The evisceration of contribution limits in the recall race Early on, the Fair Political Practices Commission in California took the position that no contribution limits apply to contributions to committees supporting or opposing the recall. But contributions to committees supporting or opposing candiates for governor are subject to a $21,200 individual limit. What to do about an advertisement that says, for example, "No on recall, yes on Bustamante?" The issue has become particularly salient given that Bustamante has just received a $300,000 contribution from an Indian Tribe. (See Dan Weintraub's post).
The FPPC's answer is reminiscent of how the FEC has treated party spending in the 1990s. Just as the FEC required parties to use an allocation of "hard money" and "soft money" funds for certain expenditures, here's what the FPPC says in this July 2003 document:

14. If an expenditure by a replacement candidate both promotes his or her candidacy and supports the recall, may the expenditure be apportioned between the candidate's ballot measure committee and his or her candidate committee for office? Yes. If a candidate can clearly show that a part of an expenditure relates solely to the ballot measure issue, the ballot measure committee may pay for that cost. Where such a showing cannot be made, the expenditure must be paid for by the candidate's committee for office. (Sections 85200-85201).

So expect a lot of evasion of contribution limits, and perhaps a fair bit of litigation, on how this allocation rule is to work.

More preclearance recall litigation The Fresno Bee reports here that MALDEF has filed another suit under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act raising preclearance objections (under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act) to the inclusion of Proposition 54 on the ballot in Kings and Merced counties. The earlier litigation involved only Monterey county, and this litigation does not appear to involve Yuba county, the other county covered by preclearance. Why the piecemeal approach? Perhaps to drag things out; perhaps to get more chances before different judges?

"Panel Completes Its Plan to Revamp Voting in the City" The New York Times offers this report, which begins: "The Charter Revision Commission approved a measure last night to be placed before the voters in November that would end political primaries for municipal offices and establish nonpartisan elections. The move could pave the way for the most significant changes in New York City elections in nearly a century."

"Exiled Texas Democrats Stand Firm in Redistricting Fight" The Wall Street Journal offers this report. Thanks again to Steven Sholk for the pointer.

-- 
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
http://electionlaw.blogspot.com