Will the Supreme Court Grant Cert. Speechnow.org
in Regarding the Disclosure/Political Committee Issue Monday
Morning?
It was
on Friday's conference list (but could be relisted). I now
think it is less likely the Court will vote to hear this case,
but we may know soon enough.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
10:03
PM
"Drowning in Campaign Cash"
The NY Times offers this
editorial.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
09:54
PM
Schleicher: Waiting For Super (Prime Voter) Man
Here is the final of three guest posts from David
Schleicher:
I live in Washington D.C., and we're about to have an election
to replace a controversial Mayor and most of the City Council to
boot. But given the lack of coverage in the local media, the
dearth of attack ads and the complete absence of any signs of
campaigning, you'd hardly know it. We're having an election, and
no one cares.
The reason the race to replace Adrian Fenty has not generated
much attention is because we already know who will win. Absent
the success of a small write-in campaign not supported by the
candidate, the Democratic nominee, Vincent Gray, will be elected
Mayor, as will all the Democratic candidates for the Council.
(In a wonderful nod to the inevitability of the result, Gray has
already announced much of his transition team.)
On election day, political junkies around the country will focus
on the most contested elections, trying to figure out which
early race will tell you how things look for the Democrats in
the House, or assessing which former pro athlete Republican will
perform best, Jon Runyan, Chris Dudley or Sean Duffy. There will
be some time spent discussing the most outlandish attack ads of
the season (this and this are certainly among the most
over-the-top) and seeing how the predictions of the various
famous prognosticators fared.
But some of our attention should fall on the huge number of
uncontested elections around the country. Where a seat in an
otherwise-contested legislature is uncompetitive, it's not a
major problem (there are costs where there are too many,
however). That some Congressional seats are safely Democratic or
Republican is part of the nature of territorial districting.
However, when whole levels of government are uncontested by the
parties -- think about the Massachusetts Legislature, or the New
York City Council -- it is a major problem. Absent competitive
general elections, there is little reason to believe that office
holders will follow majoritarian preferences or will be held
accountable for their decisions. That is, the elections are a
failure.
But wait, what about the primaries? Didn't DC have a highly
contested primary, in which Fenty was defeated by Gray? Indeed
it did. But primary elections and general elections are
extremely different in one major respect -- voters in general
elections know a lot more about the candidates than they do in
primaries. In general elections, votes have access to a
high-value signal about candidates' positions on the issues, the
party label. At least for federal elections, the party label can
tell us almost everything we need to know about a candidate to
cast an at-least somewhat informed vote.
In primaries, candidates run with no label to distinguish them
from their peers. Voters lack much information about candidates
individually, and so where voters do not have access to an
accurate well-known heuristic that is consistent across
elections, they are forced to rely more heavily on non-policy
variables, like name recognition, incumbency and the social
status, race, ethnicity and gender of the candidates. Further,
small groups frequently determine the winner of primaries
through the power of organization in low-turnout,
low-information elections, a point well made in Seth Masket's
excellent recent book. And, finally, the voters who do know
something are the most radical, and are thus unrepresentative of
the preferences of most party members.
Primary election competition simply cannot achieve the same
thing as general election competition because, in primaries,
most potential voters do not have the tools to make their
preferences on policy issues known, as Chris Elmendorf and I
will show in a forthcoming piece. The party's silent majority
stays silent, leaving the field to the loudest and
best-organized voices among them.
This means that places like D.C., where there is no general
election competition, are less well represented than they should
be. And it also means that certain beliefs about districting --
like the idea that bipartisan gerrymanders do not reduce
responsiveness because primary elections can replace general
elections in keeping representatives in line are probably wrong.
Read the rest of David's interesting post, including the
hyperlinks to the first part,
at
this link.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
08:14
PM
"For Donors, Vote Lays a Base for 2012"
From
this important NYT report:
The White House has been focused on passing the so-called
Disclose Act, proposed legislation that would place new limits
on interest groups trying to influence elections by restricting
corporate spending in some instances and requiring new levels of
disclosure over all.
But, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they did not
want to engage in a public dialogue on the matter when they were
so focused on Election Day, strategists for Mr. Obama said they
were intent on avoiding a situation in which they would have no
answer to millions of dollars -- if not tens of millions -- in
advertisements from groups like Crossroads and Crossroads GPS.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
08:02
PM
"Tea Party Plans Close Watch on Georgia Voting"
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution offers this
report.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
07:41
PM
"'Proofiness' offers guide to voting math"
USA Today offers this
report.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
07:23
PM
"Razor-close governor's race triggers fear of
recount, memories of 2000"
Florida
as the next Florida.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
07:01
PM
Soon-to-be Senator Paul's Position on Lobbying
Reform and Campaign Finance Reform
Given the apparent
likelihood of a Rand Paul win in Kentucky on Tuesday, I
thought some of my readers might be interested in some of Mr.
Paul's ideas about campaign finance reform and lobbying reform.
(I discuss these in a new draft on lobbying, which I hope to
post soon on SSRN.)
Mr. Paul's article
on campaign finance reform, "The Public Trough," begins: "Last
year, over 15,000 individuals worked for organizations whose
sole goal was to rip you off. No, not the mafia or Goldman
Sachs, but another distinctly criminal class--Washington
lobbyists. In 2008, corporations and unions spent over $3
billion to bribe officials who claim to work for you." He called
upon Congress to include in all government contracts worth at
least $1 million a clause banning
the contractor from engaging in any lobbying activities or
making campaign contributions. It will be interesting to see if
he champions these causes if and when he arrives in Washington.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
06:58
PM
"Appoint judges? No thanks; Elections ensure
certain safeguards"
Sylvia Lazos and Chris Bonneau have written this
oped for the Las Vegas Sun, where the issue
is on Tuesday's ballot.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
06:39
PM
Will the Ohio Gubernatorial Race Be Decided by
Provisional Ballots?
Could
be. Time to break out the Election
Administrator's Prayer: Lord, Let This Election Not Be
Close.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
06:12
PM
Aprill: Section 501(c)(4) Organizations, the
Gift Tax, and the Disclosure Rules
Here is a guest post from my Loyola colleague Ellen
Aprill:
Recent discussions of whether gifts to section 501(c)(4)
organizations that engage in candidate-related activity are
subject to the federal gift tax have failed to make clear an
important distinction. This important distinction is whether the
contributor is making the gift to the organization as a whole or
making the gift for its candidate-related activities and, in
particular, for its candidate-related advertisements. The
distinction can matter not only for gift tax liability, but also
for disclosure obligations under campaign finance laws.
Contributors of large sums close to an election are caught
between the proverbially rock and hard place: the more that they
position themselves to avoid gift tax liability, the more likely
that they may become obliged to disclose their contributions
under the campaign finance laws, and vice versa. As explained in
detail below for those who are interested, if donors take the
position that their gifts are for particular candidate-related
activities rather than to the organization in support of its
activities generally, they have a good argument that the gift
tax does not apply, but a weaker argument for avoiding
disclosure obligations under campaign finance laws. It is
possible to have the best of both worlds, however, and a
determination from the FEC this past spring makes it clear how
best to achieve that outcome.
Read Ellen's excellent 5-page memo
at
this link.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
06:00
PM
"WA Senate Race: Be Ready for a Slow Count"
Paul Gronke explains.
And it could be close.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
05:51
PM
"Competing propositions take aim at California
redistricting"
The LA Times offers this
report. The newspaper also offers Ballot
initiatives divide a usually united business front.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
05:41
PM
"In 2012, campaign finance trends expected to
grow; Heavy, unregulated spending has helped the GOP mount
effective challenges in many races. Democrats say they'll adapt
ahead of the next national vote."
The LA Times offers this
report.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
05:36
PM
"North Carolina Counties Using iVotronic
Vote-Counting Machines Must Tell Each Voter to Double-Check
Machine Accuracy"
Richard Winger explains.
More from the Brad
Blog.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
05:26
PM
"Dan Morain: Shady Ad Brought to You By the
Supreme Court"
See this
column in the Sacramento Bee.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
05:21
PM
Just How Much In-Person Voter Fraud?
It is perhaps worth rereading this
article. There's been plenty of recent examples of
absentee ballot fraud, but very, very little proof of the kind
of fraud that could be stopped by having people watching the
polls, and no evidence of any reason to target such poll
watching in predominantly minority precincts.
Posted by Rick Hasen at
05:17
PM
"House Committee Overseeing Elections Could See
Big Shift in Agenda After Nov. 2"
BNA offers this
report, which begins: "A key House Republican has
indicated a sharp shift in priorities could occur in
congressional action on election-related issues if the GOP, as
widely anticipated, sees major gains on Election Day. Letters
sent Oct. 28 by Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), the ranking
Republican on the Committee on House Administration, suggested
that the panel, which has jurisdiction over campaign finance and
other federal election laws, should focus more attention on
curbing potential voter fraud and ensuring that military and
other overseas U.S. citizens are able to vote and have their
votes counted in U.S. elections."
Posted by Rick Hasen at
11:32
AM