| Subject: [EL] Pay to Play or "No Pay to Play" |
| From: "Scarberry, Mark" <Mark.Scarberry@pepperdine.edu> |
| Date: 4/21/2011, 9:52 AM |
| To: Election Law |
The proposed Executive Order to require potential government contractors to disclose independent expenditures could help to bring to light pay to play schemes, in which making of independent expenditures that help a politician’s campaign then lead to an award of a contract by government officials. That is the effect discussed in the blog item to which Rick linked. But such disclosure could also lead to government officials improperly denying contracts to those who make independent expenditures that the government officials don’t like. Of course that possibility could “chill” speech that is protected under the First Amendment (at least if you consider the spending of money on independent expenditures to be inextricably linked to speech, as I do). Does that potential chilling effect create a substantial First Amendment issue with respect to the proposed EO? A related question: which effect is likely to predominate? Uncovering of illicit pay to play schemes, or chilling of protected speech by way of independent expenditures due to fear of retaliation?
Mark Scarberry
Pepperdine
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 8:25 AM
To: Election Law
Subject: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 4/21/11
That's the sentiment of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel editorial board. I too have trouble seeing the reason for the recount at this point, though it is certainly Ms. Kloppenburg's right to request one at state expense given the margin of the election.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 08:21 AM
NJ.com reports.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 08:12 AM
See here. In my work on vote buying I came across a number of jurisdictions (including California) that allow payments for turnout (though not in elections with federal candidates on the ballot). But all of those laws prohibit paying for voting for a specific result. Under similar logic, I find it hard to believe any state makes it legal to pay people to sign a ballot measure petition. Any Wisconsinites who can shed light on this?
Posted by Rick Hasen at 08:06 AM
The LA Times reports that "Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and a group of reform advocates will file suit in federal court, along with rulemaking petition at the Federal Election Commission, Thursday morning that seeks disclosure of secret contributions flowing to political campaigns." Check out the complaint, and the FEC rulemaking petition. See also this press release.
I had been thinking for some time that a lawsuit like this makes sense. The question is whether any relief, if available, will come in time for the 2012 election season.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 07:58 AM
This item appears at the Corporate Political Activity Law blog.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 03:34 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