Re: [EL] election-law Digest, Vol 44, Issue 1

Can you please unsubscribe me?  Thank you, Brody

-----Original Message-----
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of election-law-request@mailman.lls.edu
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 3:00 PM
To: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: election-law Digest, Vol 44, Issue 1

Send election-law mailing list submissions to
        election-law@mailman.lls.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        election-law-request@mailman.lls.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at
        election-law-owner@mailman.lls.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of election-law digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Electionlawblog news and commentary 4/30/11 (Rick Hasen)
   2. Re: interesting question regarding Priorities USA (Smith, Brad)
   3. Re: interesting question regarding Priorities USA (Larry Levine)
   4. Re: interesting question regarding Priorities USA (Paul Lehto)
   5. "Columbia Law School draws new California congressional
      maps"--CORRECTED POST (Rick Hasen)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 13:07:54 -0700
From: Rick Hasen <rhasen@law.uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 4/30/11
To: Election Law <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
Message-ID: <4DBC6C1A.2030401@law.uci.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.lls.edu/pipermail/election-law/attachments/20110430/818af14b/attachment-0001.html

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 18:41:02 -0400
From: "Smith, Brad" <BSmith@law.capital.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USA
To: "Larry Levine" <larrylevine@earthlink.net>, "David A. Holtzman"
        <David@HoltzmanLaw.com>, <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
Message-ID:
        <DEC1930925C6C84CBD5DA06025F9490B016290B5@malgeneral.capital.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Or maybe it's better to have compelled disclosure at the level that has been suggested.

Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 236-6317
http://www.law.capital.edu/Faculty/Bios/bsmith.asp

-----Original Message-----
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu on behalf of Larry Levine
Sent: Sat 4/30/2011 10:44 AM
To: David A. Holtzman; election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USA

Who is going to make the determination of who has to be disclosed and who doesn't? How does one write a standard for that determination. We either have disclosure or we don't. If we have disclosure and there is retaliatory action, then there are laws against certain types of such behavior.
Larry
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David A. Holtzman
  To: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
  Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 11:29 PM
  Subject: Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USA

  Does anybody on this list NOT support protection from disclosure for people seeking to legalize their marijuana activity (those who contribute to ballot measures that would legalize)?

  There may be a distinction between donations that might reasonably prompt or facilitate state action against the donors, and donations that might bring retaliation from non-state actors.  The state is supposed to protect people from non-state evil-doers, but it's less well-accepted that the state would ever stay its own hand and refrain from using publicly available information to discriminate, to repress, or simply to target people for law enforcement scrutiny.  Concern about state response to donations is heightened when there is a close connection between the donations and activity that is currently illegal.

  Not sure that is a sharp distinction.  Just trying to be helpful.

  (And the foregoing has nothing to do with my work for the League of Women Voters.)  - dah

  On 4/29/2011 12:49 PM, Smith, Brad wrote:
    The answer to larry's question, of course, is sometimes yes, and sometimes no.

    Bradley A. Smith
    Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law
    Capital University Law School
    303 E. Broad St.
    Columbus, OH 43215
    (614) 236-6317
    http://www.law.capital.edu/Faculty/Bios/bsmith.asp

    -----Original Message-----
    From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu on behalf of Larry Levine
    Sent: Fri 4/29/2011 12:37 PM
    To: David Donnelly; Sean Parnell; david.alan.levine@gmail.com
    Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
    Subject: Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USA

    Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USAOne could also ask if political speech that is chilled by disclosure deserves to be chilled? Not a very constitutionally based question, but still an interesting one.
    I had a client once - a candidate for Congress - who said often, "If you can't do it in public you probably shouldn't be doing it." Wise man. He lost.
    Larry Levine
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: David Donnelly
      To: Sean Parnell ; david.alan.levine@gmail.com
      Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
      Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 9:22 AM
      Subject: Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USA

      Those are two separate issues:

        1.. What reform leaders say (not monolithic).
        2.. What Sen. Schumer says.

      The fascinating thing on some threads in the recent week or two is that anti-reformers ask others on the list to own the speech of others. Maybe that's a new approach: "free association speech"

      On 4/29/11 12:04 PM, "Sean Parnell" <sparnell@campaignfreedom.org> wrote:

        There are two separate issues:

        1.       Anonymous money in politics is bad

        2.       Disclosure doesn't chill political speech

        My point was largely directed at the second issue. I've heard repeatedly from the 'reform' side that disclosure doesn't chill anybody's speech. Am I now to understand that, in fact, disclosure can indeed chill political speech by limiting the willingness of citizens to support particular speech, that Senator Schumer was right when he touted disclosure as having a "deterrent" effect?

        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: David Levine [mailto:davidalanlevine@gmail.com]
        Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 12:01 PM
        To: Sean Parnell
        Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
        Subject: Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USA

        Mr. Parnell,

        I don't think the issue is whether omitting the identities of donors is an effective campaign practice -- I think substantial evidence from the 2010 elections, including from American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS donors, indicates this is a way to successfully win campaigns for a party or candidate. Rather, the issue is whether large amounts of anonymous money should play a substantial role in elections. However, until the "rules of the game change" (requiring the disclosure of donors), so to speak, there is little to no incentive for  candidates and/or independent groups, regardless of their views on money and politics, to effectively handicap themselves while seeking (or assisting someone else seek) office.

        David

        On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Sean Parnell <sparnell@campaignfreedom.org> wrote:

        Many of you have no doubt read Jeanne Allen's excellent piece in Politico <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53905.html>  revealing the creation of two independent Democratic groups that will be active in the 2012 election cycle. Both of course will accept unlimited donations, and similar to the pairing of American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, one of the Democratic groups will disclose all donors, while the other is a 501(c)4 that does not..

        I don't find anything particularly hypocritical about the decision to create these groups - whether one likes it or not, they are part of the political process now, and I can't fault even the most diehard Democratic 'reformer' for deciding not to unilaterally disarm. If Republicans are raising and spending big bucks to promote their favored candidates, it would be foolish of Democrats not to do likewise.

        But I am curious about the decision of Priorities USA to not to disclose donors to the 501(c)4 group. I've heard repeatedly from the 'reform' community that only nefarious interests would have a need to not disclose donors, and that there is no chilling of speech that occurs through disclosure. If that's true - and while I have my doubts, 'reformers' do not seem to share them - then why would a group run by 'reformers' decide not to disclose their donors?

        I've written more here, in case anyone is interested: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/why-are-reformers-making-donor-secrecy-a-priority

        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 <tel:%28703%29%20894-6800>  phone
        (703) 894-6813 <tel:%28703%29%20894-6813>  direct
        (703) 894-6811 <tel:%28703%29%20894-6811>  fax

        _______________________________________________
        election-law mailing list
        election-law@mailman.lls.edu
        http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      _______________________________________________
      election-law mailing list
      election-law@mailman.lls.edu
      http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law

  --
  David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
  david@holtzmanlaw.com
  Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be confidential, for use only by intended recipients.  If you are not an intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email to an intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  election-law mailing list
  election-law@mailman.lls.edu
  http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.lls.edu/pipermail/election-law/attachments/20110430/4cc463c5/attachment-0001.html

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:52:02 -0700
From: "Larry Levine" <larrylevine@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USA
To: "Smith, Brad" <BSmith@law.capital.edu>,     "David A. Holtzman"
        <David@HoltzmanLaw.com>, <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
Message-ID: <918B193D9D9242FF8811FEE89A91DC2E@DJDSB3C1>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
        reply-type=original

All previous flippancy aside, I personally favor full disclosure with a
possible floor of $100. I would get rid of all contribution limits and
spending limits. I might require monthly disclosure until 3 months before
the election, then weekly for a month and then 24 hour after that.
Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Smith, Brad" <BSmith@law.capital.edu>
To: "Larry Levine" <larrylevine@earthlink.net>; "David A. Holtzman"
<David@HoltzmanLaw.com>; <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 3:41 PM
Subject: RE: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USA

Or maybe it's better to have compelled disclosure at the level that has been
suggested.

Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 236-6317
http://www.law.capital.edu/Faculty/Bios/bsmith.asp

-----Original Message-----
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu on behalf of Larry Levine
Sent: Sat 4/30/2011 10:44 AM
To: David A. Holtzman; election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USA

Who is going to make the determination of who has to be disclosed and who
doesn't? How does one write a standard for that determination. We either
have disclosure or we don't. If we have disclosure and there is retaliatory
action, then there are laws against certain types of such behavior.
Larry
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David A. Holtzman
  To: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
  Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 11:29 PM
  Subject: Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USA

  Does anybody on this list NOT support protection from disclosure for
people seeking to legalize their marijuana activity (those who contribute to
ballot measures that would legalize)?

  There may be a distinction between donations that might reasonably prompt
or facilitate state action against the donors, and donations that might
bring retaliation from non-state actors.  The state is supposed to protect
people from non-state evil-doers, but it's less well-accepted that the state
would ever stay its own hand and refrain from using publicly available
information to discriminate, to repress, or simply to target people for law
enforcement scrutiny.  Concern about state response to donations is
heightened when there is a close connection between the donations and
activity that is currently illegal.

  Not sure that is a sharp distinction.  Just trying to be helpful.

  (And the foregoing has nothing to do with my work for the League of Women
Voters.)  - dah

  On 4/29/2011 12:49 PM, Smith, Brad wrote:
    The answer to larry's question, of course, is sometimes yes, and
sometimes no.

    Bradley A. Smith
    Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law
    Capital University Law School
    303 E. Broad St.
    Columbus, OH 43215
    (614) 236-6317
    http://www.law.capital.edu/Faculty/Bios/bsmith.asp

    -----Original Message-----
    From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu on behalf of Larry Levine
    Sent: Fri 4/29/2011 12:37 PM
    To: David Donnelly; Sean Parnell; david.alan.levine@gmail.com
    Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
    Subject: Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USA

    Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USAOne could also ask
if political speech that is chilled by disclosure deserves to be chilled?
Not a very constitutionally based question, but still an interesting one.
    I had a client once - a candidate for Congress - who said often, "If you
can't do it in public you probably shouldn't be doing it." Wise man. He
lost.
    Larry Levine
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: David Donnelly
      To: Sean Parnell ; david.alan.levine@gmail.com
      Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
      Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 9:22 AM
      Subject: Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USA

      Those are two separate issues:

        1.. What reform leaders say (not monolithic).
        2.. What Sen. Schumer says.

      The fascinating thing on some threads in the recent week or two is
that anti-reformers ask others on the list to own the speech of others.
Maybe that's a new approach: "free association speech"

      On 4/29/11 12:04 PM, "Sean Parnell" <sparnell@campaignfreedom.org>
wrote:

        There are two separate issues:

        1.       Anonymous money in politics is bad

        2.       Disclosure doesn't chill political speech

        My point was largely directed at the second issue. I've heard
repeatedly from the 'reform' side that disclosure doesn't chill anybody's
speech. Am I now to understand that, in fact, disclosure can indeed chill
political speech by limiting the willingness of citizens to support
particular speech, that Senator Schumer was right when he touted disclosure
as having a "deterrent" effect?

        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: David Levine [mailto:davidalanlevine@gmail.com]
        Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 12:01 PM
        To: Sean Parnell
        Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
        Subject: Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USA

        Mr. Parnell,

        I don't think the issue is whether omitting the identities of donors
is an effective campaign practice -- I think substantial evidence from the
2010 elections, including from American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS
donors, indicates this is a way to successfully win campaigns for a party or
candidate. Rather, the issue is whether large amounts of anonymous money
should play a substantial role in elections. However, until the "rules of
the game change" (requiring the disclosure of donors), so to speak, there is
little to no incentive for  candidates and/or independent groups, regardless
of their views on money and politics, to effectively handicap themselves
while seeking (or assisting someone else seek) office.

        David

        On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Sean Parnell
<sparnell@campaignfreedom.org> wrote:

        Many of you have no doubt read Jeanne Allen's excellent piece in
Politico <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53905.html>  revealing
the creation of two independent Democratic groups that will be active in the
2012 election cycle. Both of course will accept unlimited donations, and
similar to the pairing of American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, one of the
Democratic groups will disclose all donors, while the other is a 501(c)4
that does not..

        I don't find anything particularly hypocritical about the decision
to create these groups - whether one likes it or not, they are part of the
political process now, and I can't fault even the most diehard Democratic
'reformer' for deciding not to unilaterally disarm. If Republicans are
raising and spending big bucks to promote their favored candidates, it would
be foolish of Democrats not to do likewise.

        But I am curious about the decision of Priorities USA to not to
disclose donors to the 501(c)4 group. I've heard repeatedly from the
'reform' community that only nefarious interests would have a need to not
disclose donors, and that there is no chilling of speech that occurs through
disclosure. If that's true - and while I have my doubts, 'reformers' do not
seem to share them - then why would a group run by 'reformers' decide not to
disclose their donors?

        I've written more here, in case anyone is interested:
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/why-are-reformers-making-donor-secrecy-a-priority

        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 <tel:%28703%29%20894-6800>  phone
        (703) 894-6813 <tel:%28703%29%20894-6813>  direct
        (703) 894-6811 <tel:%28703%29%20894-6811>  fax

        _______________________________________________
        election-law mailing list
        election-law@mailman.lls.edu
        http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      _______________________________________________
      election-law mailing list
      election-law@mailman.lls.edu
      http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law

  --
  David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
  david@holtzmanlaw.com
  Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be
confidential, for use only by intended recipients.  If you are not an
intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email to an
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error
and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this
email is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email in error,
please immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  election-law mailing list
  election-law@mailman.lls.edu
  http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 20:09:23 -0400
From: Paul Lehto <lehto.paul@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USA
To: Bill Maurer <wmaurer@ij.org>
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Message-ID: <BANLkTin0izCZRyo8VWR7TR5PXqSCH=BFMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 4/29/11, Bill Maurer <wmaurer@ij.org> wrote: