| Subject: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 10/17/10 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 10/17/2010, 10:01 AM |
| To: Election Law |
When I was trying to dream up the most anodyne
label possible for a political group in writing my piece
for the American Interest, I thought of "Americans for a Strong
America." But who needs "strong?" We now have Americans
for America, though it appears to be a PAC that will be
disclosing its donors rather than a 501(c)(4). The PAC's page
goes to Act Blue, and it is not clear to me that it is a
separate PAC. (A search on the FEC's campaign page does not
reveal anything yet under the "Americans for America" label.)
An unnamed Democratic strategist commenting
to The Hill on Democratic attacks related to the
Chamber's campaign financing.
The Washington Post offers this
report. I know there are also other committees with broad
names supported (or primarily supported) by only a handful of
donors.
Politico offers this
report.
The LA Times offers this
report about the survey research of Nate Persily and Steve
Ansolabehere. A notable exception to the trend in the headline:
"The campaign finance decision in January 'is very out of step
with public opinion,' Persily said. In the Citizens United case,
the court struck down a federal law that barred corporations or
unions from spending money to support or oppose candidates for
office. The respondents not only opposed the decision, but 85%
of them said corporations should be required to get the approval
of their shareholders before spending money on political
campaigns."
Yet another must
read story on money in the 2008 election in the NY
Times.