Thank you for that reference, Rick.  I note, however, that the Court did not explain in any detail why it felt the need to amend the opinion, nor did it correct all the errors and erroneous inferences regarding former Arizona Governor Fife Symington it created in its decision.

 

First, the Ninth Circuit’s footnote said that Governor Symington had served time in prison.  That was false – he was granted bail pending appeal.  The Court did correct this error in the amended opinion.

 

Second, the Ninth Circuit said Governor Symington was granted a pardon “just as trial was set to commence,” implying that the pardon was some last minute intervention that saved him from his fate.  That was false – Governor Symington was pardoned by President Clinton before any trial date was even set and while the parties were engaged in status conferences.

 

Third, the Court emphasized that Governor Symington was indicted on one count of extortion, but did not emphasize that a jury acquitted him of that charge.

 

Fourth, the Court also emphasized that he faced seven counts of filing false statements, while not mentioning that these counts referenced things that occurred before he became Governor and that they were reversed by the Ninth Circuit itself on appeal.

 

Unfortunately, the Court’s approach seems part and parcel of the “appearance of corruption” standard, which relies on subjective views that may, or may not, have a relationship to reality.  Apparently, the presumption of innocence accorded those accused of crimes does not apply to those situations where there’s a need to justify campaign finance regulations.

 

Regards,

 

Bill Maurer

 

 

see page 9144 here:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/02/10-15165.pdf

On 9/27/2010 5:53 PM, Richard Winger wrote:

The 9th circuit opinion upholding extra public funding for candidates with privately-funded opponents with lots of contributions is McComish v Bennett.  The 9th reported its decision at 605 F 3d 720, decided May 21,2010. On June 23 the 9th circuit amended its opinion, after it had been published.  So the amended 9th circuit opinion is 611 F 3d 510. I can't find any difference between the text of the two reported decisions.  Can anyone tell me what changed?  Thank you.

_______________________________________________

election-law mailing list

election-law@mailman.lls.edu

http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law

-- 

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