Newspaper story on Getman case--still more spin I have posted here on the Ninth Circuit's Getman case. The San Francisco Chronicle offers this report. Note that losing attorney Jim Bopp calls this decision a "victory." Bopp lost on his main point---that a state may not require disclosure of funding for express advocacy in ballot measure campaigns. Bopp gets to go back to the district court and argue that California has no compelling interest in disclosure, but the Ninth Circuit's opinion indicates it almost certainly does.

Counter spin Although many have criticized the reform community for overclaiming victory, here is an example of an analysis that overstates victory for opponents of the law. I also find the legal analysis here particularly unpersuasive (especially the analysis of the question whether a stay will be granted by the Supreme Court, if asked).


The partisan aspects of the stay request I noted in the post three below this one that I saw a partisan reason why Republicans never pushed to stay the BCRA---they gain under a rule allowing the raising of hard money only under the higher contribution limits. This Washington Times editorial makes a similar point about the Democratic Party (and the Ca. Democratic Party's expected opposition to a stay): "If Democrats get their wish, the recent ruling of the three-judge panel will not be stayed, and the soft-money door, which they publicly took such great pride in closing, will, to their great relief, be reopened — at least temporarily."

-- 
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
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html