election-law_gl-digest Friday, March 8 2002 Volume 01 : Number 156
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 15:43:10 -0500
From: "Trevor Potter" <TP@capdale.com>
Subject: RE: "Same rules as the candidates"
The answer is that candidates have (in legal theory) ONLY hard money--it is either individual contributions given within limits to their campaign committees, or the candidate's own, personal, funds. Corporations have soft money in their treasuries (that i
s, funds that they are probited by longstanding law from spending in federal elections), and hard money in a federal PAC account (IF they choose to establish a PAC, and individuals choose to give to it). Thus, both corporations and candidates can use hard
money, and only hard money, for federal election activities.
Trevor Potter
Caplin & Drysdale
One Thomas Circle, N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005-5802
t: (202) 862-5092 f: (202) 429-3301
TP@capdale.com
"Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu> 03/08/02 03:04PM >>>
I'm not sure I quite follow. When a candidate is spending his own
money 59 days before the election, that's money that he at some point
earned, inherited, made from investments, or was given (usually by family
members). Buckley allows the government to limit the money that one can
give to a candidate with the intention that he spend it on the campaign.
But the government may not stop the candidate from spending money he earned
before the campaign: Tthe candidate's past earnings aren't classified as
"hard money" (even if they were earned in large chunks) or "soft money" --
they're just his money.
But barring corporations from running express advocacy 59 days
before the election keeps them from doing this very same thing. A candidate
can spend money that he earned in the past; but IBM -- or for that matter a
501(c)(4) that earns money from investments or consulting or whatever else
- -- cannot spend money that it earned in the past. How is this "plac[ing]
corporations, unions and other groups under the same rules as candidates"?
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Mann [SMTP:TMANN@brookings.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 11:30 AM
To: VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: "Same rules as the candidates"
Yes, as along as they, like candidates, use hard money. Individuals, like
individual candidates, can spend as much as they want from their own
resources.
"Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu> 03/08/02 01:37PM >>>
I'm a bit puzzled by the following paragraph. Is it really the
case that Shays-Meehan would "plac[e] corporations, unions and other
groups under the same rules as candidates"? Candidates can spend their
money all they want, given Buckley, whether 50 days before the election or
70. Would corporations and unions be able to do the same? What am I
missing here?
Eugene
March 07, 2002
Guest Observers
By Norman J. Ornstein and Thomas Mann
Campaign Finance Critics Pushing Myths - Not
Reality . . .
o Myth No. 4: Citizens will be silenced and unable to criticize
politicians close to an election.
Reality: Political speech is, of course, the most protected
speech under the First Amendment. And no speakers are more
significant than the candidates for office themselves. But the
Supreme Court has regularly upheld the right of Congress to
regulate the money contributed to candidates to finance their
campaigns and their campaign communication. Current law
doesn't prevent candidates from running any ads, including
those harshly critical of their opponents, within 60 days of an
election or at any time. By placing corporations, unions and
other groups under the same rules as candidates,
Shays-Meehan no more silences citizens than current law
silences candidates.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Hasen [SMTP:rick.hasen@lls.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 10:21 AM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Roll Call: Guest Observer
Here's an op-ed by Norm Ornstein and Tom Mann from Roll Call arguing in
favor of passage of Shays-Meehan.
Rick
<http://www.rollcall.com/pages/columns/observers/>
--
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
<http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html>
<< File: ATT202542.htm >>
< - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:13:20 -0800
From: "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu>
Subject: RE: "Same rules as the candidates"
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_01C1C6E6.12C80280
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
I guess I don't quite grasp this theory.
Say that I make some money from, for instance, selling computer
software. I run for office, and 59 days before the election, I may run an
ad -- out of those funds that I have amassed -- saying "Vote for Volokh."
Say that a corporation makes some money from, for instance, selling
computer software. 59 days before the election, it *may not*, under
Shays-Meehan, run an ad -- out of those funds that it has amassed -- saying
"Vote against Volokh."
How is this "placing corporations . . . under the same rules as
candidates"? Sure, you can call the money I earned from software "hard
money" and call the money the corporation earned "soft money," but that's
just another way of saying that you're placing corporations under
*different* rules than candidates.
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
From: Trevor Potter [SMTP:TP@capdale.com]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 12:43 PM
To: VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: RE: "Same rules as the candidates"
The answer is that candidates have (in legal theory) ONLY hard money--it
is either individual contributions given within limits to their campaign
committees, or the candidate's own, personal, funds. Corporations have
soft money in their treasuries (that is, funds that they are probited by
longstanding law from spending in federal elections), and hard money in a
federal PAC account (IF they choose to establish a PAC, and individuals
choose to give to it). Thus, both corporations and candidates can use hard
money, and only hard money, for federal election activities.
Trevor Potter
Caplin & Drysdale
One Thomas Circle, N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005-5802
t: (202) 862-5092 f: (202) 429-3301
TP@capdale.com
"Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu> 03/08/02 03:04PM >>>
I'm not sure I quite follow. When a candidate is spending his own
money 59 days before the election, that's money that he at some point
earned, inherited, made from investments, or was given (usually by family
members). Buckley allows the government to limit the money that one can
give to a candidate with the intention that he spend it on the campaign.
But the government may not stop the candidate from spending money he
earned
before the campaign: Tthe candidate's past earnings aren't classified as
"hard money" (even if they were earned in large chunks) or "soft money" --
they're just his money.
But barring corporations from running express advocacy 59 days
before the election keeps them from doing this very same thing. A
candidate
can spend money that he earned in the past; but IBM -- or for that matter
a
501(c)(4) that earns money from investments or consulting or whatever else
-- cannot spend money that it earned in the past. How is this "plac[ing]
corporations, unions and other groups under the same rules as candidates"?
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Mann [SMTP:TMANN@brookings.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 11:30 AM
To: VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: "Same rules as the candidates"
Yes, as along as they, like candidates, use hard money. Individuals,
like
individual candidates, can spend as much as they want from their own
resources.
"Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu> 03/08/02 01:37PM >>>
I'm a bit puzzled by the following paragraph. Is it really the
case that Shays-Meehan would "plac[e] corporations, unions and other
groups under the same rules as candidates"? Candidates can spend their
money all they want, given Buckley, whether 50 days before the election
or
70. Would corporations and unions be able to do the same? What am I
missing here?
Eugene
March 07, 2002
Guest Observers
By Norman J. Ornstein and Thomas Mann
Campaign Finance Critics Pushing Myths - Not
Reality . . .
o Myth No. 4: Citizens will be silenced and unable to criticize
politicians close to an election.
Reality: Political speech is, of course, the most protected
speech under the First Amendment. And no speakers are more
significant than the candidates for office themselves. But the
Supreme Court has regularly upheld the right of Congress to
regulate the money contributed to candidates to finance their
campaigns and their campaign communication. Current law
doesn't prevent candidates from running any ads, including
those harshly critical of their opponents, within 60 days of an
election or at any time. By placing corporations, unions and
other groups under the same rules as candidates,
Shays-Meehan no more silences citizens than current law
silences candidates.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Hasen [SMTP:rick.hasen@lls.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 10:21 AM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Roll Call: Guest Observer
Here's an op-ed by Norm Ornstein and Tom Mann from Roll Call arguing in
favor of passage of Shays-Meehan.
Rick
<http://www.rollcall.com/pages/columns/observers/>
--
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
<http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html>
<< File: ATT202542.htm >>
< - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1C6E6.12C80280
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=3Dus-ascii">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: "Same rules as the candidates"</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P> <FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" =
FACE=3D"Arial">I guess I don't quite grasp this theory.</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Say that I make some money from, for instance, selling =
computer software. I run for office, and 59 days before the =
election, I may run an ad -- out of those funds that I have amassed -- =
saying "Vote for Volokh."</FONT></P>
<P> <FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Say that a corporation makes some money from, for =
instance, selling computer software. 59 days before the election, =
it *may not*, under Shays-Meehan, run an ad -- out of those funds that =
it has amassed -- saying "Vote against Volokh."</FONT></P>
<P> <FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" =
FACE=3D"Arial">How is this "placing corporations . . . under the =
same rules as candidates"? Sure, you can call the money I =
earned from software "hard money" and call the money the =
corporation earned "soft money," but that's just another way =
of saying that you're placing corporations under *different* rules than =
candidates.</FONT></P>
<P> <FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Eugene</FONT>
</P>
<UL>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">From: </FONT></B> <FONT =
SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Trevor Potter [SMTP:TP@capdale.com]</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Sent: </FONT></B> <FONT =
SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Friday, March 08, 2002 12:43 PM</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Arial">To: </FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Arial">VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu; =
election-law@majordomo.lls.edu</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Arial">Subject: </FONT>=
</B> <FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">RE: "Same rules as the =
candidates"</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">The answer is that candidates have (in =
legal theory) ONLY hard money--it is either individual contributions =
given within limits to their campaign committees, or the candidate's =
own, personal, funds. Corporations have soft money in their treasuries =
(that is, funds that they are probited by longstanding law from =
spending in federal elections), and hard money in a federal PAC account =
(IF they choose to establish a PAC, and individuals choose to give to =
it). Thus, both corporations and candidates can use hard money, and =
only hard money, for federal election activities.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Trevor Potter</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Caplin & Drysdale</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">One Thomas Circle, N.W., Suite =
1100</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Washington, D.C. 20005-5802</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">t: (202) 862-5092 f: (202) =
429-3301</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">TP@capdale.com</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">>>> "Volokh, =
Eugene" <VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu> 03/08/02 03:04PM =
>>></FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Arial">I'm not sure I quite follow. When a candidate is =
spending his own</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">money 59 days before the election, =
that's money that he at some point</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">earned, inherited, made from =
investments, or was given (usually by family</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">members). Buckley allows the =
government to limit the money that one can</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">give to a candidate with the =
intention that he spend it on the campaign.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">But the government may not stop the =
candidate from spending money he earned</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">before the campaign: Tthe =
candidate's past earnings aren't classified as</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">"hard money" (even if they =
were earned in large chunks) or "soft money" --</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">they're just his money.</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Arial">But barring corporations from running express advocacy =
59 days</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">before the election keeps them from =
doing this very same thing. A candidate</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">can spend money that he earned in the =
past; but IBM -- or for that matter a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">501(c)(4) that earns money from =
investments or consulting or whatever else</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">-- cannot spend money that it earned =
in the past. How is this "plac[ing]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">corporations, unions and other groups =
under the same rules as candidates"?</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Arial">Eugene</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> From: Thomas Mann =
[SMTP:TMANN@brookings.edu] </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 =
11:30 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> To: =
VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> =
Subject: Re: "Same rules as the =
candidates"</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> Yes, as along as they, like =
candidates, use hard money. Individuals, like</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> individual candidates, can spend =
as much as they want from their own</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> resources.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> >>> "Volokh, =
Eugene" <VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu> 03/08/02 01:37PM =
>>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Arial">> I'm =
a bit puzzled by the following paragraph. Is it really the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> case that Shays-Meehan would =
"plac[e] corporations, unions and other</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> groups under the same rules as =
candidates"? Candidates can spend their</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> money all they want, given =
Buckley, whether 50 days before the election or</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> 70. Would corporations and =
unions be able to do the same? What am I</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> missing here?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Arial">> =
Eugene </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> March 07, 2002 =
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> Guest =
Observers </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> By Norman J. =
Ornstein and Thomas Mann </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> Campaign =
Finance Critics Pushing Myths - Not </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> Reality . . . =
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> o Myth No. 4: =
Citizens will be silenced and unable to criticize </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> politicians =
close to an election. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> Reality: =
Political speech is, of course, the most protected </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> speech under =
the First Amendment. And no speakers are more </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> significant =
than the candidates for office themselves. But the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> Supreme Court =
has regularly upheld the right of Congress to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> regulate the =
money contributed to candidates to finance their </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> campaigns and =
their campaign communication. Current law </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> doesn't =
prevent candidates from running any ads, including </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> those harshly =
critical of their opponents, within 60 days of an </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> election or at =
any time. By placing corporations, unions and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> other groups =
under the same rules as candidates, </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> Shays-Meehan =
no more silences citizens than current law </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> silences =
candidates. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> -----Original Message----- =
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> From: Rick Hasen =
[SMTP:rick.hasen@lls.edu] </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> Sent: Friday, March =
08, 2002 10:21 AM </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> To: =
election-law@majordomo.lls.edu </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> =
Subject: Roll Call: Guest =
Observer </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> Here's an op-ed by Norm Ornstein =
and Tom Mann from Roll Call arguing in </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> favor of passage of =
Shays-Meehan. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> Rick </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> <<A =
HREF=3D"http://www.rollcall.com/pages/columns/observers/" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.rollcall.com/pages/columns/observers/</A>&g=
t; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> -- </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> Rick Hasen </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> Professor of Law and William M. =
Rains Fellow </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> Loyola Law School </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> 919 South Albany Street </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211 =
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> (213)736-1466 - voice </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> (213)380-3769 - fax </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> rick.hasen@lls.edu </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> <<A =
HREF=3D"http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html</A>>=
; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> << File: =
ATT202542.htm >> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">< - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - =
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">This message is for the use of the =
intended recipient only. It is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">from a law firm and may contain =
information that is privileged and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">confidential. If you are not =
the intended recipient any disclosure,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">copying, future distribution, or use =
of this communication is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">prohibited. If you have =
received this communication in error, please</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">advise us by return e-mail, or if you =
have received this communication</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">by fax advise us by telephone and =
delete/destroy the document.</FONT>
</P>
</UL>
</BODY>
</HTML>
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1C6E6.12C80280--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 16:26:07 -0500
From: "Roy Schotland" <schotlan@law.georgetown.edu>
Subject: Re: "Same rules as the candidates"
Gene Volokh needs no aid, but this is Trevor's second email I just can't resist.
On today's email: what is the "legal theory" that makes candidate's personal funds, hard money? I thought Buckley was part of our legal theory, and that it said candidates are unlimited in personal additions on top of their regulated funds.
Second, in an earlier email from Trevor about the ban against giving by kids, he said --unquestionably correctly-- that we've had substantial experience of contributions by kids, even infants, which are really from their parents, and so are evasions o
f the individual cap. But Trevor, what of narrow tailoring? Would you be opposed to something like this: Ban contributions from kids below age, say, 14 (a significant level for "independence", I believe, in tax law), and between 14-18, allow up to $X.
Or allow 14-18 to contribute, subject to their having to show, if
called upon, that this was their own decision ...?
Given possibilities like that, are you saying Volokh is wrong to suggest that the ban may be, or is, unconst'l?
Trevor Potter wrote:
The answer is that candidates have (in legal theory) ONLY hard money--it is either individual contributions given within limits to their campaign committees, or the candidate's own, personal, funds. Corporations have soft money in their treasuries (that
is, funds that they are probited by longstanding law from spending in federal elections), and hard money in a federal PAC account (IF they choose to establish a PAC, and individuals choose to give to it). Thus, both corporations and candidates can use ha
rd money, and only hard money, for federal election activities.
Trevor Potter
Caplin & Drysdale
One Thomas Circle, N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005-5802
t: (202) 862-5092 f: (202) 429-3301
TP@capdale.com
"Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu> 03/08/02 03:04PM >>>
I'm not sure I quite follow. When a candidate is spending his own
money 59 days before the election, that's money that he at some point
earned, inherited, made from investments, or was given (usually by family
members). Buckley allows the government to limit the money that one can
give to a candidate with the intention that he spend it on the campaign.
But the government may not stop the candidate from spending money he earned
before the campaign: Tthe candidate's past earnings aren't classified as
"hard money" (even if they were earned in large chunks) or "soft money" --
they're just his money.
But barring corporations from running express advocacy 59 days
before the election keeps them from doing this very same thing. A candidate
can spend money that he earned in the past; but IBM -- or for that matter a
501(c)(4) that earns money from investments or consulting or whatever else
-- cannot spend money that it earned in the past. How is this "plac[ing]
corporations, unions and other groups under the same rules as candidates"?
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Mann [SMTP:TMANN@brookings.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 11:30 AM
To: VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: "Same rules as the candidates"
Yes, as along as they, like candidates, use hard money. Individuals, like
individual candidates, can spend as much as they want from their own
resources.
"Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu> 03/08/02 01:37PM >>>
I'm a bit puzzled by the following paragraph. Is it really the
case that Shays-Meehan would "plac[e] corporations, unions and other
groups under the same rules as candidates"? Candidates can spend their
money all they want, given Buckley, whether 50 days before the election or
70. Would corporations and unions be able to do the same? What am I
missing here?
Eugene
March 07, 2002
Guest Observers
By Norman J. Ornstein and Thomas Mann
Campaign Finance Critics Pushing Myths - Not
Reality . . .
o Myth No. 4: Citizens will be silenced and unable to criticize
politicians close to an election.
Reality: Political speech is, of course, the most protected
speech under the First Amendment. And no speakers are more
significant than the candidates for office themselves. But the
Supreme Court has regularly upheld the right of Congress to
regulate the money contributed to candidates to finance their
campaigns and their campaign communication. Current law
doesn't prevent candidates from running any ads, including
those harshly critical of their opponents, within 60 days of an
election or at any time. By placing corporations, unions and
other groups under the same rules as candidates,
Shays-Meehan no more silences citizens than current law
silences candidates.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Hasen [SMTP:rick.hasen@lls.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 10:21 AM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Roll Call: Guest Observer
Here's an op-ed by Norm Ornstein and Tom Mann from Roll Call arguing in
favor of passage of Shays-Meehan.
Rick
<http://www.rollcall.com/pages/columns/observers/>
--
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
<http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html>
<< File: ATT202542.htm >>
< - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
- --
Roy A. Schotland
Professor
Georgetown U. Law Ctr.
600 New Jersey Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
phone 202/662-9098
fax 662-9680 or -9444
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 13:30:56 -0800
From: Rick Hasen <rick.hasen@lls.edu>
Subject: Re: Ornstein-Mann, Shays-Meehan, and MCFL
- --------------CD3B76CABBEE6CA93A392731
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On this point, there has been much discussion on the list re the
Wellstone amendment. The bottom line is that *incorporated* 501(c)(4)s,
and any unincorporated groups that take corporate or union money, cannot
engage in express advocacy in the period. This statement is limited,
however, by the MCFL exception. As has been noted, there's some question
as to whether ideological groups as in MCFL (organized in corporate
form) that take a small portion of labor or union funds have a
constitutional right under MCFL to be treated more favorably than other
corporate groups. Presumably the MCFL exception will be read into
Shays-Meehan if it passes.
Rick
"Volokh, Eugene" wrote:
I appreciate that point as to *economic* corporations, but I
had thought that Shays-Meehan also limited express advocacy by
501(c)(4)s. Am I mistaken on that?
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Mann [SMTP:TMANN@brookings.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 11:34 AM
To: VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: Ornstein-Mann, Shays-Meehan, and MCFL
Our point was the constitutionality of treating economic
corporations differently from others. Dan Ortiz lays out the
logic in his presentation at the March 1, 2002 briefing on the
Brookings campaign finance website.
>>> "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu> 03/08/02 01:40PM
>>>
I'm also puzzled by the paragraph from Orstein & Mann
quoted below. I had understood that Shays-Meehan would ban
express advocacy by 501(c)(4)s -- unless they do this through
PACs that gather the money under contribution limits -- within 60
days of the election. How is that "tak[ing the] cue directly
from . . . Massachusetts Citizens For Life"? What am I missing
here?
Eugene
As for issue advocacy, the language in the bill requiring that
candidate-specific, targeted ads running close to an election
and funded directly or indirectly by corporations or unions be
financed with hard money takes its cue directly from the
court's
reasoning in two important campaign finance cases: Austin and
Massachusetts Citizens For Life. The provision is scrupulously
grounded in the reasoning behind the landmark 1976 Buckley
case, making a small adjustment in the "bright line" the court
drew between "express advocacy" and "issue advocacy" based
on a thorough empirical record - something not available at
the
time of the Buckley decision - that shows a radically
different
political world than existed in 1976. Chief Justice William
Rehnquist said in MCFL, "We are obliged to leave the drawing
of
lines such as this to Congress if those lines are within
constitutional bounds." If he was serious, this careful,
fact-based effort by Congress should pass muster with the
Supreme Court.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Hasen [SMTP:rick.hasen@lls.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 10:21 AM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Roll Call: Guest Observer
Here's an op-ed by Norm Ornstein and Tom Mann from Roll Call
arguing in
favor of passage of Shays-Meehan.
Rick
<http://www.rollcall.com/pages/columns/observers/>
--
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
<http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html>
<< File: ATT202542.htm >>
- --
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
- --------------CD3B76CABBEE6CA93A392731
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
On this point, there has been much discussion on the list re the Wellstone
amendment. The bottom line is that *incorporated* 501(c)(4)s, and any unincorporated
groups that take corporate or union money, cannot engage in express advocacy
in the period. This statement is limited, however, by the MCFL exception.
As has been noted, there's some question as to whether ideological groups
as in MCFL (organized in corporate form) that take a small portion of labor
or union funds have a constitutional right under MCFL to be treated more
favorably than other corporate groups. Presumably the MCFL exception will
be read into Shays-Meehan if it passes.
<br>Rick
<br>
<br>
<p>"Volokh, Eugene" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<p> <font face="Arial"><font color="#000080">I
appreciate that point as to *economic* corporations, but I had thought
that Shays-Meehan also limited express advocacy by 501(c)(4)s. Am
I mistaken on that?</font></font>
<p> <font face="Arial"><font color="#000080">Eugene</font></font>
<ul><font face="Arial"><font size=-2>-----Original Message-----</font></font>
<br><b><font face="Arial"><font size=-2>From: </font></font></b>
<font face="Arial"><font size=-2>Thomas Mann [SMTP:TMANN@brookings.edu]</font></font>
<br><b><font face="Arial"><font size=-2>Sent: </font></font></b>
<font face="Arial"><font size=-2>Friday, March 08, 2002 11:34 AM</font></font>
<br><b><font face="Arial"><font size=-2>To: </font></font></b>
<font face="Arial"><font size=-2>VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu</font></font>
<br><b><font face="Arial"><font size=-2>Subject: </font></font></b>
<font face="Arial"><font size=-2>Re: Ornstein-Mann, Shays-Meehan, and MCFL</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial">Our point was the constitutionality of treating economic
corporations differently from others. Dan Ortiz lays out the logic
in his presentation at the March 1, 2002 briefing on the Brookings campaign
finance website.</font>
<p><font face="Arial">>>> "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu>
03/08/02 01:40PM >>></font>
<p><font face="Arial"> <font color="#000080">I'm
also puzzled by the paragraph from Orstein & Mann quoted below.
I had understood that Shays-Meehan would ban express advocacy by 501(c)(4)s
- -- unless they do this through PACs that gather the money under contribution
limits -- within 60 days of the election. How is that "tak[ing the]
cue directly from . . . Massachusetts Citizens For Life"? What am
I missing here?</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"> <font color="#000080">Eugene</font></font>
<br>
<p><font face="Arial"><font color="#000080">As for issue advocacy, the
language in the bill requiring that</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font color="#000080"> candidate-specific,
targeted ads running close to an election</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font color="#000080"> and funded directly
or indirectly by corporations or unions be</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font color="#000080"> financed with
hard money takes its cue directly from the court's</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font color="#000080"> reasoning in
two important campaign finance cases: Austin and</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font color="#000080"> Massachusetts
Citizens For Life. The provision is scrupulously</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font color="#000080"> grounded in the
reasoning behind the landmark 1976 Buckley</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font color="#000080"> case, making
a small adjustment in the "bright line" the court</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font color="#000080"> drew between
"express advocacy" and "issue advocacy" based</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font color="#000080"> on a thorough
empirical record - something not available at the</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font color="#000080"> time of the Buckley
decision - that shows a radically different</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font color="#000080"> political world
than existed in 1976. Chief Justice William</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font color="#000080"> Rehnquist said
in MCFL, "We are obliged to leave the drawing of</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font color="#000080"> lines such as
this to Congress if those lines are within</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font color="#000080"> constitutional
bounds." If he was serious, this careful,</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font color="#000080"> fact-based effort
by Congress should pass muster with the</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font color="#000080"> Supreme Court.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-2>-----Original Message-----</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><b><font size=-2>From: </font></b> <font size=-2>Rick
Hasen [SMTP:rick.hasen@lls.edu]</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><b><font size=-2>Sent: </font></b> <font size=-2>Friday,
March 08, 2002 10:21 AM</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><b><font size=-2>To: </font></b>
<font size=-2>election-law@majordomo.lls.edu</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><b><font size=-2>Subject: </font></b>
<font size=-2>Roll Call: Guest Observer</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Here's an op-ed by Norm Ornstein and
Tom Mann from Roll Call arguing in</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>favor of passage of Shays-Meehan.</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Rick</font></font>
<p><u><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1><<a href="http://www.rollcall.com/pages/columns/observers/" TARGET="_blank">http://www.rollcall.com/pages/columns/observers/</a>></font></font></font></u>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>--</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Rick Hasen</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Professor of Law and William M. Rains
Fellow</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Loyola Law School</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>919 South Albany Street</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>(213)736-1466 - voice</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>(213)380-3769 - fax</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>rick.hasen@lls.edu</font></font>
<br><u><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1><<a href="http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html</a>></font></font></font></u>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1> << File: ATT202542.htm
</font></font></ul>
</blockquote>
<p>--
<br>Rick Hasen
<br>Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
<br>Loyola Law School
<br>919 South Albany Street
<br>Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
<br>(213)736-1466 - voice
<br>(213)380-3769 - fax
<br>rick.hasen@lls.edu
<br><A HREF="http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html">http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html</A>
<br> </html>
- --------------CD3B76CABBEE6CA93A392731--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 15:05:59 -0800
From: "Robert M. Stern" <stern@cgs.org>
Subject: Politically Sophisticated Kids
The easiest solution to kids' contributions is to attribute the
contributions to their parents. That way if the kids are active (some in
their teens are), then they can give. This stops the usual practice,
however, of parents' "strong arming" their three year olds into giving
$1,000 contributions. We found that San Diego had very sophisticated three
year olds who were giving $250 contributions (the maximum allowed) to city
candidates, the same amount as their moms and dads, believe it or not.
Bob Stern
Robert M. Stern
President
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Center for Governmental Studies
10951 West Pico Blvd., Ste. 120
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (310) 470-6590, ext. 117
Fax: (310) 475-3752
Website: www.cgs.org
Email: stern@cgs.org
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:15:40 -0800
From: "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu>
Subject: RE: Ornstein-Mann, Shays-Meehan, and MCFL
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_01C1C6EE.C848B9D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Hmm -- if indeed the Court sticks with MCFL, then of course
Shays-Meehan will end up being limited by MCFL. All statutes are limited by
constitutional law, no matter what they may say on their face.
But is it quite accurate to say that Shays-Meehan as written (and
not just as it's likely to be trimmed back by the Court on constitutional
grounds) will "pass muster with the Supreme Court" and "takes its cue
directly from the court's reasoning in . . . Austin and [MCFL]"?
What's more, while I think MCFL is correctly decided, can we be 100%
confident that the Court will reaffirm it? Or might it be possible that
some Justices could be influenced by the coordinate branches' seeming
rejection of MCFL, and defer in some measure to that judgment? I'm pretty
confident that O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas will stick with MCFL,
but can we be confident that they'll get the fifth vote? (Surely there are
plenty of voices out there, and some ont he Court, for reversing Buckley --
I'm not sure that MCFL is any more sacred.)
Now maybe it's unlikely that the Court will reaffirm MCFL -- or
maybe, on the other hand, the Court *should* reverse it. But if there is a
conflict between Shays-Meehan and MCFL, then it seems to me that we should
acknowledge that there is this conflict, rather than just treating
Shays-Meehan as if it were consistent with MCFL because surely the Court
will make it consistent.
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Hasen [SMTP:rick.hasen@lls.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 1:31 PM
To: Volokh, Eugene
Cc: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: Ornstein-Mann, Shays-Meehan, and MCFL
On this point, there has been much discussion on the list re the Wellstone
amendment. The bottom line is that *incorporated* 501(c)(4)s, and any
unincorporated groups that take corporate or union money, cannot engage in
express advocacy in the period. This statement is limited, however, by the
MCFL exception. As has been noted, there's some question as to whether
ideological groups as in MCFL (organized in corporate form) that take a
small portion of labor or union funds have a constitutional right under
MCFL to be treated more favorably than other corporate groups. Presumably
the MCFL exception will be read into Shays-Meehan if it passes.
Rick
"Volokh, Eugene" wrote:
I appreciate that point as to *economic* corporations, but I
had thought that Shays-Meehan also limited express advocacy by 501(c)(4)s.
Am I mistaken on that?
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Mann [SMTP:TMANN@brookings.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 11:34 AM
To: VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: Ornstein-Mann, Shays-Meehan, and MCFL
Our point was the constitutionality of treating economic
corporations differently from others. Dan Ortiz lays out the logic in his
presentation at the March 1, 2002 briefing on the Brookings campaign
finance website.
>>> "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu> 03/08/02 01:40PM >>>
I'm also puzzled by the paragraph from Orstein & Mann quoted
below. I had understood that Shays-Meehan would ban express advocacy by
501(c)(4)s -- unless they do this through PACs that gather the money under
contribution limits -- within 60 days of the election. How is that
"tak[ing the] cue directly from . . . Massachusetts Citizens For Life"?
What am I missing here?
Eugene
As for issue advocacy, the language in the bill requiring that
candidate-specific, targeted ads running close to an election
and funded directly or indirectly by corporations or unions be
financed with hard money takes its cue directly from the court's
reasoning in two important campaign finance cases: Austin and
Massachusetts Citizens For Life. The provision is scrupulously
grounded in the reasoning behind the landmark 1976 Buckley
case, making a small adjustment in the "bright line" the court
drew between "express advocacy" and "issue advocacy" based
on a thorough empirical record - something not available at the
time of the Buckley decision - that shows a radically different
political world than existed in 1976. Chief Justice William
Rehnquist said in MCFL, "We are obliged to leave the drawing of
lines such as this to Congress if those lines are within
constitutional bounds." If he was serious, this careful,
fact-based effort by Congress should pass muster with the
Supreme Court.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Hasen [SMTP:rick.hasen@lls.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 10:21 AM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Roll Call: Guest Observer
Here's an op-ed by Norm Ornstein and Tom Mann from Roll Call arguing
in
favor of passage of Shays-Meehan.
Rick
< <http://www.rollcall.com/pages/columns/observers/>>
--
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
< <http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html>>
<< File: ATT202542.htm >>
--
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
<http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html>
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1C6EE.C848B9D0
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>RE: Ornstein-Mann, Shays-Meehan, and MCFL</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P> <FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Hmm -- if indeed the Court sticks with MCFL, then of =
course Shays-Meehan will end up being limited by MCFL. All =
statutes are limited by constitutional law, no matter what they may say =
on their face.</FONT></P>
<P> <FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" =
FACE=3D"Arial">But is it quite accurate to say that Shays-Meehan as =
written (and not just as it's likely to be trimmed back by the Court on =
constitutional grounds) will "pass muster with the Supreme =
Court" and "takes its cue directly from the court's reasoning =
in . . . Austin and [MCFL]"?</FONT></P>
<P> <FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" =
FACE=3D"Arial">What's more, while I think MCFL is correctly decided, =
can we be 100% confident that the Court will reaffirm it? Or =
might it be possible that some Justices could be influenced by the =
coordinate branches' seeming rejection of MCFL, and defer in some =
measure to that judgment? I'm pretty confident that O'Connor, =
Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas will stick with MCFL, but can we be =
confident that they'll get the fifth vote? (Surely there are =
plenty of voices out there, and some ont he Court, for reversing =
Buckley -- I'm not sure that MCFL is any more sacred.)</FONT></P>
<P> <FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Now maybe it's unlikely that the Court will reaffirm =
MCFL -- or maybe, on the other hand, the Court *should* reverse =
it. But if there is a conflict between Shays-Meehan and MCFL, =
then it seems to me that we should acknowledge that there is this =
conflict, rather than just treating Shays-Meehan as if it were =
consistent with MCFL because surely the Court will make it =
consistent.</FONT></P>
<P> <FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Eugene</FONT>
<BR> =20
</P>
<UL>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">From: </FONT></B> <FONT =
SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Rick Hasen [SMTP:rick.hasen@lls.edu]</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Sent: </FONT></B> <FONT =
SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Friday, March 08, 2002 1:31 PM</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Arial">To: </FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Arial">Volokh, Eugene</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Arial">Cc: </FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Arial">election-law@majordomo.lls.edu</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Arial">Subject: </FONT>=
</B> <FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Re: Ornstein-Mann, Shays-Meehan, and =
MCFL</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">On this point, there has been much discussion =
on the list re the Wellstone amendment. The bottom line is that =
*incorporated* 501(c)(4)s, and any unincorporated groups that take =
corporate or union money, cannot engage in express advocacy in the =
period. This statement is limited, however, by the MCFL exception. As =
has been noted, there's some question as to whether ideological groups =
as in MCFL (organized in corporate form) that take a small portion of =
labor or union funds have a constitutional right under MCFL to be =
treated more favorably than other corporate groups. Presumably the MCFL =
exception will be read into Shays-Meehan if it passes.<BR>
Rick<BR>
=A0<BR>
=A0 </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">"Volokh, Eugene" wrote: </FONT>
</P>
<UL>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">=A0 </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 </FONT><FONT =
COLOR=3D"#000080" FACE=3D"Arial">I appreciate that point as to =
*economic* corporations, but I had thought that Shays-Meehan also =
limited express advocacy by 501(c)(4)s.=A0 Am I mistaken on =
that?</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 </FONT><FONT =
COLOR=3D"#000080" FACE=3D"Arial">Eugene</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> =
</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">-----Original Message-----</FONT><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">From:=A0=A0</FONT></B><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Thomas Mann =
[SMTP:TMANN@brookings.edu]</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Sent:=A0=A0</FONT></B><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Friday, March 08, =
2002 11:34 AM</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">To:=A0=A0=A0=A0</FONT></B><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Arial">VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu; =
election-law@majordomo.lls.edu</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Arial">Subject:=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0</FONT></B><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Re: Ornstein-Mann, =
Shays-Meehan, and MCFL</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Our point was the constitutionality of treating =
economic corporations differently from others.=A0 Dan Ortiz lays out =
the logic in his presentation at the March 1, 2002 briefing on the =
Brookings campaign finance website. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">>>> "Volokh, Eugene" =
<VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu> 03/08/02 01:40PM >>> </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 </FONT><FONT =
COLOR=3D"#000080" FACE=3D"Arial">I'm also puzzled by the paragraph from =
Orstein & Mann quoted below.=A0 I had understood that Shays-Meehan =
would ban express advocacy by 501(c)(4)s -- unless they do this through =
PACs that gather the money under contribution limits -- within 60 days =
of the election.=A0 How is that "tak[ing the] cue directly from . =
. . Massachusetts Citizens For Life"?=A0 What am I missing =
here?</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 </FONT><FONT =
COLOR=3D"#000080" FACE=3D"Arial">Eugene</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
=A0 </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" FACE=3D"Arial">As for issue advocacy, the =
language in the bill requiring that</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0 =
candidate-specific, targeted ads running close to an =
election</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0 and funded =
directly or indirectly by corporations or unions be</FONT><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0 financed with hard =
money takes its cue directly from the court's</FONT><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0 reasoning in two =
important campaign finance cases: Austin and</FONT><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0 Massachusetts =
Citizens For Life. The provision is scrupulously</FONT><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0 grounded in the =
reasoning behind the landmark 1976 Buckley</FONT><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0 case, making a =
small adjustment in the "bright line" the court</FONT><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0 drew between =
"express advocacy" and "issue advocacy" =
based</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0 on a thorough =
empirical record - something not available at the</FONT><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0 time of the =
Buckley decision - that shows a radically different</FONT><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0 political world =
than existed in 1976. Chief Justice William</FONT><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0 Rehnquist said in =
MCFL, "We are obliged to leave the drawing of</FONT><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0 lines such as this =
to Congress if those lines are within</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0 constitutional =
bounds." If he was serious, this careful,</FONT><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0 fact-based effort =
by Congress should pass muster with the</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0 Supreme =
Court.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">-----Original Message-----</FONT><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">From:=A0=A0</FONT></B><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Rick Hasen =
[SMTP:rick.hasen@lls.edu]</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Sent:=A0=A0</FONT></B><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Friday, March 08, =
2002 10:21 AM</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">To:=A0=A0=A0=A0</FONT></B><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Arial">election-law@majordomo.lls.edu</FONT><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Arial">Subject:=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0</FONT></B><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Roll Call: Guest =
Observer</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Here's an op-ed by Norm Ornstein and =
Tom Mann from Roll Call arguing in</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">favor of passage of =
Shays-Meehan.</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Rick</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"> =
</FONT>
</P>
<P><U><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">< <<A =
HREF=3D"http://www.rollcall.com/pages/columns/observers/" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.rollcall.com/pages/columns/observers/</A>&g=
t;></FONT></U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">--</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Rick Hasen</FONT><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Professor of Law and William M. =
Rains Fellow</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Loyola Law School</FONT><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">919 South Albany =
Street</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Los Angeles, CA=A0 =
90015-1211</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">(213)736-1466 - voice</FONT><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">(213)380-3769 - fax</FONT><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">rick.hasen@lls.edu</FONT><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><U><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">< <<A =
HREF=3D"http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html</A>>=
;></FONT></U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">=A0<< File: ATT202542.htm =
>></FONT>
</P>
</UL>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">--<BR>
Rick Hasen<BR>
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow<BR>
Loyola Law School<BR>
919 South Albany Street<BR>
Los Angeles, CA=A0 90015-1211<BR>
(213)736-1466 - voice<BR>
(213)380-3769 - fax<BR>
rick.hasen@lls.edu<BR>
</FONT><U><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" FACE=3D"Arial"><<A =
HREF=3D"http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html</A>>=
;</FONT></U><FONT FACE=3D"Arial"><BR>
=A0</FONT>
</P>
</UL>
</BODY>
</HTML>
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1C6EE.C848B9D0--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 16:00:20 -0800
From: "George Waters" <George@olsonhagel.com>
Subject: Re: Politically Sophisticated Kids
No doubt it is easy to attribute kids' contributions to their parents, but in light of the fact that a state is constitutionally prohibited from imposing a blanket requirement of parental consent for a minor's abortion, am i the only one who sees a potent
ial problem with a blanket requirement that kids' contributions be attributed to their parents.
getting back to shays-meehan, what about married minors? How about emancipated minors? Is there an overbreadth issue here?
george waters
olson, hagel, waters & fishburn
555 capitol mall, suite 1425
sacramento, ca 95814
916/442-2952
916/442-1280 (fax)
george@olsonhagel.com
"Robert M. Stern" <stern@cgs.org> 03/08 3:05 PM >>>
The easiest solution to kids' contributions is to attribute the
contributions to their parents. That way if the kids are active (some in
their teens are), then they can give. This stops the usual practice,
however, of parents' "strong arming" their three year olds into giving
$1,000 contributions. We found that San Diego had very sophisticated three
year olds who were giving $250 contributions (the maximum allowed) to city
candidates, the same amount as their moms and dads, believe it or not.
Bob Stern
Robert M. Stern
President
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Center for Governmental Studies
10951 West Pico Blvd., Ste. 120
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (310) 470-6590, ext. 117
Fax: (310) 475-3752
Website: www.cgs.org
Email: stern@cgs.org
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 16:24:16 -0800
From: "Robert M. Stern" <stern@cgs.org>
Subject: FW: Politically Sophisticated Kids
George needs to talk to his law partner, Lance Olson, who wrote California's
Prop. 34, enacted in 2000. It includes a section stating that a child's
contribution is presumed to be a contribution from the child's parent or
guardian. Lance got this section from Prop. 208, passed in 1996.
Bob Stern
Robert M. Stern
President
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Center for Governmental Studies
10951 West Pico Blvd., Ste. 120
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (310) 470-6590, ext. 117
Fax: (310) 475-3752
Website: www.cgs.org
Email: stern@cgs.org
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu]On Behalf Of George Waters
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 4:00 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: Politically Sophisticated Kids
No doubt it is easy to attribute kids' contributions to their parents, but
in light of the fact that a state is constitutionally prohibited from
imposing a blanket requirement of parental consent for a minor's abortion,
am i the only one who sees a potential problem with a blanket requirement
that kids' contributions be attributed to their parents.
getting back to shays-meehan, what about married minors? How about
emancipated minors? Is there an overbreadth issue here?
george waters
olson, hagel, waters & fishburn
555 capitol mall, suite 1425
sacramento, ca 95814
916/442-2952
916/442-1280 (fax)
george@olsonhagel.com
"Robert M. Stern" <stern@cgs.org> 03/08 3:05 PM >>>
The easiest solution to kids' contributions is to attribute the
contributions to their parents. That way if the kids are active (some in
their teens are), then they can give. This stops the usual practice,
however, of parents' "strong arming" their three year olds into giving
$1,000 contributions. We found that San Diego had very sophisticated three
year olds who were giving $250 contributions (the maximum allowed) to city
candidates, the same amount as their moms and dads, believe it or not.
Bob Stern
Robert M. Stern
President
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Center for Governmental Studies
10951 West Pico Blvd., Ste. 120
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (310) 470-6590, ext. 117
Fax: (310) 475-3752
Website: www.cgs.org
Email: stern@cgs.org
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 16:34:48 -0800
From: "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu>
Subject: Straw donations
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_01C1C702.38015D00
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
I'm curious: As I understand it, it's already illegal for people to
give money to someone in order that it be contributed to a candidate. Why
doesn't this stop people from giving $1000 through their 3-year-old's? Or
is it that the 3-year-olds had separate funds in their names (e.g., presents
from relatives), and the parents drew the money from the existing funds
rather than just "giving" the child $1000 and then contributing it? Is it
just that this rule is in practice so hard to enforce in most cases (though
probably not in these ones) that people know it won't be enforced and thus
ignore it, but that a flat ban or attribution requirement would be easier to
enforce and people would therefore be more likely to abide by it?
Also, if I can trouble Bob Stern about this rather than doing my
research, might I ask whether the Prop. 208 and 34 requirements really
involved presumptions, or flat rules? I'm not that troubled by attribution
requirements generally, but I am a bit curious about how they should apply
to minors who are on their own, either emancipated or married. Maybe it's
my personal experience: I started working as a computer programmer when I
was 12, I moved out on my own when I was 16, and I was emancipated when I
was 17 (my parents and I always got along great, but I liked my
independence), so while I realize the value of bright lines, I also chafe a
bit at the notion that 17-year-olds automatically have less free speech
rights than adults. Would framing the test in terms of unemancipated
minors, rather than minors generally, be better, and an equally bright line?
Or is this just such a small detail that it poses neither a constitutional
objection nor a policy objection?
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert M. Stern [SMTP:stern@cgs.org]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 4:24 PM
To: Election Law List Serve
Subject: FW: Politically Sophisticated Kids
George needs to talk to his law partner, Lance Olson, who wrote
California's
Prop. 34, enacted in 2000. It includes a section stating that a child's
contribution is presumed to be a contribution from the child's parent or
guardian. Lance got this section from Prop. 208, passed in 1996.
Bob Stern
Robert M. Stern
President
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Center for Governmental Studies
10951 West Pico Blvd., Ste. 120
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (310) 470-6590, ext. 117
Fax: (310) 475-3752
Website: www.cgs.org
Email: stern@cgs.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu]On Behalf Of George Waters
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 4:00 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: Politically Sophisticated Kids
No doubt it is easy to attribute kids' contributions to their parents, but
in light of the fact that a state is constitutionally prohibited from
imposing a blanket requirement of parental consent for a minor's abortion,
am i the only one who sees a potential problem with a blanket requirement
that kids' contributions be attributed to their parents.
getting back to shays-meehan, what about married minors? How about
emancipated minors? Is there an overbreadth issue here?
george waters
olson, hagel, waters & fishburn
555 capitol mall, suite 1425
sacramento, ca 95814
916/442-2952
916/442-1280 (fax)
george@olsonhagel.com
"Robert M. Stern" <stern@cgs.org> 03/08 3:05 PM >>>
The easiest solution to kids' contributions is to attribute the
contributions to their parents. That way if the kids are active (some in
their teens are), then they can give. This stops the usual practice,
however, of parents' "strong arming" their three year olds into giving
$1,000 contributions. We found that San Diego had very sophisticated
three
year olds who were giving $250 contributions (the maximum allowed) to city
candidates, the same amount as their moms and dads, believe it or not.
Bob Stern
Robert M. Stern
President
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Center for Governmental Studies
10951 West Pico Blvd., Ste. 120
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (310) 470-6590, ext. 117
Fax: (310) 475-3752
Website: www.cgs.org
Email: stern@cgs.org
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1C702.38015D00
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=3Dus-ascii">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>Straw donations</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P> <FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" =
FACE=3D"Arial">I'm curious: As I understand it, it's already =
illegal for people to give money to someone in order that it be =
contributed to a candidate. Why doesn't this stop people from =
giving $1000 through their 3-year-old's? Or is it that the =
3-year-olds had separate funds in their names (e.g., presents from =
relatives), and the parents drew the money from the existing funds =
rather than just "giving" the child $1000 and then =
contributing it? Is it just that this rule is in practice so hard =
to enforce in most cases (though probably not in these ones) that =
people know it won't be enforced and thus ignore it, but that a flat =
ban or attribution requirement would be easier to enforce and people =
would therefore be more likely to abide by it?</FONT></P>
<P> <FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Also, if I can trouble Bob Stern about this rather than =
doing my research, might I ask whether the Prop. 208 and 34 =
requirements really involved presumptions, or flat rules? I'm not =
that troubled by attribution requirements generally, but I am a bit =
curious about how they should apply to minors who are on their own, =
either emancipated or married. Maybe it's my personal =
experience: I started working as a computer programmer when I was =
12, I moved out on my own when I was 16, and I was emancipated when I =
was 17 (my parents and I always got along great, but I liked my =
independence), so while I realize the value of bright lines, I also =
chafe a bit at the notion that 17-year-olds automatically have less =
free speech rights than adults. Would framing the test in terms =
of unemancipated minors, rather than minors generally, be better, and =
an equally bright line? Or is this just such a small detail that =
it poses neither a constitutional objection nor a policy =
objection?</FONT></P>
<P> <FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Eugene</FONT>
</P>
<UL>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">From: </FONT></B> <FONT =
SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Robert M. Stern [SMTP:stern@cgs.org]</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Sent: </FONT></B> <FONT =
SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Friday, March 08, 2002 4:24 PM</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Arial">To: </FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Arial">Election Law List Serve</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Arial">Subject: </FONT>=
</B> <FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">FW: Politically Sophisticated =
Kids</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">George needs to talk to his law =
partner, Lance Olson, who wrote California's</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Prop. 34, enacted in 2000. It =
includes a section stating that a child's</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">contribution is presumed to be a =
contribution from the child's parent or</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">guardian. Lance got this =
section from Prop. 208, passed in 1996.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Bob Stern</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Robert M. Stern</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">President</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Center for Governmental =
Studies</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">10951 West Pico Blvd., Ste. =
120</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Los Angeles, CA 90064</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Phone: (310) 470-6590, ext. =
117</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Fax: (310) 475-3752</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Website: www.cgs.org</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Email: stern@cgs.org</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">From: =
owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">[<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu">mailto:owner-ele=
ction-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu</A>]On Behalf Of George Waters</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 4:00 =
PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">To: =
election-law@majordomo.lls.edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Subject: Re: Politically =
Sophisticated Kids</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">No doubt it is easy to attribute kids' =
contributions to their parents, but</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">in light of the fact that a state is =
constitutionally prohibited from</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">imposing a blanket requirement of =
parental consent for a minor's abortion,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">am i the only one who sees a =
potential problem with a blanket requirement</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">that kids' contributions be =
attributed to their parents.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">getting back to shays-meehan, what =
about married minors? How about</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">emancipated minors? Is there an =
overbreadth issue here?</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">george waters</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">olson, hagel, waters & =
fishburn</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">555 capitol mall, suite 1425</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">sacramento, ca 95814</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">916/442-2952</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">916/442-1280 (fax)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">george@olsonhagel.com</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">>>> "Robert M. =
Stern" <stern@cgs.org> 03/08 3:05 PM >>></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">The easiest solution to kids' =
contributions is to attribute the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">contributions to their parents. =
That way if the kids are active (some in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">their teens are), then they can =
give. This stops the usual practice,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">however, of parents' "strong =
arming" their three year olds into giving</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">$1,000 contributions. We found =
that San Diego had very sophisticated three</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">year olds who were giving $250 =
contributions (the maximum allowed) to city</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">candidates, the same amount as their =
moms and dads, believe it or not.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Bob Stern</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Robert M. Stern</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">President</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Center for Governmental =
Studies</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">10951 West Pico Blvd., Ste. =
120</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Los Angeles, CA 90064</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Phone: (310) 470-6590, ext. =
117</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Fax: (310) 475-3752</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Website: www.cgs.org</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Email: stern@cgs.org</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</UL>
</BODY>
</HTML>
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1C702.38015D00--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 17:28:09 -0800
From: "Robert M. Stern" <stern@cgs.org>
Subject: FW: Straw donations
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_008B_01C1C6C6.9DFD4510
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Eugene
California Govt. Code Section 85308 (b) says: “ A contribution made by a
child under 18 years of age is presumed to be a contribution from the parent
or guardian of the child.” Thus, when you were emancipated at 17, your
contributions would not have been attributed to your parents. Most three
year olds, however, usually are not emancipated. Most parents, I presume,
do not ask their kids for permission to give in the name of their kids.
Bob
Robert M. Stern
President
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Center for Governmental Studies
10951 West Pico Blvd., Ste. 120
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (310) 470-6590, ext. 117
Fax: (310) 475-3752
Website: www.cgs.org <http://www.cgs.org/>
Email: stern@cgs.org <mailto:stern@cgs.org>
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu]On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 4:35 PM
To: Election Law List Serve
Subject: Straw donations
I'm curious: As I understand it, it's already illegal for people to
give money to someone in order that it be contributed to a candidate. Why
doesn't this stop people from giving $1000 through their 3-year-old's? Or
is it that the 3-year-olds had separate funds in their names (e.g., presents
from relatives), and the parents drew the money from the existing funds
rather than just "giving" the child $1000 and then contributing it? Is it
just that this rule is in practice so hard to enforce in most cases (though
probably not in these ones) that people know it won't be enforced and thus
ignore it, but that a flat ban or attribution requirement would be easier to
enforce and people would therefore be more likely to abide by it?
Also, if I can trouble Bob Stern about this rather than doing my
research, might I ask whether the Prop. 208 and 34 requirements really
involved presumptions, or flat rules? I'm not that troubled by attribution
requirements generally, but I am a bit curious about how they should apply
to minors who are on their own, either emancipated or married. Maybe it's
my personal experience: I started working as a computer programmer when I
was 12, I moved out on my own when I was 16, and I was emancipated when I
was 17 (my parents and I always got along great, but I liked my
independence), so while I realize the value of bright lines, I also chafe a
bit at the notion that 17-year-olds automatically have less free speech
rights than adults. Would framing the test in terms of unemancipated
minors, rather than minors generally, be better, and an equally bright line?
Or is this just such a small detail that it poses neither a constitutional
objection nor a policy objection?
Eugene
- -----Original Message-----
From: Robert M. Stern [SMTP:stern@cgs.org]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 4:24 PM
To: Election Law List Serve
Subject: FW: Politically Sophisticated Kids
George needs to talk to his law partner, Lance Olson, who wrote California's
Prop. 34, enacted in 2000. It includes a section stating that a child's
contribution is presumed to be a contribution from the child's parent or
guardian. Lance got this section from Prop. 208, passed in 1996.
Bob Stern
Robert M. Stern
President
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Center for Governmental Studies
10951 West Pico Blvd., Ste. 120
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (310) 470-6590, ext. 117
Fax: (310) 475-3752
Website: www.cgs.org
Email: stern@cgs.org
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[ mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu]On Behalf Of George Waters
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 4:00 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: Politically Sophisticated Kids
No doubt it is easy to attribute kids' contributions to their parents, but
in light of the fact that a state is constitutionally prohibited from
imposing a blanket requirement of parental consent for a minor's abortion,
am i the only one who sees a potential problem with a blanket requirement
that kids' contributions be attributed to their parents.
getting back to shays-meehan, what about married minors? How about
emancipated minors? Is there an overbreadth issue here?
george waters
olson, hagel, waters & fishburn
555 capitol mall, suite 1425
sacramento, ca 95814
916/442-2952
916/442-1280 (fax)
george@olsonhagel.com
"Robert M. Stern" <stern@cgs.org> 03/08 3:05 PM >>>
The easiest solution to kids' contributions is to attribute the
contributions to their parents. That way if the kids are active (some in
their teens are), then they can give. This stops the usual practice,
however, of parents' "strong arming" their three year olds into giving
$1,000 contributions. We found that San Diego had very sophisticated three
year olds who were giving $250 contributions (the maximum allowed) to city
candidates, the same amount as their moms and dads, believe it or not.
Bob Stern
Robert M. Stern
President
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Center for Governmental Studies
10951 West Pico Blvd., Ste. 120
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (310) 470-6590, ext. 117
Fax: (310) 475-3752
Website: www.cgs.org
Email: stern@cgs.org
- ------=_NextPart_000_008B_01C1C6C6.9DFD4510
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<meta name=3DProgId content=3DWord.Document>
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 9">
<meta name=3DOriginator content=3D"Microsoft Word 9">
<link rel=3DFile-List href=3D"cid:filelist.xml@01C1C6C6.9DBD2ED0">
<title>Straw donations</title>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:DoNotRelyOnCSS/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DocumentKind>DocumentEmail</w:DocumentKind>
<w:EnvelopeVis/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:553679495 -2147483648 8 0 66047 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
p.MsoAutoSig, li.MsoAutoSig, div.MsoAutoSig
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p
{margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
- -->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dblue style=3D'tab-interval:.5in'>
<div class=3DSection1>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span class=3DEmailStyle18><font size=3D2 =
color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Eu=
gene<o:p></o:p></span></font></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span class=3DEmailStyle18><font size=3D2 =
color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Arial'><!=
[if =
!supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></font></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span class=3DEmailStyle18><font size=3D2 =
color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Ca=
lifornia
Govt. Code Section 85308 (b) says: “ A contribution made by a =
child under 18
years of age is presumed to be a contribution from the parent or =
guardian of
the child.”<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Thus, =
when you were
emancipated at 17, your contributions would not have been attributed to =
your
parents.<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Most three year =
olds,
however, usually are not emancipated. <span style=3D"mso-spacerun:
yes"> </span>Most parents, I presume, do not ask their kids for =
permission
to give in the name of their kids.<o:p></o:p></span></font></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span class=3DEmailStyle18><font size=3D2 =
color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Arial'><!=
[if =
!supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></font></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span class=3DEmailStyle18><font size=3D2 =
color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Bo=
b<o:p></o:p></span></font></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span class=3DEmailStyle18><font size=3D2 =
color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Arial'><!=
[if =
!supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></font></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoAutoSig><!--[if supportFields]><span =
class=3DEmailStyle18><font=20
size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt;font-family:Arial'><span =
style=3D'mso-element:field-begin'></span><span=20
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>AUTOTEXTLIST \s "E-mail=20
Signature" <span =
style=3D'mso-element:field-separator'></span></span></font></span><![endi=
f]--><font
size=3D2 color=3Dnavy><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
color:navy'>Robert M. Stern</span></font><font size=3D2 =
color=3Dnavy><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;color:navy;mso-color-=
alt:
windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoAutoSig><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>President=
</span></font><font
size=3D2 color=3Dnavy><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoAutoSig><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>~ ~ ~ ~ =
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt;color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>=
<p class=3DMsoAutoSig><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>Center =
for
Governmental Studies</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;color:navy;mso-color-=
alt:
windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoAutoSig><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>10951 =
West Pico
Blvd., Ste. 120</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy><span =
style=3D'font-size:
11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:=
p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoAutoSig><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>Los =
Angeles,
CA<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> =
</span>90064</span></font><font
size=3D2 color=3Dnavy><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoAutoSig><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>Phone:<sp=
an
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>(310) 470-6590, ext. =
117</span></font><font
size=3D2 color=3Dnavy><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoAutoSig><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>Fax:<span=
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>(310) =
475-3752</span></font><font
size=3D2 color=3Dnavy><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoAutoSig><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>Website:<=
span
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><a =
href=3D"http://www.cgs.org/">www.cgs.org</a></span></font><font
size=3D2 color=3Dnavy><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoAutoSig><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'>Email:<sp=
an
style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><a =
href=3D"mailto:stern@cgs.org">stern@cgs.org</a></span></font><font
size=3D2 color=3Dnavy><span =
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><!--[if supportFields]><span =
class=3DEmailStyle18><font=20
size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt;font-family:Arial'><span =
style=3D'mso-element:field-end'></span></span></font></span><![endif]--><=
span
class=3DEmailStyle18><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Arial'><![if =
!supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></font></span></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DTahoma><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;color:black'>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b>
owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu]<b><span =
style=3D'font-weight:
bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Volokh, Eugene<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Friday, March 08, =
2002 4:35
PM<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> Election Law List =
Serve<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Straw =
donations</span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><![if =
!supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
color:black'> =
</span></font><font
color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I'm
curious: As I understand it, it's already illegal for people to =
give
money to someone in order that it be contributed to a candidate. =
Why
doesn't this stop people from giving $1000 through their =
3-year-old's? Or
is it that the 3-year-olds had separate funds in their names (e.g., =
presents
from relatives), and the parents drew the money from the existing funds =
rather
than just "giving" the child $1000 and then contributing =
it? Is
it just that this rule is in practice so hard to enforce in most cases =
(though
probably not in these ones) that people know it won't be enforced and =
thus ignore
it, but that a flat ban or attribution requirement would be easier to =
enforce
and people would therefore be more likely to abide by =
it?</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span =
style=3D'color:black;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font><=
/p>
<p><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
color:black'> =
</span></font><font
color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Also, if I can
trouble Bob Stern about this rather than doing my research, might I ask =
whether
the Prop. 208 and 34 requirements really involved presumptions, or flat
rules? I'm not that troubled by attribution requirements =
generally, but I
am a bit curious about how they should apply to minors who are on their =
own,
either emancipated or married. Maybe it's my personal =
experience: I
started working as a computer programmer when I was 12, I moved out on =
my own
when I was 16, and I was emancipated when I was 17 (my parents and I =
always got
along great, but I liked my independence), so while I realize the value =
of
bright lines, I also chafe a bit at the notion that 17-year-olds =
automatically
have less free speech rights than adults. Would framing the test =
in terms
of unemancipated minors, rather than minors generally, be better, and an
equally bright line? Or is this just such a small detail that it =
poses
neither a constitutional objection nor a policy =
objection?</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span =
style=3D'color:black;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font><=
/p>
<p><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;
color:black'> =
</span></font><font
color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Eugene</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> </span></font><font =
color=3Dblack><span
style=3D'color:black;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font><=
/p>
<p style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D1 color=3Dblack =
face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>-----Original
Message-----</span></font><font color=3Dblack><span =
style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><b><font size=3D1 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
7.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:black;font-weight:bold'>From: </=
span></font></b><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> </span></font><font size=3D1 =
color=3Dblack
face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>Robert
M. Stern [SMTP:stern@cgs.org]</span></font><font color=3Dblack><span
style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><b><font size=3D1 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
7.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:black;font-weight:bold'>Sent: </=
span></font></b><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> </span></font><font size=3D1 =
color=3Dblack
face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>Friday,
March 08, 2002 4:24 PM</span></font><font color=3Dblack><span =
style=3D'color:black'>
<br>
</span></font><b><font size=3D1 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
7.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:black;font-weight:bold'>To: &nbs=
p; </span></font></b><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> </span></font><font size=3D1 =
color=3Dblack
face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>Election
Law List Serve</span></font><font color=3Dblack><span =
style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><b><font size=3D1 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
7.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:black;font-weight:bold'>Subject:  =
; </span></font></b><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> </span></font><font size=3D1 =
color=3Dblack
face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>FW:
Politically Sophisticated Kids</span></font><font color=3Dblack><span
style=3D'color:black'> </span></font><font color=3Dblack><span =
style=3D'color:black;
mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack =
face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>George needs to =
talk to
his law partner, Lance Olson, who wrote California's</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>Prop. 34, enacted in 2000. It =
includes a
section stating that a child's</span></font><font color=3Dblack><span
style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>contribution is presumed to be a =
contribution
from the child's parent or</span></font><font color=3Dblack><span
style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>guardian. Lance got this section =
from
Prop. 208, passed in 1996.</span></font><font color=3Dblack><span
style=3D'color:black'> </span></font><font color=3Dblack><span =
style=3D'color:black;
mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack =
face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>Bob =
Stern</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> </span></font><font =
color=3Dblack><span
style=3D'color:black;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font><=
/p>
<p style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack =
face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>Robert M. =
Stern</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>President</span></font><font =
color=3Dblack><span
style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>Center for Governmental =
Studies</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>10951 West Pico Blvd., Ste. =
120</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>Los Angeles, CA =
90064</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>Phone: (310) 470-6590, ext. =
117</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>Fax: (310) =
475-3752</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>Website: =
www.cgs.org</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>Email: =
stern@cgs.org</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> </span></font><font =
color=3Dblack><span
style=3D'color:black;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font><=
/p>
<p style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack =
face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>-----Original
Message-----</span></font><font color=3Dblack><span =
style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>From: =
owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>[<a
href=3D"mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu">mailto:owner-elec=
tion-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu</a>]On
Behalf Of George Waters</span></font><font color=3Dblack><span =
style=3D'color:black'>
<br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 4:00 =
PM</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>To: =
election-law@majordomo.lls.edu</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>Subject: Re: Politically Sophisticated =
Kids</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> </span></font><font =
color=3Dblack><span
style=3D'color:black;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font><=
/p>
<p style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack =
face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>No doubt it is =
easy to
attribute kids' contributions to their parents, but</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>in light of the fact that a state is
constitutionally prohibited from</span></font><font color=3Dblack><span
style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>imposing a blanket requirement of =
parental
consent for a minor's abortion,</span></font><font color=3Dblack><span
style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>am i the only one who sees a potential =
problem
with a blanket requirement</span></font><font color=3Dblack><span
style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>that kids' contributions be attributed to =
their
parents.</span></font><font color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> =
</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span =
style=3D'color:black;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font><=
/p>
<p style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack =
face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>getting back to
shays-meehan, what about married minors? How =
about</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>emancipated minors? Is there an
overbreadth issue here?</span></font><font color=3Dblack><span =
style=3D'color:black'>
</span></font><font color=3Dblack><span =
style=3D'color:black;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font><=
/p>
<p style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack =
face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>george =
waters</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>olson, hagel, waters & =
fishburn</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>555 capitol mall, suite =
1425</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>sacramento, ca 95814</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>916/442-2952</span></font><font =
color=3Dblack><span
style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>916/442-1280 (fax)</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>george@olsonhagel.com</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> </span></font><font =
color=3Dblack><span
style=3D'color:black;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font><=
/p>
<p style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack =
face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>>>>
"Robert M. Stern" <stern@cgs.org> 03/08 3:05 PM =
>>></span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>The easiest solution to kids' =
contributions is
to attribute the</span></font><font color=3Dblack><span =
style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>contributions to their parents. =
That way
if the kids are active (some in</span></font><font color=3Dblack><span
style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>their teens are), then they can =
give. This
stops the usual practice,</span></font><font color=3Dblack><span
style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>however, of parents' "strong =
arming"
their three year olds into giving</span></font><font color=3Dblack><span
style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>$1,000 contributions. We found that =
San
Diego had very sophisticated three</span></font><font =
color=3Dblack><span
style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>year olds who were giving $250 =
contributions
(the maximum allowed) to city</span></font><font color=3Dblack><span
style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>candidates, the same amount as their moms =
and
dads, believe it or not.</span></font><font color=3Dblack><span =
style=3D'color:
black'> </span></font><font color=3Dblack><span =
style=3D'color:black;mso-color-alt:
windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack =
face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>Bob =
Stern</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> </span></font><font =
color=3Dblack><span
style=3D'color:black;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font><=
/p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D3 =
color=3Dblack
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;color:black'><![if =
!supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]></span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span =
style=3D'color:black;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font><=
/p>
<p style=3D'margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack =
face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>Robert M. =
Stern</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>President</span></font><font =
color=3Dblack><span
style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>Center for Governmental =
Studies</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>10951 West Pico Blvd., Ste. =
120</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>Los Angeles, CA =
90064</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>Phone: (310) 470-6590, ext. =
117</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>Fax: (310) =
475-3752</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>Website: =
www.cgs.org</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> <br>
</span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dblack face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial;color:black'>Email: =
stern@cgs.org</span></font><font
color=3Dblack><span style=3D'color:black'> </span></font><font =
color=3Dblack><span
style=3D'color:black;mso-color-alt:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font><=
/p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal =
style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
12.0pt;margin-left:.5in'><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;color:black'><br>
<br style=3D'mso-special-character:line-break'>
<![if !supportLineBreakNewLine]><br =
style=3D'mso-special-character:line-break'>
<![endif]></span></font><font color=3Dblack><span =
style=3D'color:black;mso-color-alt:
windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
- ------=_NextPart_000_008B_01C1C6C6.9DFD4510--
------------------------------
End of election-law_gl-digest V1 #156
*************************************