| Subject: Re: [EL] disclosure and the Chamber |
| From: "Smith, Brad" <BSmith@law.capital.edu> |
| Date: 10/8/2010, 12:32 PM |
| To: "rick.hasen@lls.edu" <rick.hasen@lls.edu>, Election Law <election-law@mailman.lls.edu> |
Listers,
I don’t know what Rick is talking about,
since a) my post says nothing about the DISCLOSE act; b) my post says nothing
about the 2008 Obama campaign; and c) I don’t say anything about Rick
being “sleazy” (indeed that word isn’t used in my post at
all) or engaging in demagoguery.
Other than that, I am pleased that Rick
has decided to engage.
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
3:09 PM
To: Election Law
Subject: [EL] disclosure and the
Chamber
Listers:
I usually don't respond to Brad (for reasons I've given), but this is a point of
general interest to list members. My response to this point about my call
for effective disclosure in my earlier post (which I explained last night in an
email to a CCP staffer when queried about this), is the following.
I did not say in my post that the DISCLOSE Act would solve this problem.
I said we need effective
disclosure. A similar issue arose with allegations of foreign
contributions to the Obama campaign in 2008, and Republicans argued for
audits. (See this Wall Street Journal article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122324885800205919.html).
(Contributions to the campaign under $200 in the aggregate do not need to be
disclosed in detail to the FEC, and some Republicans alleged there could be
foreign money coming into the campaign.)
My initial response to the Obama issue was that audits were not necessary, but
in seeing the public concern over the issue I changed my mind. Speaking
at the COGEL conference on this issue soon after the Obama controversy, I
agreed with the audit suggestion: I suggested that we needed fuller disclosure
to the FEC of the accounting practices, or giving the FEC the ability to
perform random audits of campaigns. The information in these audits would not
be made public, except in the event the FEC found wrongdoing. I think a
similar process (either to the FEC or IRS or other government agency) is
appropriate.
Whether this is sleazy and demagoguery I leave for others to decide.
Rick
On 10/8/2010 11:22 AM,
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
_______________________________________________election-law mailing listelection-law@mailman.lls.eduhttp://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
-- Rick HasenWilliam H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law