, when anyone can quickly look up the campaign contributions of their neighbors, it makes more sense to set a higher limit for public disclosure.

“The public doesn’t gain much of an interest in preventing corruption by knowing that one neighbor has contributed to the other party’s candidate,” said Mr. Hasen, the University of California professor. “What we really care about is big money in politics.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D106844&title=%E2%80%9CTrump%E2%80%99s%20Opponents%20Want%20to%20Name%20His%20Big%20Donors.%20His%20Supporters%20Say%20It%E2%80%99s%20Harassment.%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

“Exclusive: Critical U.S. Election Systems Have Been Left Exposed Online Despite Official Denials”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106842>
Posted on August 8, 2019 11:22 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106842> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Kim Zetter for Motherboard<https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3kxzk9/exclusive-critical-us-election-systems-have-been-left-exposed-online-despite-official-denials>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D106842&title=%E2%80%9CExclusive%3A%20Critical%20U.S.%20Election%20Systems%20Have%20Been%20Left%20Exposed%20Online%20Despite%20Official%20Denials%E2%80%9D>
Posted in election administration<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, voting technology<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=40>

Thoughts on Twitter Temporarily Locking Out Mitch McConnell’s Campaign Account<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106840>
Posted on August 8, 2019 11:08 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106840> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Thread starts here<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1159522248639672320>:
[cid:image002.jpg at 01D54E82.03763090]<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
Rick Hasen<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>
✔@rickhasen<https://twitter.com/rickhasen>

<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1159522248639672320>

I'm no fan of Mitch McConnell @senatemajldr<https://twitter.com/senatemajldr> (and he's condemned my writings about campaign finance on the Senate floor).
But it seems wrong and odd that @Twitter<https://twitter.com/Twitter> put a lock on his campaign's @Team_Mitch<https://twitter.com/Team_Mitch> account for RTing a video of a newsworthy protest against the Senator. /1 https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1159189557490774016 …<https://t.co/8B6cK2kz8Y>
<https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1159189557490774016>
Ryan Saavedra<https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1159189557490774016>
✔@RealSaavedra<https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1159189557490774016>

Twitter asked me yesterday to delete this tweet:

It showed a person allegedly calling for violence against Mitch McConnell

The person appears to be a BLM activist who has met with Elizabeth Warren

I said no and they suspended me *and* McConnell's re-election campaign

THREAD:<https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1159189557490774016>
[View image on Twitter]<https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1159189557490774016>

<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1159522248639672320>
34<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1159522248639672320>
10:50 AM - Aug 8, 2019<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1159522248639672320>
Twitter Ads info and privacy<https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1159522248639672320>
23 people are talking about this<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1159522248639672320>

[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D106840&title=Thoughts%20on%20Twitter%20Temporarily%20Locking%20Out%20Mitch%20McConnell%E2%80%99s%20Campaign%20Account>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“Falsehoods and the First Amendment”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106838>
Posted on August 8, 2019 9:21 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106838> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Cass Sunstein has posted this draft<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3426765&dgcid=ejournal_htmlemail_u.s.:constitutional:law:rights:liberties:ejournal_abstractlink> on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

What is the constitutional status of falsehoods? From the standpoint of the First Amendment, does truth or falsity matter? These questions have become especially pressing with the increasing power of social media, the frequent contestation of established facts, and the current focus on “fake news,” disseminated by both foreign and domestic agents in an effort to drive U.S. politics in particular directions. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that intentional falsehoods are protected by the First Amendment, at least when they do not cause serious harm. But in important ways, 2012 seems like a generation ago, and the Court has yet to give an adequate explanation for its conclusion. Such an explanation must begin the risk of a “chilling effect,” by which an effort to punish or deter falsehoods might also and in the process chill truth. But that is hardly the only reason to protect falsehoods, intentional or otherwise; there are several others. Even so, these arguments suffer from abstraction and high-mindedness; they do not amount to decisive reasons to protect falsehoods. These propositions are applied to old questions involving defamation and to new questions involving fake news, deepfakes, and doctored videos. It emerges that New York Times v. Sullivan is an anachronism, and that it should be rethought in light of current technologies and new findings in behavioral science. Government should have authority to control deepfakes and doctored videos, and also certain kinds of “fake news,” when it threatens political processes. It also emerges that Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms should do far more than they are now doing to control falsehoods, deepfakes, and doctored videos.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D106838&title=%E2%80%9CFalsehoods%20and%20the%20First%20Amendment%E2%80%9D>
Posted in social media and social protests<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=58>

A “Call Mitch McConnell” Ad That Really Does Seem to Want You to Call Mitch McConnell (About Election Security)<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106836>
Posted on August 8, 2019 8:00 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=106836> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Bill Kristol<https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1159416706198134786?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1159416706198134786&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fsenate%2F456676-gop-group-targets-mcconnell-on-election-security-bills-in-new-ad>:
[cid:image004.png at 01D54E82.03763090]<https://twitter.com/BillKristol>
<https://twitter.com/BillKristol>
Bill Kristol<https://twitter.com/BillKristol>
✔@BillKristol<https://twitter.com/BillKristol>

<https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1159416706198134786>

We can't count on Trump for election security. And Mitch McConnell is blocking the Senate from even considering bipartisan election security legislation. Enough. This ad from @ForTheRuleOfLaw<https://twitter.com/ForTheRuleOfLaw> is on the air in DC and KY.
<https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1159416706198134786>
[Embedded video]<https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1159416706198134786>
<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1159416706198134786>
7,039<https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1159416706198134786>
3:50 AM - Aug 8, 2019<https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1159416706198134786>
Twitter Ads info and privacy<https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175256>
<https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1159416706198134786>
3,687 people are talking about this<https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1159416706198134786>

(h/t The Hill<https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/456676-gop-group-targets-mcconnell-on-election-security-bills-in-new-ad>)
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D106836&title=A%20%E2%80%9CCall%20Mitch%20McConnell%E2%80%9D%20Ad%20That%20Really%20Does%20Seem%20to%20Want%20You%20to%20Call%20Mitch%20McConnell%20(About%20Election%20Security)>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>

--
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/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190809/26518754/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/20190809/26518754/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2973 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190809/26518754/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 56367 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190809/26518754/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 12763 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190809/26518754/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 54556 bytes
Desc: image005.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190809/26518754/attachment-0002.jpg>