| Subject: news of the day 12/5/03 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 12/5/2003, 7:31 AM |
| To: election-law |
See here.
Among Soros's arguments:
President Bush has a huge fundraising advantage because he has figured out a clever way to raise money. He relies on donors he calls "Pioneers," who collect $100,000 apiece in campaign contributions in increments that fall within the legal limit of $2,000 a person, and on those he calls "Rangers," who collect at least $200,000.
Many of these Pioneers and Rangers are corporate officials who are well situated to raise funds from their business associates, bundle them together and pass them along with tracking numbers to ensure proper "credit." They are buying the same level of access and influence for their corporate interests that they previously obtained with their own and corporate funds. With the help of Pioneers and Rangers, President Bush is on track to collect $200 million.
To counter the fundraising advantage obtained by this strategy, I have contributed to independent organizations that by law are forbidden to coordinate their activities with the political parties or candidates. That law minimizes or eliminates the ability to purchase influence in exchange for my contribution. Moreover, I don't seek such influence. My contributions are made in what I believe to be the common interest. ACT is working to register voters, and MoveOn is getting more people engaged in the national debate over Bush's policies.
A.P. has this
report out of New York.
See this
Chicago Tribune report (free registration required).
Joel Connelly offers this Seattle
Post-Intelligencer commentary.
Following up on this post,
it appears (according to a BNA report) that an FEC draft holds that
Dean and other presidential candidates are not bound by any earlier
promises they had made to abide by spending limits in exchange for
public financing. Dean had changed his position, before he took any
funding from the government.
The Wall Street Journal offers this
editorial (somewhat surprisingly siding with the Democrats in the Vieth
case). Sam Hirsch (a lawyer for the plaintiffs) and Professor Nate
Persily discussed the case yesterday on NPR's Diane Rehm show (audio
link here.)
There has not yet been much commentary against greater court
policing of partisan gerrymandering in Vieth. My oped,
scheduled to appear in Monday's Legal Times, takes that
position.
The Christian Science Monitor offers this report.
See Dem Files Suit to Revive GOP Map Plan, which begins: "A Democratic lawmaker has sued the state in federal court, attacking Monday's decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that threw out a Republican-drawn congressional redistricting law.
The lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Denver by Rep. Carl Miller, D-Leadville, and three Republicans, contends that the decision violated the U.S. Constitution." See also this Denver Post article. Thanks to Rob Witwer for the pointers.-- 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://electionlawblog.org