"Banned E-Voting Systems Likely to Be Ready Nov. 2"

The Los Angeles Times offers this report.

"Flap Over 527s Aside, McCain-Feingold is Working as Planned"

Anthony Corrado and Tom Mann have this Roll Call oped (paid subscription required). A snippet:

McCain-Feingold was not written to bring every source of unregulated federal campaign funding within the scope of the law. Rather, it was designed to end the corrupting nexus of soft money that ties together officeholders, party officials and large donors. The law’s principal goal was to prohibit elected officials and party leaders from extracting unregulated gifts from corporations, unions and individual donors in exchange for access to and influence with policymakers.

Indeed, the law has accomplished this objective. Members of Congress and national party officials are no longer soliciting unlimited contributions for the party committees, nor are they involved in the independent fundraising efforts of the leading 527 groups. The FEC’s decision to defer action, therefore, does not pose the same risk of corruption as did the soft-money decisions of the past.

Hatch Puts on Hold 'Arnold '08"

Roll Call offers this report, which begins: "California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) shouldn’t start planning a 2008 presidential campaign just yet. Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who first raised such a possibility last year, said Wednesday that it may take a while to remove the constitutional obstacle preventing Schwarzenegger or any other foreign-born U.S. citizen from running for president of the United States." I'm sure our governor's reaction will be that the news is "fantastic."

"What McCain-Feingold Didn't Fix"

David Broder offers this column. About the column, a blog reader writes:

Check out this David Broder column today, the upshot of which is the surprising -- and to my mind ridiculous -- conclusion that BCRA has "produce[d] more unintended negative consequences than benefits."

Broder seems to assume -- without even providing any arguments in support on the points -- that the spending of money on elections (including by the candidates) necessarily is in and of itself a bad thing, and that a (or the) purpose of BCRA was to get money out of campaigns. No mention of corruption, of the role of parties in making officeholders beholden to contributors, etc.

And he is shocked, shocked, by the "unanticipated" phenomenon that folks are actually raising hard money (including on the Internet!) in amounts permitted by BCRA, and choosing not to accept public financing when hard money contributions are more lucrative -- as though the statute doesn't contemplate exactly that.

Thanks for writing. I would add that Broder is simply wrong as a factual matter that McCain-Feingold backers "did not anticipate that the ban would simply divert the flow of big contributions into other channels." Indeed, this was one of the main arguments made against the law when it was being debated.

"FEC Ruling Mocks Campaign Reform"

The Virginia Pilot offers this editorial.

Canadian Free Speech Decision Roundup

Brett Marston has it all here.

Solum on Developments in Judicial Appointments Process

Larry Solum concludes that despite much talk about compromise in yesterday's developments, not much has changed. See here.

Corrado on Soft Money

Anthony Corrado has posted National Party Fundraising Remains Strong, Despite Ban on Soft Money on the Brookings website.

Electronic Voting Machine Humor from The Onion

See here.

Anderson and Richie on Vieth

See this commentary by John Anderson and Rob Richie that appeared in this week's Legal Times.

-- 
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