| Subject: Re: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 4/4/11 |
| From: Sean Parnell |
| Date: 4/4/2011, 10:02 AM |
| To: 'Bill Maurer' <wmaurer@ij.org>, "rhasen@law.uci.edu" <rhasen@law.uci.edu>, 'Election Law' <election-law@mailman.lls.edu> |
When considering charges that striking down a particular law/program helps Republicans, it’s worth considering the other side of that coin – that having the law/program in place helps Democrats. Is that really a valid reason to keep a program – because it helps Democrats? I’m not so sure.
But, as Bill points out, the claim that striking down the law benefits Republicans is a dubious one at best. More generally, these programs seem to mainly benefit candidates who are able to turn to organized interest groups for help in gathering the necessary small-dollar qualifying funds. On the Republican side that is often socially conservative groups, while on the Democratic side it’s often organized labor. And on both sides, participating candidates typically are those that would have had little trouble raising the needed funds for their campaign by relying on traditional, voluntary donations from private citizens.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp
124 S. West Street, #201
Alexandria, VA 22310
(703) 894-6800 phone
(703) 894-6813 direct
(703) 894-6811 fax
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Maurer
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 12:17 PM
To: rhasen@law.uci.edu; Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 4/4/11
That’s interesting that the New Yorker states that striking down Arizona’s system will be a benefit to Republicans. It’s not true, as the Arizona system has been a boon to socially conservative Republicans, but an interesting point nonetheless. This story, from a progressive local newspaper, points out the real result of the law.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2009-04-02/news/the-dirty-truth-about-clean-elections/
Bill
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:24 AM
To: Election Law
Subject: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 4/4/11
Here in the New Yorker. He concludes: "So the vulgar truth about Citizens United, the doomed Arizona law, and related future cases remains: the five Justices appointed by Republicans are thrashing the four appointed by Democrats--to the enormous advantage of the G.O.P. Coincidence? You be the judge."
Posted by Rick Hasen at 08:21 AM
The GAO has issued this report. See also this Roll Call report. (Via Political Activity Law).
Posted by Rick Hasen at 08:11 AM
See Virginia General Assembly to convene legislative redistricting session (WaPo)
New Districts Seen as Aiding Democrats in New Jersey (NYT)
Analysis: Redistricting could make several of Missouri's US House districts more competitive (AP)
Redistricting: Tempest in a Teapot (Peter Schrag)
Posted by Rick Hasen at 08:06 AM
Richard Winger reports.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 07:57 AM
See this NYT article about the latest venture of Crossroads GPS.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 07:56 PM
--
Rick Hasen
Visiting Professor
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen@law.uci.edu
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org