"The FEC Is As Good As Dead; The new Republican commissioners are gutting campaign finance law."

I have written this Jurisprudence column for Slate. It begins:

Last week, the press was full of retrospectives on the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which freed corporate cash for use in federal elections. The Federal Election Commission, the six-member bipartisan body charged by Congress with administering and enforcing federal campaign finance laws, marked the anniversary with a 3-3 partisan deadlock over proposed rules to revamp those laws in light of the Citizens United opinion. Unfortunately, this was business as usual at the FEC: For the past several years the three Republican FEC commissioners have blocked enforcement of much of what remains of federal campaign finance law. As we enter the 2012 election season, the FEC is as good as dead, and the already troubling campaign finance world of secret unlimited donations is bound to get worse.

Rahm Emanuel Files Appeal with Illinois Supreme Court

You can read the 24-page document here. See also this Chicago Tribune report, this report on ballot printing and the possibility of a write-in campaign, and this legal analysis from NBC's Pete Williams. My Slate column on yesterday's 2-1 decision is here.

I'm not sure how quickly the Illinois Supreme Court will move. But today I'm giving a workshop at USC, presenting my Lobbying paper. So I may not be up on any breaking news.

Hearing in Important Shelby County Voting Case

I just received this announcement via email, with a heading noting that Bert Rein will be arguing for Shelby County:

Hearing on Motions for Summary Judgment Scheduled for February 2, 2011 in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder

Lawsuit Challenges Constitutionality of 2006 Reauthorization of Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act

(Washington, DC) On February 2, 2011, arguments will be made in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder (Case 1:10-cv-00651).

Date: February 2, 2011

Time: 9:30 AM

Place: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; Courtroom 8.

333 Constitution Ave. NW. Washington, DC.

The case will resolve the important question left unanswered by the Supreme Court in 2009 in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder: whether Section 4(b) and Section 5 of the reauthorized (2006) Voting Rights Act remain constitutional more than 45 years after the statute's original enactment.

"National Voting Rights Groups Put Georgia Secretary of State Kemp on Notice of Voting Rights Violations"

See this press release, with the subhead: "Georgia Failing to Offer Voter Registration to Public Assistance Clients; National Voting Rights Groups Put Secretary of State Kemp on Notice of Voting Rights Violations."

Piven Responds to Beck

Here.

More Comments on the House Bill to End Presidential Public Financing

WaPo (editorial)

LA Times (editorial)

The White House also released a statement, which is not yet on the official website:

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

H.R. 359 - Termination of Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns and Party Conventions
(Rep. Cole, R-Oklahoma, and 18 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 359 because it is critical that the Nation's Presidential election public financing system be fixed rather than dismantled.

The Presidential election public financing system was enacted in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal to free the Nation’s elections from the influence of corporations and other wealthy special interests. Rather than candidates having to rely on raising large sums of private money in order to run, the system provides qualifying presidential candidates with the option of accepting matching funds in the primary and a public grant in the general election. It has done so at minimal cost to taxpayers, who fund it by voluntarily choosing to direct $3 of their Federal taxes to this beneficial system. For many years, the system worked well and attracted wide participation. In time, however, it became clear that a system introduced in the 1970s was in need of modernization and repair. Beginning in the 2000 Presidential campaign, candidates began to opt out. Since that time, promising proposals for the strengthening of the system have been made.

H.R. 359 would kill the system, not strengthen it. Its effect would be to expand the power of corporations and special interests in the Nation’s elections; to force many candidates into an endless cycle of fundraising at the expense of engagement with voters on the issues; and to place a premium on access to large donor or special interest support, narrowing the field of otherwise worthy candidates. After a year in which the Citizens United decision rolled back a century of law to allow corporate interests to spend vast sums in the Nation's elections and to do so without disclosing the true interests behind them, this is not the time to further empower the special interests or to obstruct the work of reform.

"The Incumbent's Bane: Citizens United and the 2010 Election"

Brad Smith has written this WSJ oped.

"Congress Cools, Agencies Heat Up for K Street"

Roll Call offers this report, which begins: "Divided government could well mean gridlock for Capitol Hill, but it also may bring a windfall for K Street law firms as the focus shifts from legislating to regulating."

Interesting Letter Filed by Initiative Proponents on Prop. 8 Standing Question in Cal. Supreme Courtt

See this Pacific Legal Foundation letter (via SCOTUSBlog).

"Report: George W. Bush aides violated Hatch Act"

Politico offers this report, which begins: "A long-running federal investigation has found that White House political aides to President George W. Bush engaged in widespread violations of a federal law which limits partisan political activity by government employees during the 2006 midterm elections." You can find the 118 page report, by the Office of Special Counsel, here.