| Subject: Re: [EL] Wisconsin/more news |
| From: Sean Parnell |
| Date: 4/7/2011, 7:56 AM |
| To: 'Rick Hasen' <rhasen@law.uci.edu>, "JBoppjr@aol.com" <JBoppjr@aol.com> |
| CC: "election-law@mailman.lls.edu" <election-law@mailman.lls.edu> |
I happen to generally share Rick’s view that unsubstantiated claims of fraud are damaging to public confidence, and wish that thinking would be applied as well to the issue of campaign finance. Meaning, allegations that contributions buy votes, made with little to substantiate them and in fact pretty good academic evidence that this is generally not the case, contribute to the public’s lack of trust in government.
And it isn’t just the “reform” community that engages in this, by the way. I can’t tell you how many conservative/free market commentators, bloggers, politicians, activists, and media outlets routinely state that Democrats/liberals oppose school choice almost exclusively because of teacher union contributions, or they oppose tort reform almost exclusively because of trial lawyer contributions, etc. As though there was no real philosophy/ideology out there that genuinely believes, for example, that preserving the public school system is hugely important or that tort law provides an important check on powerful institutions and persons, and oppose school choice and tort reform because they feel these policies undermine these things.
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 Rick Hasen
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 10:48 AM
To: JBoppjr@aol.com
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Wisconsin/more news
I certainly think a recount is in order in this case, with a margin this small. It should be conducted with the transparency of the Minnesota Coleman-Franken recounts. I'd just like the rhetoric turned down, especially unsubstantiated claims of fraud, which I believe do undermine public confidence in the electoral system.
On 4/7/2011 4:56 AM, JBoppjr@aol.com wrote:
This is odd. Rick thinks that "recounts" and "allegations" of voter fraud is what undermines public confidence in elections. The reason, of course, for recounts is that the bureaucrats, who administer elections, in fact, do make mistakes. Providing judicial oversight insures that the results of the election are bona fide and this reassures the public that they are legitimate. Accountability of government officials is what enhances public confidence -- not undermines it. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 4/6/2011 5:10:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rhasen@law.uci.edu writes: