election-law_gl-digest Friday, January 11 2002 Volume 01 : Number 119
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:38:23 -0800
From: "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu>
Subject: Limits on ability to spend money with others on independent expen ditures
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19A7B.54BF4280
Content-Type: text/plain
Lincoln Club v. City of Irvine, 2001 WL 1630579 (9th Cir. Dec.
20), holds that the government may limit contributions to a committee that
engages in *independent expenditures* supporting or opposing a candidate
(and the limit can be as low as $320 per two-year election cycle). In
fact, the committee may be barred from making any independent expenditures
at all if the source of the money is membership dues that exceed the
ordinance's maximum. Preventing the appearance of corruption, the court
reasoned, is a compelling interest, and "It seems highly unlikely that a
candidate for local office would not notice the identities of the
individual contributors . . . who made contributions to the independent
expenditure committee that independently spent money on the candidate's
behalf."
Can this be right, given Buckley? After all, the same reasoning
has been rejected when it comes to limiting independent expenditures by
individuals. You have a right to take out an ad in a newspaper, even for
thousands of dollars, in order to support or oppose a candidate even
though it may be highly likely that the candidate would notice your
identity. Why don't several people have a right to pool their resources
to take out a similar ad? In fact, isn't this what advocacy groups of the
NRA / NARAL / NAACP stripe do when they put out independent ads -- use
money they raise, some of it doubtless in large chunks, to express the
views endorsed by their members? It seems to me that this ability -- the
ability to gather one's resources with others in order to speak more
effectively -- is at the heart of the freedom of expressive association.
(Recall that this is an *independent expenditure* case, not a case
involving contributions to a candidate.)
A further oddity is that the Circuit remanded for a finding as to
the city's true purpose in enacting the ordinance -- if the purpose was
preventing the appearance of corruption, the ordinance would be upheld,
but if it were leveling the playing field, it would be struck down.
Any thoughts on this?
Eugene
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19A7B.54BF4280
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>Limits on ability to spend money with others on independent =
expen ditures</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Lincoln Club v. City of =
Irvine, 2001 WL 1630579 (9th Cir. Dec. 20), holds that the government =
may limit contributions to a committee that engages in *independent =
expenditures* supporting or opposing a candidate (and the limit can be =
as low as $320 per two-year election cycle).=A0 In fact, the committee =
may be barred from making any independent expenditures at all if the =
source of the money is membership dues that exceed the ordinance's =
maximum.=A0 Preventing the appearance of corruption, the court =
reasoned, is a compelling interest, and "It seems highly unlikely =
that a candidate for local office would not notice the identities of =
the individual contributors . . . who made contributions to the =
independent expenditure committee that independently spent money on the =
candidate's behalf."</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Can this be right, given =
Buckley?=A0 After all, the same reasoning has been rejected when it =
comes to limiting independent expenditures by individuals.=A0 You have =
a right to take out an ad in a newspaper, even for thousands of =
dollars, in order to support or oppose a candidate even though it may =
be highly likely that the candidate would notice your identity.=A0 Why =
don't several people have a right to pool their resources to take out a =
similar ad?=A0 In fact, isn't this what advocacy groups of the NRA / =
NARAL / NAACP stripe do when they put out independent ads -- use money =
they raise, some of it doubtless in large chunks, to express the views =
endorsed by their members?=A0 It seems to me that this ability -- the =
ability to gather one's resources with others in order to speak more =
effectively -- is at the heart of the freedom of expressive =
association.=A0 (Recall that this is an *independent expenditure* case, =
not a case involving contributions to a candidate.)</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 A further oddity is that =
the Circuit remanded for a finding as to the city's true purpose in =
enacting the ordinance -- if the purpose was preventing the appearance =
of corruption, the ordinance would be upheld, but if it were leveling =
the playing field, it would be struck down.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Any thoughts on this? =
</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Eugene </FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19A7B.54BF4280--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:06:18 -0500
From: Dan Ortiz <dro@virginia.edu>
Subject: Characteristics of Voting Fraud Prosecutions?
Stephen Ansolabehere from MIT, who I hope will soon join the list serv,
asked me the following set of questions about voting fraud prosecutions. I
knew of no studies and had no direct knowledge myself but thought that the
group might be able to help out. If you want to contact him directly, his
email address is sda@mit.edu but the discussion might well interest many
members of the list. Thanks.
Do you know if anyone has tried to collect the cases in which there are
allegations of voter fraud over the last, say, 10 years? I'm interested in
the following quesitons. How many election or voter fraud cases have there
been in recent years? What do they involve - absentee ballots,
registration, etc? At what level are they? How many votes are involved?
------------------------------
End of election-law_gl-digest V1 #119
*************************************