Two from WaPo

The newspaper offers As campaign money pours in, so do complaints and American Crossroads to expand fundraising juggernaut to House GOP.

Justice O'Connor Goes on the News Hour to Talk About Judicial Elections

See here.

"How The GOP Went From 48 To Zero In Support Of Donor Disclosure"

Sam Stein writes at the Huffington Post.

"Court Denies Bid to Block Maine System For Public Financing of State Campaigns"

This BNA report also discussed the 9th Circuit's new decision in the Human Life case upholding Washington's disclosure law.

"Bickerstaff: The threat from corporate 'citizens'"

Steve Bickerstaff has written this CU-related oped for the Austin-American Statesman.

"How Companies Influence Elections: Political Campaign Spending Patterns and Oversight At America's Largest Companies"

See this new report from the Sustainable Investments Institute and IRRC Institute. According to the press release, "while nearly 80 percent of S&P 500 companies have disclosed direct political campaign spending policies, 86 percent have no disclosed policies regarding indirect political expenditures."

Schotland on the DISCLOSE Acts Shortcomings

Below is a guest post from Roy Schotland, based upon a comment that will appear in volume 20, issue 3 of the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, in a symposium on Citizens United (footnotes omitted, and reprinted with permission):

The DISCLOSE Act's flaws are so significant that they must be noted, even if briefly. (Only major flaws in the bill's 112 pages are noted here, and they are not listed in order of importance.)

1. The bill is remarkably loophole-laden. It naively (astonishingly so) includes among "covered organizations" only three kinds of 501(c) organizations, ignoring obviously available alternative routes for funds, e.g., 501(c)(19):


"A post or organization of past or present members of the Armed Forces of the United States, or an auxiliary unit or society of, or a trust or foundation for, any such post or organization..."

Imagine how many veterans' organizations will form and at once become conduits for campaign funds. Also, what of readily available non-501(c) entities like partnerships and trusts, and even for-profit corporations to which contributions could be tax-deductible? See Donald B. Tobin, Political Advocacy and Taxable Entities--are they the next loophole?, 6 First Amendment Law Review 41 (2007) and 26 C.F.R. 1.501(c)(19)-1.

2. The bill flatly bars corporations from any independent campaign spending if they have federal government contracts worth $10,000,000 or more. By itself, that would bar all sizable corporations but leave unions free to exploit the deregulation brought by Citizens United--reversing more than 60 years of treating corporations and unions together for campaign finance purposes. Perhaps such a reversal should occur, but that provision is utterly beyond disclosure. How ironic that a bill aimed at transparency hides behind a false facade, which happened because the bill deviated to pursue partisan goals. I'm a Democrat too, but...

That the non-disclosure provisions were completely separable was made explicit when the sponsors admitted, after the bill had been blocked in the Senate on September 23, that they (the sponsors) had told "Senators Snowe and Collins that they were prepared to change the bill to strip it down to the disclosure provisions..." (emphasis added)

3. The sponsors evidently seeking to get a bill whatever the cost, infamously exempted the NRA from being covered by the new requirements. That move drew such hostile reactions that the exemption was broadened to include any organization of "at least 500,000 individuals who paid membership dues during the previous calendar year." (Sec. 211(c)(27)(B) of H.R. 5175, at 59). But: Don't we want voters to know when the NRA or Sierra Club or XYZ funds a campaign ad? On the other hand, if we don't need disclosure from the major players, do we need --can we even justify-- imposing on smaller organizations the burdens of reporting? The smaller the organization and the larger the burden, the greater the chill on their participation, i.e., on their speech.

4. Where disclosure is required, the requirements are unworkable: e.g., requiring reports not merely by spenders but also by the bill's "deemed" spenders, entities that are actually donors which will not have the information they are supposed to report.

5. Desirable as disclosure is and even if reporting involved no burden at all, there is such a thing as too much disclosure. The bill's threshold for which donors would be required to report started at $600 "in an aggregate amount ... in a calendar year" (Sec. 211(a)(5)(A)(ii)(I)--and as that citation surely indicates, this bill is complex!). Professor Briffault (Forthcoming in the Election Law Journal) describes perfectly why too much disclosure is counter-productive:


[M]assive disclosure ... threatens to inundate us in a sea of useless data, while potentially distracting attention from the big donors whose funds play a more meaningful role in understanding a candidate ... The educational value of knowing about [the amount of the support] is tied, albeit loosely, to the fraction of a campaign's war chest attributable to that donor... [T]argeted disclosure aimed at the largest [supporters] would sharpen the public's focus ... [And] the reports come fast and furious as Election Day approaches...

"I'd like to buy a W, T, and an F please, Pat."

That's TPM's reaction to ("Wheel of Fortune host) Pat Sajak's National Review Online post asking whether "state workers be able to vote in state elections on matters that would benefit them directly? The same question goes for federal workers in federal elections." Such talk is not new, and I trace some of its history in my 2005 Washington and Lee piece. It discusses some related comments by Jonah Goldberg.

"Rove, Chamber ads widely debunked as false or misleading"

The Plum Line lists the fact checks.

"The Primary Purpose of McCain-Feingold Revealed"

John Samples blogs.

"Voting Rights Lawyers Gird for Election"

BLT reports.

"Lincoln Club Challenges San Diego's Laws Restricting Contributions, Expenditures"

That's the lead press release at the moment at the James Madison Center. Note that this is a suit against the county of San Diego. Jim Bopp and I are on opposite sides of a lawsuit raising similar issues involving the city of San Diego. That case, the Thalheimer case, is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit.

"When Will It End?"

The Caucus: "Campaign-weary Americans may believe they'll finally know on Nov. 2 whether Republicans or Democrats will control the next Congress, but it is possible that things may not be that simple."

"Stand Against Earmarks Grows Lonely as Home State Sees a Need"

The NY Times offers this report.

"DC Mayor Fenty Signs National Popular Vote Bill"

See this press release.

"Chamber of Commerce: The White House Wants Our Donor Lists So Its Allies Can Intimidate Our Donors"

Jake Tapper interviews Bruce Josten.

"The Real Story on Campaign Money"

Josh Kraushaar writes at Hotline on Call.

"Legal Center Scores Victory in 9th Circuit Decision Upholding Washington State Disclosure Laws"

CLC has issued this press release.

-- 
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