I agree this is an empirical question, but I'm afraid that we will never be able to track the full extent of corporate involvement in this year's federal elections. That's because corporations esp on the retail side, caring about what their customers think, are far more likely to give unearmarked (and therefore nonreportable) contributions to the Chamber, other (c)6's, or ie-only Pacs. I guess we could say the FEC Republican commissioners are as responsible for this state of affairs as the Supreme Court. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
From: "Kelner, Robert" <rkelner@cov.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 06:39:26 -0400
To: 'rick.hasen@lls.edu'<Rick.Hasen@lls.edu>; 'election-law@mailman.lls.edu'<election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 9/28/10
I think Rick's suggestion below that Citizens United "turned on the corporate spigot" is a logical leap that is not yet well supported by the facts. As we all know, corporate donations to outside groups to air ads in the weeks before elections took place on a large scale before Citizens United. Perhaps we will see that a significant share of the ads currently being aired by outside groups contain express advocacy, and that would indeed be a change (though even that remains to be seen). But the level of outside spending on the GOP side has more to do with the current political and policy environment than it does with Citizens United. And it is also an open question how much of the outside money is coming from corporations, as opposed to individuals.
Robert K. Kelner
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
(202) 662-5503
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu <election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu>
To: Election Law <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
Sent: Tue Sep 28 00:04:01 2010
Subject: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 9/28/10
September 27, 2010
"GOP Groups Overwhelm Dems With Political Ads"
AP:
"Just five weeks from midterm elections, groups allied with the
Republican Party and financed in part by corporations and
millionaires have amassed a crushing 6-1 advantage in television
spending, and now are dominating the airwaves in closely
contested districts and states across the country."
Who turned on
the corporate spigot? Oh
yeah.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
09:02
PM
"As Laws Shift, Voters Cast Ballots Weeks Before
the Polls Close"
The NY Times offers this
report.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
08:56
PM
NYT: Sen. Murkowski Could "Well Pull Off" a
Write-in Victory
See here.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
08:53
PM
"New 'Super Pacs' bringing millions into
campaigns"
WaPo reports.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
08:47
PM
Tony Mauro Gets Results!
Following up on this
post, a West Virginia state supreme court justice has, on
further consideration, reversed himself and decided to recuse in
a case, citing Tony Mauro's earlier post on the case. (Original
story:
"A West Virginia Supreme Court justice has refused to take
himself out of a case involving the state cap on non-economic
damages, even though he pledged during his election campaign
that he would never vote to overturn the law imposing the
cap."). And the justice is not happy about the power of the
blogosphere, which he says forced him to recuse in this case:
"Upon further reflection, I am disqualifying myself from the
above case. I strongly believe there is absolutely no legal
basis for my disqualification. See Republican Party of Minnesota
v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002). However, it appears to me that
the lawyers who moved to disqualify me are attempting to create
a 'firestorm' by assaulting the integrity and impartiality of
West Virginia's Supreme Court.
"I promptly sent my disqualification response to the lawyers on
September 23, 2010. The next day my response appeared in a
Washington internet blog. (See copy attached.) How did a blog so
quickly get my disqualification memorandum which was sent only
to the lawyers in the case? Why is it newsworthy that a West
Virginia judge previously exercised his right of Freedom of
Speech?
"The blog did not have the decency to publish my First Amendment
rationale as authorized by Republican Party of Minnesota v.
White, or quote the legal rationale from White set out in my
memorandum.
"I could care less if the blogs or press crucify me personally.
However, I believe the lawyers are pulling the press's strings
to place our Court in an unfavorable light. A lot of hard work
has been accomplished to keep the Court out of the limelight
since I took office on January 1, 2009. I don't want our Court
to be publicly maligned by those with a 'win-at-all-cost'
mentality. I disqualify myself from this case."
Posted by Rick Hasen at
08:40
PM
"Anti-gay marriage group sues over RI election
law"
AP offers this
report about how NOM wants to to run ads in the Rhode
Island governor's race but not comply with laws imposed on
political committees. A press release I received said the
pleadings are on the James Madison Center's website, but so
far I don't see them there.
UPDATE: There's also a NOM challenge in Florida, which I think
will eventually appear on the Center's web page.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
01:08
PM
"Poverty and Political Participation: Overcoming
the Registration Barrier"
Brenda Wright blogs
at the ACS blog.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
01:00
PM
American Crossroads Raised 91% of Its Money from
Just 3 Billionaires
Salon reports.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
12:56
PM
--
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 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