Unintended Irony Dept.
Check out the headline and the surrounding advertising at the
website of the Las Vegas Sun:
Posted by Rick Hasen at 08:09
AM
| Subject: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 10/29/10 [final resend] |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 10/29/2010, 6:56 PM |
| To: Election Law |
Smart Politics (University of Minnesota) reports
(via Political
Wire).
Check out the headline and the surrounding advertising at the
website of the Las Vegas Sun:
Could one have come up with a more perfect name? See here
(via Ben
Smith).
NYT's "The Caucus" blog has this
item. I could not find a link to the actual survey
questions, responses, or cross-tabs.
UPDATE: Here
is the poll, and the relevant questions are questions 87, 88,
and 89. As Jeff Patch points out, question 88, on disclosure,
asks about disclosure by "campaigns" not specifically outside
groups. Whether those polled interpret "campaigns" to mean only
candidate campaigns or any political advertising, I'm not sure.
(Question 88 reads: "How important is it that campaigns be
required by law to disclose how much money they have raised,
where that money came from, and how they have spent the money --
very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not
important at all?")
More interesting is the answer to question 89: "Currently,
groups not affiliated with a candidate are able to spend
unlimited amounts of money on advertisements during a political
campaign. Do you think this kind of spending should be limited
by law, or should it remain unlimited?" 72 percent of
respondents say that the amounts should be limited: and the
question is phrased as to "outside groups," not "corporations,"
"business corporations," or "corporations and labor unions."
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (yes, it still exists)
has issued this
press release.
Howard Dean has written this
oped, which seems particularly
timely.
No on 20;
Yes on 27
Florida
redistricting measure
Trailer
for "Gerrymandering" movie
Thanks to Lloyd Mayer for sending these along.
The Brad Blog reports.
Here.
As I said speaking to an ACS group last night, the ubiquity of
mobile phone cameras is going to affect both the number and
spread of unsubstantiated as well as genuine claims of problems
at the polls from vote fraud to voter intimidation and
suppression.
This
LA Weekly article begins: "With Election Day near,
UCLA law professor Daniel Lowenstein is a lonely man."
Jim Bopp has brought this
suit, but I would have thought that the issue was already
resolved in his client's favor by the recent state
court case.
UPDATE: The
complaint shows other causes of action as well, and as has
been pointed out, Montana is appealing the state case.
See here.
SECOND CORRECTION of the day: The original headline
mistakenly stated that the document was an affidavit. This is an
unsworn letter to the Commission.