Subject: [EL] more new 10/12/10 |
From: Rick Hasen |
Date: 10/12/2010, 4:39 PM |
To: Election Law |
I earlier posted about the Supreme Court's denial of a stay in the Family PAC case. Now the Ninth Circuit has issued this 74-page opinion upholding provisions of Washington State's disclosure law against First Amendment challenge. The case was not posted at the usual time of day for 9th Circuit postings, and it is is in typescript form. That's usually done for opinions issued on an expedited basis. I don't know if there was a request to expedite this case, but it was argued in May.
(Judge Wardlaw is the author of the opinion. She's also the
author of the Long Beach case striking down Long Beach's
law limiting contributions to independent expenditure
committees, and she's one of the judges on the Ninth Circuit
panel deciding the Thalheimer challenge to the San Diego
campaign finance law---Jim and I argued
on opposite sides of that case last week. Coincidentally, Judge
Fletcher, who is also on the Thalheimer panel, was one of the
judges on the Ninth Circuit granting Washington's
stay request in the Family PAC case.)
See this
editorial and this
oped. (Wertheimer responds
to Gillespie.)
This
post appears at the Economist's "Democracy in America"
blog.
Terri Ens has this
comment at Moritz.
Is anyone (perhaps Floyd
Abrams?) who has celebrated Citizens United going
to step up and take issue with my arguments and
argue in favor of the constitutionality of limits on foreign
spending in elections? Or offer a persuasive way of
distinguishing limits on foreign spending from the reasoning in
CU barring limits on corporate spending?
Today the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case involving the petition clause of the First Amendment. The question presented is "Whether state and local government employees may sue their employers for retaliation under the First Amendment’s Petition Clause when they petitioned the government on matters of private concern." SCOTUSBlog's page is here. Election law prof Dan Ortiz is counsel of record for petitioners. My earlier coverage of this case is here. I'm particularly interested in this issue because of my current paper on lobbying and the First Amendment (to be posted soon on SSRN).
Thanks to a reader for the heads up.
-- 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