[EL] ELB News and Commentary 5/4/21

Tue May 4 07:30:05 PDT 2021

“Cheney slams Trump’s attempt to brand 2020 election ‘the Big Lie,’ sparking new calls for her to leave GOP leadership”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121947>
Posted on May 4, 2021 7:28 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121947> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cheney-trump-election-mccarthy/2021/05/03/41ca672c-ac21-11eb-ab4c-986555a1c511_story.html>

Rep. Liz Cheney made clear Monday that she will continue to publicly denounce former president Donald Trump over his false claims that the 2020 election was stolen, imperiling her position in House Republican leadership as GOP members continue to rally around Trump.

House Republican leaders as well as some rank-and-file members have said that Cheney’s statements in recent weeks about Trump are a distraction and that she should focus on issues that unite the party.

But Cheney (R-Wyo.) brushed aside those warnings Monday after Trump issued a statement<https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/03/joe-biden-live-updates/#link-3FM3SP2OOBFU7ODIBYBV3KEOVA?itid=lk_inline_manual_6> attempting to commandeer the term “Big Lie,” commonly used to refer to the false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him, by asserting that the term should now refer to President Biden’s election victory.

Cheney quickly condemned Trump’s comment as well as anyone who supports his statements about the election.

“The 2020 presidential election was not stolen,” Cheney tweeted. “Anyone who claims it was is spreading THE BIG LIE, turning their back on the rule of law, and poisoning our democratic system.”

Hours later, Trump released another statement, this time attacking Cheney by calling her a “big-shot warmonger” and claiming that people in Wyoming “never liked her much.”

Cheney has said challenging Trump’s false statements about the election is an issue of principle, but she has increasingly angered her GOP colleagues and faced renewed calls to step down from the No. 3 leadership post in the conference….

On Monday, Cheney told a closed-door conference hosted by the conservative American Enterprise Institute at Sea Island, Ga., that the party cannot accept the “poison” that the election was stolen, according to CNN<https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/03/politics/liz-cheney-doubles-down-trump-gop/index.html>.

“We can’t whitewash what happened on January 6 or perpetuate Trump’s big lie,” she said while being interviewed at the conference by former House speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), according to the network. “It is a threat to democracy. What he did on January 6 is a line that cannot be crossed.”
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121947&title=%E2%80%9CCheney%20slams%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20attempt%20to%20brand%202020%20election%20%E2%80%98the%20Big%20Lie%2C%E2%80%99%20sparking%20new%20calls%20for%20her%20to%20leave%20GOP%20leadership%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

“Business Coalitions to Speak Out Against Voting Restrictions in Texas”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121945>
Posted on May 4, 2021 7:23 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121945> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

NYT<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/04/us/politics/microsoft-hp-patagonia-texas-voting-rights.html>:

Two broad coalitions of companies and executives plan to release letters on Tuesday calling for expanded voting access in Texas, wading into the contentious debate over Republican legislators’ proposed new restrictions on balloting<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/24/us/politics/texas-republicans-voting.html> after weeks of relative silence from the business community in the state.

One letter comes from a group of large corporations, including Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, Unilever, Salesforce, Patagonia and Sodexo, as well as local companies and chambers of commerce, and represents the first major coordinated effort among businesses in Texas to take action against the voting proposals.

The letter, under the banner of a new group called Fair Elections Texas, stops short of criticizing the two voting bills that are now advancing through the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature, but opposes “any changes that would restrict eligible voters’ access to the ballot.”

A separate letter, also expected to be released on Tuesday and signed by more than 100 Houston executives, goes further. It directly criticizes the proposed legislation and equates the efforts with “voter suppression.”

hat letter was organized by a breakaway faction of the Greater Houston Partnership, the equivalent of a citywide chamber of commerce in the country’s fourth-largest city, and came after a month of intense debate within the organization over how to respond to the voting proposals.

Together, the letters signify a sudden shift in how the business community approaches the voting bills in Texas. Until now, American Airlines and Dell Technologies were the only major corporations to publicly speak out<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/business/american-airlines-dell-texas-voting-bills.html> about the Texas legislation, and after doing so they quickly found themselves threatened by Republicans in Austin, the state capital.

But with a varied coalition that numbers well into the dozens, companies are hoping a collective voice willing to apply pressure at the state level could break through and sway the thinking of some Republican legislators who may be wavering on the bills.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121945&title=%E2%80%9CBusiness%20Coalitions%20to%20Speak%20Out%20Against%20Voting%20Restrictions%20in%20Texas%E2%80%9D>
Posted in The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

“Changes to Kansas election rules become law despite Governor Laura Kelly’s veto”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121943>
Posted on May 4, 2021 7:16 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121943> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

KC Star:<https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article251135959.html>

Changes to Kansas election laws that limit the power of the executive and judicial branch and tighten rules around advance voting are now law despite Gov. Laura Kelly’s objections.

The Kansas Legislature voted Monday to override Kelly’s vetoes on two elections related measures.

Kelly rejected the Kansas bills last month, calling them “designed to disenfranchise Kansans.”

But lawmakers exceeded the two-thirds majority vote needed to pass the bills without her approval.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121943&title=%E2%80%9CChanges%20to%20Kansas%20election%20rules%20become%20law%20despite%20Governor%20Laura%20Kelly%E2%80%99s%20veto%E2%80%9D>
Posted in The Voting Wars<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

FEC Republican Commissioners Pave Way for More Foreign Corporate Influence in U.S. Campaigns<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121941>
Posted on May 4, 2021 7:04 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121941> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Free Speech for People:<https://freespeechforpeople.org/federal-election-commission-deadlocks-3-3-on-free-speech-for-peoples-complaint-challenging-citgos-illegal-contribution-to-trump-inaugural-committee/>

The Federal Election Commission divided 3-3 on Free Speech For People’s 2017 complaint<https://freespeechforpeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/FSFP-FEC-complaint-v-Citgo-20170425-final.pdf> against the oil company Citgo, its Venezuelan state-owned parent company, and President Trump’s 2017 inaugural committee. The FEC’s general counsel agreed with Free Speech For People that the companies and the inaugural committee violated a federal ban on donations to inaugural committees by foreign entities. However, the FEC divided along party lines and the case was closed. …

The First General Counsel’s Report<https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7243/7243_14.pdf> noted that all evidence suggested that Citgo’s leadership was selected by PDVSA, and in at least one case, by the president of Venezuela himself:

CITGO’s Response does not … rebut the Complaint’s allegation that CITGO’s Board of Directors at the time of the donation consisted entirely of foreign nationals. According to publicly available information, much of which comes from CITGO itself, CITGO’s Board of Directors at the time of the $500,000 donation consisted of … nationals of Venezuela…. Additionally, at least some of the CITGO board members at the time of the donation apparently held concurrent positions within PDVSA, the foreign parent that the Venezuelan government owns. … Although CITGO Holding, Inc., and the CITGO Board of Directors were purportedly responsible for appointing CITGO’s board members and executive officers, respectively, the Venezuelan government apparently had considerable influence over key personnel decisions at CITGO. For example, Venezuela’s President on November 22, 2017, reportedly named Asdrúbal Chávez, a cousin of former President Hugo Chávez, as the new president of CITGO in an event broadcast on state television.

The professional staff also noted that, since 1978, the FEC had long interpreted foreign-national ban language nearly identical to that in the inaugural committee regulation as prohibiting foreign national participation in the decision-making process.

Since the unrefuted facts indicates that the entire board of CEO consisted of Venezuelan appointees and Citgo management was closely intertwined with the Venezuelan government, the staff concluded:

These circumstances, coupled with the considerable control that the Venezuelan government apparently had in CITGO operations and in the absence of any explanation by Respondents, raise a sufficient inference that foreign nationals on CITGO’s board and in its holding companies may have indirectly made the donation to the Inaugural Committee, which the regulation prohibits. Accordingly, we recommend that the Commission find reason to believe that Petroléos de Venezuela, S.A, CITGO Petroleum Corporation, and CITGO Holding, Inc., violated 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(j) by making a foreign national donation….

Commissioners Broussard, Walther, and Weintraub voted in favor of finding reason to believe that Citgo and PDVSA had made an illegal foreign donation, as the FEC’s nonpolitical career staff had recommended. Commissioners Cooksey, Dickerson, and Trainor voted against. The 3-3 deadlock prevented the action from moving forward. (The decision was not lightly received; after the action was blocked, two commissioners dissented from closing the file.)

Commissioners Cooksey, Dickerson, and Trainor provided a written statement<https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7243/7243_20.pdf> explaining their vote against enforcement. These commissioners argued that the FEC’s professional career staff misunderstood the law. Rather, they argued that, as long as PDVSA didn’t provide or reimburse the funds used for the donation, then the donation came from Citgo, a legally distinct entity. Furthermore, they opined that even if the Venezuelan PDVSA-appointed directors of Citgo participated in Citgo’s decision to make the donation, it would not constitute a foreign national “indirectly” making a donation within the meaning of the FEC regulation.

While the other three commissioners disagreed with this analysis, the Commission can only enforce by majority vote, so a 3-3 split vote means that enforcement is blocked.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121941&title=FEC%20Republican%20Commissioners%20Pave%20Way%20for%20More%20Foreign%20Corporate%20Influence%20in%20U.S.%20Campaigns>
Posted in campaign finance<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, federal election commission<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>

“How three major news organizations all got a story about Rudy Giuliani wrong”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121939>
Posted on May 4, 2021 6:57 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121939> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

WaPo:<https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/giuliani-correction-washington-post-new-york-times/2021/05/03/3d422f42-ac34-11eb-b476-c3b287e52a01_story.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top>

Incorrect information from government sources apparently led three separate news organizations to publish the same erroneous claim about Rudolph W. Giuliani last week that all three later corrected.

The Washington Post, the New York Times and NBC News all reported Thursday that the FBI had briefed the lawyer to President Donald Trump that he was a target of a Russian disinformation campaign during his efforts to dig up unflattering information about then-candidate Joe Biden in 2019.

In fact, the news organizations later said in corrections appended to their stories Saturday that Giuliani had not been briefed by the FBI.

The original stories were published after Wednesday’s FBI raid of Giuliani’s office and home, part of a criminal investigation of his activities in Ukraine. In the corrected versions of their stories, both The Post and NBC reported that the FBI was aware that Giuliani was a target of a Russian operation — and that it planned to warn him about this but ultimately did not.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121939&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20three%20major%20news%20organizations%20all%20got%20a%20story%20about%20Rudy%20Giuliani%20wrong%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

Question of the Day<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121937>
Posted on May 3, 2021 2:57 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121937> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

From OANN<https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/1389331198728491010>:
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121937&title=Question%20of%20the%20Day>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

Stanford Event Thursday on Facebook Oversight Board’s Trump Decision (Expected Wednesday)<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121935>
Posted on May 3, 2021 11:54 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121935> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

This<https://stanford.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Stg28alRTuOGBWhUXTZUFw> looks to be a very important event (registration required):

The Facebook Oversight Board will release its decision concerning the takedown of President Donald Trump’s account this Wednesday. On Thursday, May 6, from 2:00 to 3:15 PM Pacific, members of the Oversight Board will be joined by the leaders of the Stanford Cyber Policy Center to discuss the Board’s decision. Two members of the Oversight Board, Michael McConnell and Julie Owono, will be joined by Nate Persily, Renee DiResta, Daphne Keller, Marietje Schaake and Alex Stamos to discuss the decision and its implications for Facebook’s handling of similar controversies around the world.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121935&title=Stanford%20Event%20Thursday%20on%20Facebook%20Oversight%20Board%E2%80%99s%20Trump%20Decision%20(Expected%20Wednesday)>
Posted in cheap speech<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=130>

Trump Tries to Flip “Big Lie” Statement in Effort To Neutralize Term’s Use Against His Repeated and Dangerous False Statements that the 2020 Election Was Stolen<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121933>
Posted on May 3, 2021 8:46 am<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=121933> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Vintage Trump<https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1389227677396217859?s=20>.
[Share]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D121933&title=Trump%20Tries%20to%20Flip%20%E2%80%9CBig%20Lie%E2%80%9D%20Statement%20in%20Effort%20To%20Neutralize%20Term%E2%80%99s%20Use%20Against%20His%20Repeated%20and%20Dangerous%20False%20Statements%20that%20the%202020%20Election%20Was%20Stolen>
Posted in chicanery<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>, fraudulent fraud squad<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>

--
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/20210504/f996bcbc/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/20210504/f996bcbc/attachment.png>