| Subject: Re: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 10/8/10 |
| From: "Smith, Brad" <BSmith@law.capital.edu> |
| Date: 10/8/2010, 11:22 AM |
| To: Election Law |
Rick asserts:
McClatchy
offers this
report. CCP asks
if the Chamber is guilty until proven innocent. My view: If we had effective
disclosure laws, no one would need to wonder about foreign spending by the
Chamber, labor unions, or anyone else.
This is wrong for two reasons. First, the Chambers donors
here are disclosed – indeed, that disclosure is the trigger for this
baseless accusation that the law is being violated. Second, the approach of
Think Progress and the President of the
Once again, I think what this really points up is a) the
tendency to believe that disclosure can do far more than it can do; and b) the
tendency to use campaign finance laws and disclosure laws as partisan weapons.
Indeed, this case may make an argument against disclosure – only because
the donors to the Chamber were disclosed are we having this episode of demagoguery
and threats by public officials against groups exercising First Amendment
liberties.
Rather than use this episode to beat the drums for more
disclosure, which would make no difference to the tactics being used by liberal
advocacy groups and the President and various other U.S. officeholders, as
experts I would think we ought to be pointing out both the absurdity of the
charge (the Chamber, after all, has a budget in excess of $150 million –
pretty tough to argue with a straight face that they are financing their
political efforts with a couple hundred grand in dues from American Chambers
Abroad) and the danger of abuse of power by federal officials trying to silence
people they see as their political opponents.
One expects lots of sleazy attacks and demagoguery during
the political season, but this episode is pretty low by any standard.
Bradley
A. Smith
Josiah
H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
Designated
Professor of Law
614.236.6317
http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
[mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On
Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010
11:06 AM
To: Election Law
Subject: [EL] Electionlawblog news
and commentary 10/8/10
Nicholas
Stephanopoulos has written this
piece for TNR.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 07:53 AM
Meredith
McGehee's analysis
begins: "The Office of Congressional Ethics is under fire and certainly
there is no shortage of Members calling for closing the office altogether or at
least stripping it of powers in an attempt to bring it to heel. Either action
would be a grave mistake if Congress is to have any hope of rehabilitating
itself in the eyes of the public."
Posted by Rick Hasen at 07:49 AM
Here.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 07:43 AM
In
the Google matter, the vote was 4-2.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 07:40 AM
That's
Sean Greene's lead story in this
week's Electionline Weekly.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 07:35 AM
ABC
News reports.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 07:25 PM
I'd
like to know more about this
Missouri appeal. Is anyone considering application of federal protections
for non-English speaking voters under the VRA?
Posted by Rick Hasen at 07:19 PM
McClatchy
offers this
report. CCP asks
if the Chamber is guilty until proven innocent. My view: If we had effective
disclosure laws, no one would need to wonder about foreign spending by the
Chamber, labor unions, or anyone else.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 07:14 PM
CBSNews.com
reports.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 07:08 PM
The
NY Times offers this report.
It has this
accompanying graphic.
The Times has now posted this
accompanying article.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 07:05 PM
Via
Howard Bashman
come links to the per
curiam opinion, Judge Thomas's narrower concurring
opinion for four judges, and Judge Graber's opinion
concurring in the judgment.
Though there are differences among the judges' opinions, the controlling
language is from the per curiam opinion, which reads the possibility of a felon
disenfranchisement case under VRA section 2 verry narrowly: "we hold that
plaintiffs bringing a section 2 VRA challenge to a felon disenfranchisement law
based on the operation of a states criminal justice system must at least show
that the criminal justice system is infected by intentional discrimination or that the felon
disenfranchisement law was enacted with such intent. Our ruling is limited to
this narrow issue, and we express no view as to any of the other issues raised
by the parties and amici. We also leave for another day the question of whether
a plaintiff who has made the required showing would necessarily establish that a felon disenfranchisement law
violates section 2." (original emphasis).
Both the Ninth Circuit case and the First Circuit case raise the VRA section 2
felon disenfranchisement issue. I originally predicted the
Supreme Court would take the original Ninth Circuit case, continuing (from an
earlier 9th Circuit case) to recognize a VRA section 2 felon disenfranchisement
claim) unless the Ninth Circuit
reversed the panel en banc. The en banc reversal of the panel decision is
exactly what happened today.
There is now no split on this question as the Supreme Court decides whether to
hear the First Circuit case. It is unlikely to do so especially in light of the
Solicitor General's
invitation brief suggesting that the Court should not take the case in the
absence of a circuit split, I now think it is exceedingly unlikely the Court
will wade into this sensitive area of race an politics at this point. This is
sure to disappoint
Linda Greenhouse but I see it as better
than the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the case.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 05:12 PM
The
LA Times offers this
report.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 11:08 AM
This interview
appears on the website of the Center for Public Integrity.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 09:48 AM
--
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org