election-law_gl-digest Wednesday, June 27 2001 Volume 01 : Number 032
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 12:58:13 -0500
From: Steven Mulroy <smulroy@memphis.edu>
Subject: Request For Input
- --------------DD318DF627115F32DA3460B9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I am new to the listserv. I'm a first-year law professor who used to
litigate for the US Justice Department's Voting Section, and who has
published some law review articles on alternative (PR) electoral
systems. I also worked pro bono last fall on the Palm Beach County, FL
"butterfly ballot" case.
I've written a law review article on one issue raised by the butterfly
ballot case--specifically, whether courts have the authority to order
special election remedies in cases concerning federal elections. I
argue that they do, and should (under the right circumstances), and I
reject the argument that courts have no such power because Congress has
set uniform election dates for regular federal elections.
I would be very interested in circulating my draft among any willing
listserv member for input before I send it out for placement in a law
journal this fall. If any of you would be willing to look at the draft
this summer, please let me know. I would very much appreciate any
comments you might have.
- --
Steven J. Mulroy
Assistant Professor
University of Memphis School of Law
207 Humphreys Law School
Memphis, TN 38152
(901) 678-4494
FAX: (901) 678-5210
- --------------DD318DF627115F32DA3460B9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
I am new to the listserv. I'm a first-year law professor who used
to litigate for the US Justice Department's Voting Section, and who has
published some law review articles on alternative (PR) electoral systems.
I also worked pro bono last fall on the Palm Beach County, FL "butterfly
ballot" case.
<p>I've written a law review article on one issue raised by the butterfly
ballot case--specifically, whether courts have the authority to order special
election remedies in cases concerning federal elections. I argue
that they do, and should (under the right circumstances), and I reject
the argument that courts have no such power because Congress has set uniform
election dates for <u>regular</u> federal elections.
<p>I would be very interested in circulating my draft among any willing
listserv member for input before I send it out for placement in a law journal
this fall. If any of you would be willing to look at the draft this
summer, please let me know. I would very much appreciate any comments
you might have.
<p>--
<br>Steven J. Mulroy
<br>Assistant Professor
<br>University of Memphis School of Law
<br>207 Humphreys Law School
<br>Memphis, TN 38152
<br>(901) 678-4494
<br>FAX: (901) 678-5210
<br> </html>
- --------------DD318DF627115F32DA3460B9--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 15:02:07 -0400
From: "Michael Malbin" <mmalbin@cfinst.org>
Subject: Campaign Finance Institute's Analysis of Colorado's Impact
Colleagues:
I thought the members of this listserv
would be interested in our analysis of some
of the likely effects of Colorado II.
* * * * * * * * *
Michael J. Malbin
Executive Director
Campaign Finance Institute
1990 M Street NW (Suite 380)
Washington, D.C. 20036
202-969-8890
FAX: 202-969-5612
mmalbin@CFInst.org
* * * * * * * * *
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
Michael Malbin/Executive Director
Daniel Manatt/Associate Director
(202) 969-8890
www.CFInst.org
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PRACTICAL EFFECTS OF THE COLORADO DECISION:
MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS
An Analysis From
The Campaign Finance Institute
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Washington, D.C., June 26 -- Lost in the debate over the Supreme
Court's decision in FEC v. Colorado Republican Committee was a
simple question: Will the decision have any real-world effects?
"In practical terms, the Court's decision yielded more questions
than answers," said Michael Malbin, Executive Director of the
Campaign Finance Institute. "Coordinated spending, independent
spending and soft money are three ways parties use to get to the
same place. Colorado was about coordinated spending; it told us
little about the future of soft money or independent spending."
Malbin continued: "We'll know about soft money once Congress
finishes with McCain-Feingold. We won't know about independent
spending until the FEC writes new rules, and political experts
adapt to the new strategic context."
THE DECISION WILL HAVE NO IMPACT IF MCCAIN-FEINGOLD IS
NOT ENACTED: If campaign finance reform is not enacted,
party soft money spending will remain the parties' dominant
spending mechanism, and make coordinated spending largely
irrelevant -- as they have been ever since the soft money became
the spending method of choice during the 1996 election.
IF McCAIN-FEINGOLD BECOMES LAW: The parties may either use
coordinated expenditures, which are limited, or independent
expenditures, which are not. Which they choose will depend on
the following:
* DISCOURAGING PARTY INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES: PARTIES WILL HAVE
TO CHOOSE BETWEEN COORDINATED OR INDEPENDENT SPENDING: Parties
would be required by McCain-Feingold to choose on a race-by-race
basis whether they are going to make independent or coordinated
expenditures. No party could use independent spending if any
related party committee coordinated with the candidate. This
provision could well force a party to forego working with its
candidates on registration and turnout if it wants to do
independent advertising. Parties that choose independent
spending may also have to set up a separate administrative
apparatus.
* ENCOURAGING PARTY INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES: REDUCED COST TV
FOR PARTIES: Under a little noticed quirk in McCain-Feingold,
given the outcome of Colorado II, parties would pay "lowest unit
rates" for both coordinated and independent TV ads. This would
add to the incentive for choosing independent spending.
* FEC "PARTY INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE" RULES - HOW STRICT, HOW
ENFORCED?: Parties may decide not to make independent
expenditures if tough legal standards must be met. McCain-
Feingold in its original version contained strong but
controversial anti-coordination language. The bill that passed
the Senate contained general language and directed the FEC to
fill in the particulars. The Supreme Court's opinion in Colorado
II invites detailed regulation, but the FEC just recently wrote
new coordination rules that are far more lenient than the Court
would seem to allow.
In the end, then, whether party independent expenditures will
prove the vehicle parties use to get around Colorado II and
coordinated spending limits will depend on whether the parties
want to coordinate their ground war activities with the
candidates, whether the media market in a particular district
makes "lowest unit cost" worth it, and whether FEC's party-
candidate coordination rules remain lenient and lightly enforced.
Concluded CFI's Malbin: "Party spending in 2002 could look more
like substitution than subtraction. Colorado without McCain-
Feingold equals soft money. With McCain-Feingold, the Colorado
cases will mean more independent spending. How much, and where,
will depend on the circumstances.
http://www.CFInst.org
------------------------------
End of election-law_gl-digest V1 #32
************************************