My recollection is that when the Republican Party
announced its convention dates, at least the N.Y.
Times reported charges that the timing was designed
to game the campaign finance system in the manner
you describe. The Party's response, as I recall,
was to deny that charge and to say that the actual
reason for the timing was to hold the New York
convention as close as possible to September 11.
In other words, the reason that you regard as
distasteful was given as the non-sleazy motivation
for the convention's timing; apparently, taking
political advantage of the 9/11 anniversary was
regarded as a less problematic charge than
exploiting a wrinkle in the campaign finance regime.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael McDonald" <mmcdon@gmu.edu>
To: <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 9:53 PM
Subject: RE: Illinois ballot for Bush
What is also interesting about these similar
situations across the country
is that Democrats have been able to use the issue
as a negotiating tool. In
Alabama, for example, Democrats agreed to the
change if the Republicans
would agree to a relaxation of permanent felony
disfranchisement. It
remains to be seen if Democrats in Illinois can
stop their intraparty
bickering over the budget to coordinate a
strategy.
Of course, there is the obvious campaign finance
advantage for Bush to delay
the Republican convention (ignoring the
distasteful planning of the
convention in New York City around Sept. 11).
Bush will be able to use his
$200 million primary money until the convention,
when he will presumably
switch over to the public financing system. Even
if Dean or Kerry - the two
Democratic candidates forgoing campaign finance
limits in the primary - are
the Democratic nominees, there will be a period of
time of over a month
between the Democratic convention and the
Republican convention where the
Democratic candidate will be saddled with the
limits of general election
public financing, but Bush will still be in the
primary. I would be willing
to bet Bush spends an overwhelming majority of his
$200 million during this
time, and precious little on "campaigning" in his
primary, thereby violating
the spirit of campaign finance laws. Odd that the
media don't mention this,
either.
==================================
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Assistant Professor
Dept of Public and International Affairs
George Mason University
4400 University Drive - 3F4
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
Office: 703-993-4191
Fax: 703-993-1399
Efax: 561-431-3190
mmcdon@gmu.edu
http://elections.gmu.edu/
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu]
On Behalf Of
mleen@law.harvard.edu
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 5:52 PM
To: Larry Levine
Cc: Dan Johnson-Weinberger;
election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: Illinois ballot for Bush
Of course, the Florida recount involved changing
the deadlines during a
recount
as opposed to changing the deadlines before an
election.
Mark Leen
HLS 3L
Quoting Larry Levine <larrylevine@earthlink.net>:
Democrats in the California legislature already
changed state law to
accommodate the Republican convention schedule.
What is interesting is
that
the Republicans want to extend state deadlines
for qualifying for the
ballot, but those same Republicans used the
electoral college deadlines as
the excuse to stop the re-count in Florida.
Larry Levine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Johnson-Weinberger"
<proportionalrepresentation@msn.com>
To: <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 1:05 PM
Subject: Illinois ballot for Bush
If you're interested in some of the political
dynamics of the Bush on
the
ballot situation in Illinois, I've been in
Springfield and blogged about
it
from my progressive perspective:
www.djwinfo.blogspot.com
(The bottom line is that the Bush campaign's
decision to schedule the
RNC
convention in early September in clear
violation of about a dozen state
laws
shouldn't be framed as a 'quirk' or
'technicality' in state laws that
any
reasonable observer would say ought be fixed.
Instead, Democrats should
decide whether to accommodate the hardball
politics of the Bush
Administration by changing state law or
whether to play hardball right
back.
And it's interesting to see the media frame
the question almost
exclusively
the first way).