| Subject: Electionlawblog news and commentary 6/2/06 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 6/2/2006, 9:54 AM |
| To: election-law |
Bob Bauer has this
post, commenting on the Friedman and Holden article I linked to
yesterday.
The Los Angeles Times offers this
report,
which begins: "Sidestepping California's campaign contribution caps,
state Treasurer Phil Angelides is using a loophole in the law to tout
himself in statewide mailings that promote a preschool initiative on
Tuesday's ballot. Angelides, locked in a tight race for the Democratic
gubernatorial nomination against Controller Steve Westly, is pictured
smiling and surrounded by children in ads for the initiative,
Proposition 82, sent to voters." Another snippet: "Under California
law, a single donor cannot give more than $22,300 to a gubernatorial
candidate. But there are no caps on contributions to campaigns for or
against ballot measures. Last month, Angelides established a new
ballot-measure campaign account called Standing Up for Our Kids. He
transferred more than $750,000 into it from another account, and spent
the money on the Yes-on-82 mailers. Much of that money was donated in
sums as high as $250,000 -- far in excess of what Angelides can accept
in his gubernatorial campaign." The campaign
finance initiative
proposed by the California Nurses Association (which I am consulting
on) and awaiting signature verification in California would close this
loophole. Proposed election code section 91137(b) provides:
Very
interesting.
So the change from Smith to Von Spakovsky on the FEC can have real
consequences, with Smith consisistently taking a more pro-free speech
line and Von Spakovsky aligning more with Toner on issues such as 527
regulation (which can help the Republican Party). The departure of
Thomas and replacement with Lenhard also may have real consequences.
Dan Tokaji has this
post on Equal Vote. I very much hope that Dan will weigh in on the new RFK Jr.
article on whether the 2004 election was stolen, in which the author
relies in part on Dan's work.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has written this
lengthy article for Rolling Stone. A snippet:
See this
order,
issued today, clarifying that the district court is to consider in the
first instance, "whether plaintiffs-appellants had also stated a claim
on behalf of plaintiffs who are neither incarcerated nor on parole that
their votes are 'diluted' because of New York’s apportionment
process, 'which counts incarcerated prisoners as residents of the
communities in which they are incarcerated, and has the alleged effect
of increasing upstate New York regions' populations at the expense of
New York City's." Thus, "the Clerk of Court is directed to issue the
mandate for this case forthwith and remand this case to the District
Court for the limited purpose of considering whether
plaintiffs-appellants properly stated a vote dilution claim based on
New York’s apportionment process, and, if so, to rule on the merits
of that claim."
See this
press release,
which begins: "The National Voting Rights Institute (NVRI) and the
State PIRGs Democracy Program released a study today that found there
is no support for the notion that campaign contribution limits hurt
challengers. In fact, according to the study, contribution limits can
work to reduce the financial bias that traditionally works in favor of
incumbents." The full report is here.
See this
post on Prawfblawg. I reply in the comments,
expanding on my claim in my Findlaw
article
that a holding against section 5 by the Supreme Court could endanger
section 2 as well. I quote some of what Chief Justice Roberts had to
say about the federalism issues raised by section 2 back in 1982.
-- 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