| Subject: Re: [EL] more new 10/12/10 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 10/12/2010, 4:42 PM |
| To: Rick Hasen |
| CC: Election Law <election-law@mailman.lls.edu> |
October 12, 2010
State of Washington Beats Jim Bopp Twice in One Day
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.)
Posted by Rick Hasen at 04:36 PMWaPo Board v. Gillespie on CU and Disclosure
See this editorial and this oped. (Wertheimer responds to Gillespie.)
Posted by Rick Hasen at 04:27 PM"Foreigners and campaign advertising"
This post appears at the Economist's "Democracy in America" blog.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 04:20 PM"Reinforcing Voting as a Communal Act"
Terri Ens has this comment at Moritz.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 04:17 PMJust Wondering Department
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?
Posted by Rick Hasen at 11:09 AMSupreme Court Grants Cert in Case Involving Petition Clause
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.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 10:35 AM-- 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
-- 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