Subject: news of the day 3/3/05
From: Rick Hasen
Date: 3/3/2005, 8:18 AM
To: election-law

Is Gov. Schwarzegger Afraid of CALPIRG?

The Sacramento Bee offers this report, which begins: "Attorneys for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are attempting to block a state consumer group from intervening in a lawsuit filed against the state's political watchdog agency seeking to allow the governor to raise limitless funds for his ballot measures." More likely, the Governor would not like smart Democratic lawyer Lance Olson, who is representing CALPirg, involved in the case.


"Larson splits with caucus rivals on redistricting"

The Hill offers this report.


FEC Releases Report on Party Financial Activity in 2004

The report is summarized here, with links to additional data. Among the findings: " Republican national, state, and local committees who report to the FEC raised $784.8 million during 2003-2004 in federally permissible “hard money.” Democratic committees raised $683.8 million. Democratic party receipts were more than 89% higher than in the comparable period during the 2000 presidential campaign, while Republican party fundraising grew by 46% when compared with the same period. Overall, these hard money totals for both parties’ national committees were greater than their combined hard and soft money raised in any prior campaign."


"The Coming Crackdown on Blogging"

Be sure not to miss this interview with FEC commissioner Brad Smith over at CNET News on proposed FEC rulemaking to deal with internet-based campaign activity.


"Fraud Claims Put Postal Voting on Trial"

The Guardian (UK) offers this report.


SSRC Issues Final Report on Election Adminstration Challenges

Today the National Research Commission on Elections and Voting, an SSRC committee, issued CHALLENGES FACING THE AMERICAN ELECTORAL SYSTEM: RESEARCH PRIORITIES FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, its final report. It also released this bibliography and this press release. From the press release:


I was very happy to see these priorities listed. The first two, registration reform and nonpartisan election administration, are two of my top three election administration reforms that I advocate in my draft artcle, "Beyond the Margin of Litigation: Reforming U.S. Election Administration to Avoid Election Meltdown," that I've just sent out to law reviews. [UPDATE: I should add that I see the third research area of SSRC as a subset of points 1 and 2. Point 4 should be addressed, in my view, separately from any concerns about election administration reform.] My third proposed reform, apparently not addressed by the SSRC report, relates to how to restructure court involvement in election controversies to encourage more pre-election litigation and discourage post-election litigation.
In any case, it is good to see these items remaining high on the agenda. It is always my fear that the media and general public won't pay attention to these issues until September 2008, when the phone will start ringing again with reporters asking the question: "If the system is so bad, why hasn't anything been done to fix it?"

More Papers in the FPPC case

You can find Gov. Schwarzenegger's points and authorities here and Tony Quinn's declaration here. Tony's declaration is important and, in my view, wrong. Like Bob Bauer (see here) Tony tries to show historically that candidates (particularly governors) support or oppose ballot measures purely for policy reasons and not for reasons of reelection. I think history proves otherwise. Moreover, Tony says there's no danger of corruption from large contributions to ballot measure committees. But he fails to take into account the relatively recent phenomenon of contribution limits to candidate committtees. Before, someone could give as much money as he wanted to a candidate's campaign committee. Now, someone who wants to support the governor (or curry favor with him) is limited to a donation of under $25,000. But that supporter knows that the governor's perceived success---and hence his reelection chances in 2006---may well depend on how well the governor does in the expected Nov. 2005 special election. And the governor wants lots of money to fund his efforts, $50 million in fact. So the danger of corruption and the appearance of corruption raised by contributions to candidate-controlled ballot measure committees is very high, thanks to this new environment of contribution limits to candidates and lawmaking through the ballot box.
-- 
Professor Rick Hasen 
Loyola Law School 
919 Albany Street 
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211 
(213)736-1466 - voice 
(213)380-3769 - fax 
rick.hasen@lls.edu 
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html 
http://electionlawblog.org