Subject: news of the day 4/12/05 |
From: Rick Hasen |
Date: 4/12/2005, 8:52 AM |
To: election-law |
Is legislative compromise still possible? See here.
Brett G. Kappel offers this
analysis,
which begins: "The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) has
proposed amendments to Rule G-37 that would effectively require
financial services companies to isolate their municipal securities
operations from all company political activities. The proposed
amendments would force political action committees (PACs) operated by
bank holding companies or affiliates of municipal securities dealers to
impose strict new controls on the way PACs decide to make campaign
contributions."
The Los Angeles Times offers this
very interesting news analysis, with the subhead: "Measures often
implode, and the governor is learning hard lessons on how to control
them."
Bob Bauer disagrees
with my position, as set forth in
this Findlaw article.
I must admit to being disappointed by Bob's position, because I've
always thought that those who strongly oppose contribution and
expenditure limits in campaigns should be more willing to agree to full
and fair disclosure. And as to Bob's final point, I would very much
favor a rule that would require a newspaper columnist who is paid by a
federal campaign to promote that campaign's interest in a newspaper
column to disclose that interest in the column.
Rick
Hasen
William
H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola
Law School
(213)736-1466
- voice
(213)380-3769
- fax