"Challengers rake in cash"
The Hill offers this
report, which begins: "New campaign-finance records show that key
challengers are surpassing or matching the fundraising of incumbents
this year in competitive races around the country, a sign of the
gathering strength of an anti-incumbent wind that doesn’t necessarily
distinguish between Republicans and Democrats."
"Fundraising Group Assails the Doolittles"
The Sacramento Bee offers this
report, which begins: "Rep. John Doolittle's practice of paying a
15 percent fundraising commission to a company owned by his wife
violates the ethical standards of the industry, a national group of
fundraising professionals told the congressman this week. The
27,000-member Association of Fundraising Professionals said in a letter
to Doolittle that its long-standing ethics code 'explicitly prohibits
percentage-based compensation,' and urged his campaign to cease doing
so with Julie Doolittle's company, Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions."
"Racial Discrimination in Washington State's Criminal
Justice System May Violate Voting Rights Act"
See this
press release, which begins: "A federal district court judge will
hear oral arguments on Thursday, April 20, on whether state laws
disproportionately strip minorities of their right to vote following a
felony conviction. Plaintiffs in the case, Farrakhan v. Gregoire, claim
that these laws are in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965."
"Norm Ornstein: Culture of Corruption: The Case of
Freddie Mac"
See this
post, which originally appeared at the Huffington Post.
Tom DeLay Connected to New Hampshire Phone Jamming
Scandal?
See this
report in the Houston Chronicle.
"This case is not about grassroots lobbying. It's a
one-person crusade by Jim Bopp to take down a law he doesn't like"
So states the Campaign Legal Center's Gerry Hebert in this press
release regarding Christian Civic League v. Maine, being heard
Monday before a three-judge court in Washington DC. Here is the context
of Gerry's remark:
During discovery last week, FEC attorneys uncovered evidence that the
suit was actually instigated as a test case by campaign finance reform
critic James Bopp, Jr., an attorney who has challenged BCRA's
constitutionality since its inception. The court documents filed by the
FEC yesterday made it clear that Bopp worked through the Colorado-based
Focus on the Family group to search the United States for a group
willing to run a candidate-specific ad that could be used to bring this
as-applied challenge.
"This case is not about grassroots lobbying. It's a one-person crusade
by Jim Bopp to take down a law he doesn't like," said Gerry Hebert, the
Legal Center's Executive Director and Director of Litigation. "The
Christian Civic League had no plans to broadcast this ad prior to the
June 13 Maine primary until they met Mr. Bopp."
Not only no plans to run the ad, but apparently no money to do so, even
now. (See the very revealing email exchanges and summary of deposition
testimony in
this
document filed by the FEC.) Will this case be dismissed on standing
grounds? Will the court wait until the court deciding the same issue in
the WRTL case acts first? Stay tuned.
UPDATE: Bob Bauer
responds,
defending Bopp and noting:
Jim Bopp perhaps can--and most probably does---take some satisfaction
in this attack. He will stand his ground against the establishment
assault, which includes the intervention in the case, against his
client ,of the BCRA sponsors who are represented by seven---count them,
seven--different lawyers and law firms. Their Memorandum in Opposition
to Mr. Bopp's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is very unsympathetic
to his position. And, in its own way, it shows little regard for law it
"doesn't like," managing to omit any citation to or mention of the
Supreme Court's decision in Wisconsin Right to Life.
I haven't yet seen the document that Bob is referring to (and it is not
linked on his post). But such an omission (if it is indeed an omission)
reminds me of the decision in
FEC
v. Christian Action Network, 110 F.3d 1049 (4th Cir. 1997), in
which the court criticized the FEC for failing to cite Buckley's
footnote 52 in its briefs in a case about the meaning of "express
advocacy:" "Throughout the FEC's entire 69 pages of briefing on the
merits of this case, it never once quotes any of the numerous passages
in Buckley and MCFL referring to 'explicit words' or 'express words' or
'language' of advocacy. Nor does it once quote Buckley 's footnote 52.
Compare DNC Br. at 5 (quoting footnote 52 in full, including Buckley
's"express words" locution)."
--
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
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