A Superior Court judge dismissed felony voter fraud
charges against City Councilman Richard Alarcon and his wife Thursday
morning, saying the District Attorney failed to provide the grand jury
with evidence that might have exonerated the couple.
...
Loyola law professor Jessica Levinson, who teaches election law, said
the judge was holding the prosecution to the letter of the law in its
presentation of the case of the grand jury.
"I do think this decision shows the frustration the judge felt with the
prosecution case," Levinson said. "It also shows how easy it is to get
an indictment from a grand jury."
Finish reading the article here.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
DA Steve Cooley refiles perjury, voter fraud charges against Richard Alarcon and his wife
I am quoted in this article about perjury and voter fraud charges filed against Councilman Richard Alarcon and his wife.
But the aggressive response by Cooley's office shows that they believe they can win, said Loyola law professor Jessica Levinson.
"They also know this is a high-profile case, that the media is watching," she added. "They don't think these are frivolous charges."
But the aggressive response by Cooley's office shows that they believe they can win, said Loyola law professor Jessica Levinson.
"They also know this is a high-profile case, that the media is watching," she added. "They don't think these are frivolous charges."
Thursday, May 3, 2012
L.A. Coliseum panel drops free-tickets provision from USC deal
I am quoted in this piece in the LAT.
In the heat of a broader financial scandal, the public officials who run the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum have agreed to give up decades' worth of free Trojan football tickets they negotiated for themselves in a proposed lease that would surrender control of the stadium to USC.
...
Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor who studies public corruption, said the decision to forgo the tickets was "a good PR move." The provision would have required USC to try to get the commissioners free tickets to pro games if a new L.A. franchise played at the Coliseum while an NFL stadium was built here.
"To get rid of the benefits and perks that come along with the position is good," Levinson said. "But it's different from getting rid of the corruption that happened."
In the heat of a broader financial scandal, the public officials who run the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum have agreed to give up decades' worth of free Trojan football tickets they negotiated for themselves in a proposed lease that would surrender control of the stadium to USC.
...
Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor who studies public corruption, said the decision to forgo the tickets was "a good PR move." The provision would have required USC to try to get the commissioners free tickets to pro games if a new L.A. franchise played at the Coliseum while an NFL stadium was built here.
"To get rid of the benefits and perks that come along with the position is good," Levinson said. "But it's different from getting rid of the corruption that happened."
Congressman Brad Sherman Could be a Savvy Financial Advisor
If Congressman Brad Sherman fails to gain
another term in the U.S. House of Representatives he may want to
consider another career as a full-time financial analyst.
In 2010, voters approved a ballot measure that took the power to draw congressional lines out of the hands of incumbents and gave that task to an independent redistricting commission. The commission was charged with drawing district lines that, among other things, did not take into account where incumbents resided. That means the commission's purpose was to draw lines that fairly represented communities of interest, rather than lines that gave incumbents a chance at winning.
As a result of the independent redistricting commission's work, districts are not as safe as they used to be. Perhaps the poster-child for this phenomenon is the much-discussed match-up between two Democratic Congressman: Brad Sherman and Howard Berman.
Sherman and Berman have both raised enormous sums for their re-election bids. They are both running for a seat in the San Fernando Valley. Disclosure reports reveal that Sherman has more than $4 million in his campaign war chest (including personal loans), and Berman has approximately $2.4 million in the bank.
Sherman, for his part, is showing his business acumen. Recent disclosure reports show that Sherman earned over $650,000 just based on investing his campaign contributions. Luckily for Sherman, the tax rates on campaign investments are lower than the tax rates on other investors. Interesting: were it not for high returns on investments, Berman would have outraised Sherman in the first quarter of 2012.
Finish reading this post on KCET.org.
In 2010, voters approved a ballot measure that took the power to draw congressional lines out of the hands of incumbents and gave that task to an independent redistricting commission. The commission was charged with drawing district lines that, among other things, did not take into account where incumbents resided. That means the commission's purpose was to draw lines that fairly represented communities of interest, rather than lines that gave incumbents a chance at winning.
As a result of the independent redistricting commission's work, districts are not as safe as they used to be. Perhaps the poster-child for this phenomenon is the much-discussed match-up between two Democratic Congressman: Brad Sherman and Howard Berman.
Sherman and Berman have both raised enormous sums for their re-election bids. They are both running for a seat in the San Fernando Valley. Disclosure reports reveal that Sherman has more than $4 million in his campaign war chest (including personal loans), and Berman has approximately $2.4 million in the bank.
Sherman, for his part, is showing his business acumen. Recent disclosure reports show that Sherman earned over $650,000 just based on investing his campaign contributions. Luckily for Sherman, the tax rates on campaign investments are lower than the tax rates on other investors. Interesting: were it not for high returns on investments, Berman would have outraised Sherman in the first quarter of 2012.
Finish reading this post on KCET.org.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Proposition 25: Legislators Must Police Themselves?
Back in June 2010 California voters passed Proposition 25. That measure, named the "Majority Vote for the Legislature to Pass the Budget Act," lowered the threshold required to pass a budget from two-thirds of both state legislative houses to a simple majority of both houses.
But the initiative did more than that: It also stated that if lawmakers do not pass a budget on time they will not get paid until they do successfully do. Politically, it was smart move to sell the measure to the public by saying something like, "legislators shouldn't get paid if they don't do their jobs." That's true, but that little provision was really just there to sweeten the deal.
As it turned out in the summer of 2011, lawmakers did not pass a balanced budget on time after Governor Jerry Brown vetoed their initial plan. State Controller John Chiang, relying on Proposition 25, then stopped paying legislators' salaries. All told they lost less than two weeks of pay.
In an unwise public relations move, legislators sued, claiming that Chiang did not have the authority to stop legislators from being paid and a Sacramento Superior Court judge tentatively agreed last week. In essence the ruling said it is legislators who have the authority to stop pay, not the State Controller. Based on a separation of powers issue that may well be the correct legal decision, it is hard to imagine that the voters thought legislators would be policing themselves when they voted for this initiative.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
L.A. Mayor Villaraigosa: The Next U.S. Secretary of Transportation?
Last Wednesday when Los Angeles Mayor Antonio
Villaraigosa delivered his state of the city address he largely avoided
the main topic facing the city: the budget. That came on Friday in the
unveiling of his budget, which included a proposal with significant
layoffs.
The mayor's speech focused on transportation, and what may be his key achievement, the passage of Measure R. That measure, passed in 2008, includes a temporary half-cent sales tax slated to expire in 2039. It pays for transportation infrastructure throughout Los Angeles County. The tax, for instance, pays the construction and expansion of the region's rail system and maintenance of the highways. All of that work creates over 400,000 new jobs.
Now the mayor is pushing to eliminate the sunset provision of Measure R. That would make the tax increase permanent.
Beyond Measure R, the mayor also focused on America Fast Forward, a bill that would create a loan program from the federal government to local entities and agencies constructing roads and rails. The plan is in the transportation bills awaiting passage in the House and the Senate.
Finish reading this post on KCET.org.
The mayor's speech focused on transportation, and what may be his key achievement, the passage of Measure R. That measure, passed in 2008, includes a temporary half-cent sales tax slated to expire in 2039. It pays for transportation infrastructure throughout Los Angeles County. The tax, for instance, pays the construction and expansion of the region's rail system and maintenance of the highways. All of that work creates over 400,000 new jobs.
Now the mayor is pushing to eliminate the sunset provision of Measure R. That would make the tax increase permanent.
Beyond Measure R, the mayor also focused on America Fast Forward, a bill that would create a loan program from the federal government to local entities and agencies constructing roads and rails. The plan is in the transportation bills awaiting passage in the House and the Senate.
Finish reading this post on KCET.org.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Campaign Contributions: What Are They Good For?
Do you know who your L.A. County Supervisor is? Most people don't. These little known elected officials wield an enormous amount of power, controlling the nation's largest local government.
In Los Angeles County we have five members of the Board of Supervisors. These five individuals represent portions of our 10 million-person county. The number of people residing in one district outnumbers the number of people who live in more than a dozen small states. These powerful politicians face little competition in elections. Incumbents are rarely challenged. It has been more than three decades since an incumbent lost.
So if incumbents face little, if any, competition at the ballot box, do they nonetheless raise campaign funds?
The answer is a resounding yes. One purpose, the main purpose, of raising campaign funds is to allow candidates to effectively advocate for themselves. Put another way, the idea is that campaign money allows candidates to get their messages to the voters.
But members of the board of supervisors have little need to persuade voters to vote for them, they have no challengers. Yet they -- in particular Don Knabe, Michael D. Antonovich and Mark Ridley-Thomas -- are amassing large campaign war chests, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Who gives campaign contributions to candidates all but guaranteed to win? Not surprisingly those who have business before the county. Knabe, who is running unopposed, has raised more then $350,000 from developers, contractors, and builders, among others. Antonovich has also raised more than $350,000, and much of this campaign cash similarly came from developers and contractors. Ridley-Thomas has outraised both Knabe and Antonovich, raking in almost $450,000.
Should Political Bloggers Have to Disclose Payments From a Campaign?
If you are reading this post, then you, like me, may get most of your political information online. You may also have a number of favorite political bloggers. You may appreciate their voice, perspective, point of view, or just find them entertaining.
Most of my favorite bloggers have a particular perspective, and it is rarely hidden. I neither expect nor crave blogs devoid of opinion.
You, like me, may know a little background on your preferred bloggers. It helps me to evaluate how much weight or credibility I will give to a certain argument to know, as we say, where the author is coming from. What I likely don't know, however, is whether that blogger is paid by a political campaign. Ann Ravel, Chairwoman of the Fair Political Practices Commission, the state's political watchdog agency, would like to change that.
If Ravel's proposal becomes law then California would become the first state to provide such information to the public.
The freedom of the expression is one of the most important, if not the most important, right enumerated in the United States Constitution. With very few exceptions, people should be able to say whatever they want, and the public should be able to listen to whomever they want. The same is true, with equal or greater force, for members of the press, whose function is to provide information to the public. A government that censors political speech by some speakers would and should be repugnant to our sensibilities.
However, this proposal does not limit the amount of information the people can disseminate or the public could receive. Rather it would just tell us something about who is speaking, thus providing the public with more information.
Monday, April 16, 2012
We the Corporations?
This post originally appeared in the Los Angeles Daily Journal. You can read the entire post by clicking here.
While the Republican presidential nominee and the ultimate victors of contests throughout the nation may be unknown, one thing is clear: the 2012 election will break campaign fundraising records. This is the first presidential election since the Supreme Court's fateful decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Since that decision, there has been a proliferation of campaign spending, most notably by so-called "Super PAC" organizations. These are independent-expenditure only political committees. Republican-backed Super PACs have already raised $81 million to date this election cycle. (Interestingly, only 17 individuals account for contributing nearly half of that amount to Super PACs.) Because of regulations promulgated under the internal revenue service, contributions by certain non-profit organizations to these Super PACs can remain undisclosed, and therefore hidden from public view.
So how did we get to this place of largely anonymous, largely unlimited campaign spending? The Court's decision in Citizens United, while surprisingly incremental in some ways, opened the doors for the record-breaking spending we are now seeing. In Citizens United, the Court essentially came to two conclusions. First, the Court said that speaker-based identity restrictions are impermissible. This means that if a restriction cannot be validly imposed on an individual, then it similarly cannot be imposed on a corporation. Second, the Court found that independent expenditures are not corrupting. So go ahead and spend $100 million in support of your favorite candidate (or against that candidate's opponent). As long as your expenditure is "independent" it cannot corrupt, according to our nation's highest court.
Although it may seem abundantly obvious, there are a number of reasons why for-profit corporations - artificial entities made up of individuals - should not be treated as the same as individuals in the campaign finance context. While certain non-profit corporations are essentially voluntary political associations, and therefore restricting their speech raises important political expression and association concerns, the same is not true of for-profit corporations.
Most campaign finance restrictions present First Amendment questions that ask the Court to analyze the speaker's interest in spending money, the public's interest in hearing campaign speech, and the government's interest in restricting the speaker from spending that money. In the case of corporate electoral speech, the interests of each of these groups weigh in favor of restrictions. In addition, the interests of another group, which the Court routinely discounts - those who speak but not by spending money - also favors regulation.
While the Republican presidential nominee and the ultimate victors of contests throughout the nation may be unknown, one thing is clear: the 2012 election will break campaign fundraising records. This is the first presidential election since the Supreme Court's fateful decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Since that decision, there has been a proliferation of campaign spending, most notably by so-called "Super PAC" organizations. These are independent-expenditure only political committees. Republican-backed Super PACs have already raised $81 million to date this election cycle. (Interestingly, only 17 individuals account for contributing nearly half of that amount to Super PACs.) Because of regulations promulgated under the internal revenue service, contributions by certain non-profit organizations to these Super PACs can remain undisclosed, and therefore hidden from public view.
So how did we get to this place of largely anonymous, largely unlimited campaign spending? The Court's decision in Citizens United, while surprisingly incremental in some ways, opened the doors for the record-breaking spending we are now seeing. In Citizens United, the Court essentially came to two conclusions. First, the Court said that speaker-based identity restrictions are impermissible. This means that if a restriction cannot be validly imposed on an individual, then it similarly cannot be imposed on a corporation. Second, the Court found that independent expenditures are not corrupting. So go ahead and spend $100 million in support of your favorite candidate (or against that candidate's opponent). As long as your expenditure is "independent" it cannot corrupt, according to our nation's highest court.
Although it may seem abundantly obvious, there are a number of reasons why for-profit corporations - artificial entities made up of individuals - should not be treated as the same as individuals in the campaign finance context. While certain non-profit corporations are essentially voluntary political associations, and therefore restricting their speech raises important political expression and association concerns, the same is not true of for-profit corporations.
Most campaign finance restrictions present First Amendment questions that ask the Court to analyze the speaker's interest in spending money, the public's interest in hearing campaign speech, and the government's interest in restricting the speaker from spending that money. In the case of corporate electoral speech, the interests of each of these groups weigh in favor of restrictions. In addition, the interests of another group, which the Court routinely discounts - those who speak but not by spending money - also favors regulation.
Political Watchdog Agency Steps into Mountain Lion Kill Controversy
This is a tale of the many dangers of
mountain lion hunting -- kind of. Okay; not really, but how often do I
get to use the phrase "mountain lion hunting" in the first line of blog
posts about California governance and politics?
Recently Dan Richards, the head of the Fish and Game Commission, apparently did what one would expect the head of that commission to do: go hunting. Richards did what hunters do best; he killed an animal. And not just any animal, a mountain lion.
"But isn't that illegal in California?" you may ask. Well, yes, informed reader, it is. However, it is legal in Idaho where Richards' hunting expedition occurred.
How did Richards get to Idaho? Who paid to get him there? Well, now we get to the part of our tale that leads us back to the main topic of my posts: governance and politics. Richards received the guided hunting trip as a gift. The gift was apparently worth almost $7,000. Richards has since paid for the cost of the trip, a decision that seemed to coincide with media coverage concerning his controversial excursion. His decision also came after a complaint was filed with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), California's political watchdog agency.
Finish reading this post on KCET.org.
Recently Dan Richards, the head of the Fish and Game Commission, apparently did what one would expect the head of that commission to do: go hunting. Richards did what hunters do best; he killed an animal. And not just any animal, a mountain lion.
"But isn't that illegal in California?" you may ask. Well, yes, informed reader, it is. However, it is legal in Idaho where Richards' hunting expedition occurred.
How did Richards get to Idaho? Who paid to get him there? Well, now we get to the part of our tale that leads us back to the main topic of my posts: governance and politics. Richards received the guided hunting trip as a gift. The gift was apparently worth almost $7,000. Richards has since paid for the cost of the trip, a decision that seemed to coincide with media coverage concerning his controversial excursion. His decision also came after a complaint was filed with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), California's political watchdog agency.
Finish reading this post on KCET.org.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Saving L.A.'s City Budget: More Taxes or Bankruptcy?
Last week Miguel Santana, Los Angeles' Chief
Administrative Officer (i.e. our city's budget honcho), issued a report
about the state of the city's finances. The city currently has a $222 million budget deficit. That number is only expected to increase in the next few years.
The report painted a dismal picture: While revenues have fallen, costs -- specifically costs of paying employees -- have not.
The city has cut close to 5,000 jobs in recent years, but it is still living beyond its means. The question is how the city will pay the bills. The report recommends taxes, potential layoffs, and farming out certain city services (like management of the zoo and the convention center) to private companies. An unsurprisingly contentious proposal suggests that we study different ways to provide for ambulance transport in the city. Read this as meaning different ways of hiring private companies. Currently the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) provides such services. Four out of five calls to the LAFD are for medical emergencies. Would this be a smart economic move or a public health tragedy?
Finish reading this post on KCET.org.
The report painted a dismal picture: While revenues have fallen, costs -- specifically costs of paying employees -- have not.
The city has cut close to 5,000 jobs in recent years, but it is still living beyond its means. The question is how the city will pay the bills. The report recommends taxes, potential layoffs, and farming out certain city services (like management of the zoo and the convention center) to private companies. An unsurprisingly contentious proposal suggests that we study different ways to provide for ambulance transport in the city. Read this as meaning different ways of hiring private companies. Currently the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) provides such services. Four out of five calls to the LAFD are for medical emergencies. Would this be a smart economic move or a public health tragedy?
Finish reading this post on KCET.org.
Should Victims of Kinde Durkee be Able to Raise Money From Maxed-Out Donors?
Here is one of my recent posts on KCET.org
Last week disgraced Democratic campaign treasurer Kinde Durkee pleaded guilty to defrauding California politicians out of approximately $7 million. Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein lost over $4.5 million in campaign funds.
Feinstein wants to go back to the original donors to replace her lost funds. The problem is that many of these donors have already made campaign contributions to Feinstein of $2,500, the maximum legal limit. Even for those donors who have not maxed out on their contributions, this poses a problem for Feinstein. If a donor gave $2,000, the most they can now contribute is $500.
In a draft opinion issued by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) last week the federal agency signaled that it would reject that request. The agency will vote on Thursday regarding Feinstein's request.
Feinstein is not only heavily favored to win the election, but she was also able to loan her campaign $5 million after the Durkee scandal broke. What if that was not the case? What if we were talking about a candidate in a competitive race without the personal resources to loan her campaign money? Should that candidate be able to go back to original donors?
Finish reading the post.
Last week disgraced Democratic campaign treasurer Kinde Durkee pleaded guilty to defrauding California politicians out of approximately $7 million. Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein lost over $4.5 million in campaign funds.
Feinstein wants to go back to the original donors to replace her lost funds. The problem is that many of these donors have already made campaign contributions to Feinstein of $2,500, the maximum legal limit. Even for those donors who have not maxed out on their contributions, this poses a problem for Feinstein. If a donor gave $2,000, the most they can now contribute is $500.
In a draft opinion issued by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) last week the federal agency signaled that it would reject that request. The agency will vote on Thursday regarding Feinstein's request.
Feinstein is not only heavily favored to win the election, but she was also able to loan her campaign $5 million after the Durkee scandal broke. What if that was not the case? What if we were talking about a candidate in a competitive race without the personal resources to loan her campaign money? Should that candidate be able to go back to original donors?
Finish reading the post.
"New ballot to greet voters in state's June primary"
I am quoted in this article in the SF Chronicle by Wyatt Buchanan regarding open primaries.
Another likely impact is more hotly contested general elections, said Jessica Levinson, a visiting associate clinical professor at Loyola Law School who is involved in political reform work. That's because districts with high numbers of people registered to one party could see two candidates from that party duke it out in November.
"Whereas before it was clearly going to be the Republican or Democrat who walks to victory after the primary, now I think ... there will be a real dogfight in the general," she said.
Another likely impact is more hotly contested general elections, said Jessica Levinson, a visiting associate clinical professor at Loyola Law School who is involved in political reform work. That's because districts with high numbers of people registered to one party could see two candidates from that party duke it out in November.
"Whereas before it was clearly going to be the Republican or Democrat who walks to victory after the primary, now I think ... there will be a real dogfight in the general," she said.
Friday, April 6, 2012
We the Corporations?
Here is an except of an OpEd that I authored, which ran on 4/4/12 in the Daily Journal.While the Republican presidential nominee and the ultimate victors of contests throughout the nation may be unknown, one thing is clear: the 2012 election will break campaign fundraising records. This is the first presidential election since the Supreme Court's fateful decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Since that decision, there has been a proliferation of campaign spending, most notably by so-called "Super PAC" organizations. These are independent-expenditure only political committees. Republican-backed Super PACs have already raised $81 million to date this election cycle. (Interestingly, only 17 individuals account for contributing nearly half of that amount to Super PACs.) Because of regulations promulgated under the internal revenue service, contributions by certain non-profit organizations to these Super PACs can remain undisclosed, and therefore hidden from public view.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Prop 28: Will New Term Limits for California Lawmakers Make a Difference?
As regular readers of my commentaries know, I
am no fan of term limits. On a basic level I dislike laws that force
people out of their jobs for no other reason than that they have held a
post for a certain number of years. Do a wonderful job, do a terrible
job, it doesn't matter, you're out.
I also think California's term limit law is yet another example of a ballot initiative which succeeded at the ballot box but failed in application. Term limits mean our lawmakers lack experience and seniority and lobbyists increasingly have power over those lawmakers. Lawmakers are also constantly looking for their next job. Term limits don't create citizen legislators; they create a merry-go-round that politicians get on and off depending on when they are termed out.
Term limits have certainly not caused all that ails California, but they surely have done little to help.
Finish reading this article on KCET.org.
I also think California's term limit law is yet another example of a ballot initiative which succeeded at the ballot box but failed in application. Term limits mean our lawmakers lack experience and seniority and lobbyists increasingly have power over those lawmakers. Lawmakers are also constantly looking for their next job. Term limits don't create citizen legislators; they create a merry-go-round that politicians get on and off depending on when they are termed out.
Term limits have certainly not caused all that ails California, but they surely have done little to help.
Finish reading this article on KCET.org.
Friday, March 30, 2012
The City of Angels: Where are the Women in L.A. Government?
A question in honor of women's history month: Do women now run Los Angeles?
I recently attended a lecture hosted by Zocalo Public Square in which author and journalist Liza Mundy asked, "What will happen to coupledom when most women out-earn their male partners?" In numerous big cities, like Los Angeles, a significant percentage of women are making more than their male partners.
This lecture made me think, what if we look not at earning among heterosexual couples, but at representation in government? So I'll ask again, do women run Los Angeles?
If we look just at elected government posts, the answer seems to be a clear "no." In the City Council fourteen of our fifteen representatives are male. The numbers are similar on the county level. Four of our five members of the Board of Supervisors are male. The pattern continues when we look at the makeup of the members of our state assembly. Of the seventeen Assembly members representing portions of Los Angeles, twelve are men. The numbers tell a similar story in the state's upper house. Of the twelve members of the California State Senate representing areas of Los Angeles only three are women. The numbers shift considerably, however, when we look at members of Congress representing Los Angeles. Half of the fourteen member of Congress hailing from Los Angeles are women.
What do those numbers tell us? Many things, but perhaps the most obvious being that most people in Los Angeles are represented by a male in city, county or state government.
Finish reading this article on KCET.org.
I recently attended a lecture hosted by Zocalo Public Square in which author and journalist Liza Mundy asked, "What will happen to coupledom when most women out-earn their male partners?" In numerous big cities, like Los Angeles, a significant percentage of women are making more than their male partners.
This lecture made me think, what if we look not at earning among heterosexual couples, but at representation in government? So I'll ask again, do women run Los Angeles?
If we look just at elected government posts, the answer seems to be a clear "no." In the City Council fourteen of our fifteen representatives are male. The numbers are similar on the county level. Four of our five members of the Board of Supervisors are male. The pattern continues when we look at the makeup of the members of our state assembly. Of the seventeen Assembly members representing portions of Los Angeles, twelve are men. The numbers tell a similar story in the state's upper house. Of the twelve members of the California State Senate representing areas of Los Angeles only three are women. The numbers shift considerably, however, when we look at members of Congress representing Los Angeles. Half of the fourteen member of Congress hailing from Los Angeles are women.
What do those numbers tell us? Many things, but perhaps the most obvious being that most people in Los Angeles are represented by a male in city, county or state government.
Finish reading this article on KCET.org.
We the Corporations?: The Constitutionality of Limitations on Corporate Electoral Speech After Citizens United
My latest law review article, published in the University of San Francisco Law Review, is now available on SSRN here.
Here is the abstract:
Corporations are not, in fact, living, breathing human beings, and therefore should not be treated as such in the campaign finance context. While this may seem like an obvious statement and conclusion, a majority of the United States Supreme Court does not agree. In its much-maligned January 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court held - in sweeping and conclusory language - that when it comes to spending money for or against political candidates, corporations should be treated identical to human beings. That conclusion is not only wrong, but is also ill-conceived.
This Article uses Citizens United as a vehicle to provide an initial look at the relationship between the theories of the First Amendment and the conceptions of the corporate form, studied through the lens of electoral speech. This Article broadly explores the interplay between the speech interests of corporations and their members in engaging in electoral speech and the different theories of the corporate personality. Against that backdrop, this Article discusses a number of reasons why - contrary to what the majority said in Citizens United - the government has a compelling interest in limiting corporate electoral speech.
In the campaign finance context, the Court should be concerned with the interests of distinct but overlapping groups - spenders' interests in speaking, the government's interest in curbing corruption and promoting speech rights, and non-spending speakers' and listeners' interests in speaking and hearing political speech. The interests of each of these groups are furthered by restrictions on for-profit corporate electoral spending.
In arguing that for-profit corporations should not be treated as identical to individuals and some non-profit corporations, this Article focuses on one type of speech by corporations - the ability of corporations to spend unlimited general treasury funds on advertisements advocating the election or defeat of candidates. The provision of federal law overturned by the Supreme Court in Citizens United addressed only this issue, but the Court made sweeping conclusions about the purported impermissibility of speaker-based identity restrictions.
Here is the abstract:
Corporations are not, in fact, living, breathing human beings, and therefore should not be treated as such in the campaign finance context. While this may seem like an obvious statement and conclusion, a majority of the United States Supreme Court does not agree. In its much-maligned January 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court held - in sweeping and conclusory language - that when it comes to spending money for or against political candidates, corporations should be treated identical to human beings. That conclusion is not only wrong, but is also ill-conceived.
This Article uses Citizens United as a vehicle to provide an initial look at the relationship between the theories of the First Amendment and the conceptions of the corporate form, studied through the lens of electoral speech. This Article broadly explores the interplay between the speech interests of corporations and their members in engaging in electoral speech and the different theories of the corporate personality. Against that backdrop, this Article discusses a number of reasons why - contrary to what the majority said in Citizens United - the government has a compelling interest in limiting corporate electoral speech.
In the campaign finance context, the Court should be concerned with the interests of distinct but overlapping groups - spenders' interests in speaking, the government's interest in curbing corruption and promoting speech rights, and non-spending speakers' and listeners' interests in speaking and hearing political speech. The interests of each of these groups are furthered by restrictions on for-profit corporate electoral spending.
In arguing that for-profit corporations should not be treated as identical to individuals and some non-profit corporations, this Article focuses on one type of speech by corporations - the ability of corporations to spend unlimited general treasury funds on advertisements advocating the election or defeat of candidates. The provision of federal law overturned by the Supreme Court in Citizens United addressed only this issue, but the Court made sweeping conclusions about the purported impermissibility of speaker-based identity restrictions.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Behested Contributions: Good, Bad or Ugly?
While we have campaign contribution limits in California, there are plenty of ways to spend substantial sums of money in an attempt to gain access to, or influence over, elected officials or candidates. Individuals and groups can, for instance, spend unlimited sums on advertisements supporting a candidate or denigrating her opponent, as long as those advertisements are not coordinated with the candidate's campaign.
Individuals and groups can also give so-called "behested contributions." These are contributions have been widely publicized lately. They are made to outside organizations at the behest (or request) of a candidate or elected official. This undoubtedly provides individuals or groups who have already given the maximum campaign contribution to a candidate with an avenue to attempt to curry favor with that candidate. In this way behested contributions can be seen as an end-run around contribution limits.
But behested contributions can do more than make a candidate look with favor upon a particular contributor, they can do a great deal of good to very needy and worthwhile causes. Officeholders and candidates form and support nonprofits and charities that provide scholarships, funding for schools, food to food shelters, and assistance preparing taxes.
As long as these charities are legitimate charities serving worthwhile causes it is difficult for me to argue that these contributions should be curtailed. If contributors are truly giving just to influence politicians and we decide to curtail the amount they can give to charities at the behest of those politicians, then contributors may simply start making independent expenditures instead. I would far prefer this money go to charities and nonprofits. Particularly now, in these difficult economic times, charities need all the money they can get.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Coliseum case widens; six are charged
I am quoted in this article on the front page of the Los Angeles Times.
In a public corruption scandal that has tarred one of the city's most treasured landmarks, six men were charged Friday with bilking the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum out of millions of dollars during a six-year spree of embezzlement, bribery and kickbacks.
Among those named in a 29-count indictment were three former managers of the taxpayer-owned Coliseum and two of the nation's most prominent rave promoters, Insomniac Inc. Chief Executive Pasquale Rotella and Go Ventures Inc. head Reza Gerami. Both staged major events at the historic stadium and companion Sports Arena.
...
Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor who studies public corruption, likened the Coliseum case to the scandal in the city of Bell, where eight public officials were charged with enriching themselves through illegally inflated salaries and other means.
"This type of corruption and rank flouting of the law doesn't happen every day," Levinson said.
In a public corruption scandal that has tarred one of the city's most treasured landmarks, six men were charged Friday with bilking the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum out of millions of dollars during a six-year spree of embezzlement, bribery and kickbacks.
Among those named in a 29-count indictment were three former managers of the taxpayer-owned Coliseum and two of the nation's most prominent rave promoters, Insomniac Inc. Chief Executive Pasquale Rotella and Go Ventures Inc. head Reza Gerami. Both staged major events at the historic stadium and companion Sports Arena.
...
Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor who studies public corruption, likened the Coliseum case to the scandal in the city of Bell, where eight public officials were charged with enriching themselves through illegally inflated salaries and other means.
"This type of corruption and rank flouting of the law doesn't happen every day," Levinson said.
There's A Lack of Good (Political) News in Los Angeles
Goodbye winter, hello spring. In Los Angeles the change of the seasons is often imperceptible. One day with a high in the high 60s or low 70s dissolves into another with little ado. But there is another climate that I talk about in these blog posts: the political climate.
As I sat down to think about what to write about, almost all of the news seemed both predictable and discouraging. Let's take the local redistricting effort as but one example. Last week the Los Angeles City council approved a plan laying out new district lines. Almost all of the news articles about the new lines include words and phrases like, "corruption," "inside job," "lawsuit threats," "legal remedies," "joke,"
"pandering," "backroom deals," and "self-interest." That about describes too many redistricting efforts across the country -- particularly where an independent commission does not draw the lines. But the point is, there was little good news to write about on that topic.
The other big political story in Los Angeles this week seems to be about the Los Angeles Fire Department's (LAFD) problems regarding response times and how the department recently stopped providing the public with rescue response information. One of the more recent articles on this topic reports that Mayor Villaraigosa has asked the LAFD chief to disclose that information. That hardly seems like a happy tale.
Finish reading the article on KCET.org.
As I sat down to think about what to write about, almost all of the news seemed both predictable and discouraging. Let's take the local redistricting effort as but one example. Last week the Los Angeles City council approved a plan laying out new district lines. Almost all of the news articles about the new lines include words and phrases like, "corruption," "inside job," "lawsuit threats," "legal remedies," "joke,"
"pandering," "backroom deals," and "self-interest." That about describes too many redistricting efforts across the country -- particularly where an independent commission does not draw the lines. But the point is, there was little good news to write about on that topic.
The other big political story in Los Angeles this week seems to be about the Los Angeles Fire Department's (LAFD) problems regarding response times and how the department recently stopped providing the public with rescue response information. One of the more recent articles on this topic reports that Mayor Villaraigosa has asked the LAFD chief to disclose that information. That hardly seems like a happy tale.
Finish reading the article on KCET.org.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Should Judges Have to Post Financial Disclosure Statements Online?
Sunlight is the best disinfectant, right? Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis thought so. I myself have repeatedly argued that to maintain (or rebuild) the integrity of the political and electoral processes we must have meaningful disclosure. This includes disclosure of campaign funding. If money is speech in the political marketplace then the public has a right to know who is speaking. But this also includes disclosure of economic interests. If elected officials purport to represent our best interests then I would like to know to which interests they might be indebted.
However, this argument in favor of disclosure has limits. Disclosure, for instance, should not come at the cost of bona fide security risks. The decision of when, how and what to disclose is, therefore, often a balancing act.
Just last week the state's political watchdog agency, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), heard testimony and considered how best to strike this balance in the context of financial disclosure forms submitted by California judges. One of the questions addressed by the FPPC was whether and how to make those forms available online.
Judges, quite obviously, face security threats that many others submitting financial disclosure forms do not. Criminal judges put people in jail. Civil judges often make rulings that lead to the unhappiness of at least one party to a suit. There are, in other words, numerous people who at any given time may wish judges harm. This is not a hypothetical or imagined threat. It is real and palpable.
Finish reading this article on KCET.org
However, this argument in favor of disclosure has limits. Disclosure, for instance, should not come at the cost of bona fide security risks. The decision of when, how and what to disclose is, therefore, often a balancing act.
Just last week the state's political watchdog agency, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), heard testimony and considered how best to strike this balance in the context of financial disclosure forms submitted by California judges. One of the questions addressed by the FPPC was whether and how to make those forms available online.
Judges, quite obviously, face security threats that many others submitting financial disclosure forms do not. Criminal judges put people in jail. Civil judges often make rulings that lead to the unhappiness of at least one party to a suit. There are, in other words, numerous people who at any given time may wish judges harm. This is not a hypothetical or imagined threat. It is real and palpable.
Finish reading this article on KCET.org
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Would Adding More Politicians to the City Council Help Los Angeles?
I know what you're thinking: The last thing we need is more politicians. You might say, even if our elected officials didn't get us into this fiscal mess, they haven't done enough to get us out. Los Angeles needs money; it has too many expenses for its revenue. We've cut services for city residents and pay for city workers.
So why on earth should we hire more politicians? Should we consider expanding the size of our fifteen-person city council? A recent Los Angeles Times Editorial says yes.
Currently there are almost four million people living in Los Angeles, which means each city council person represents approximately 267,000 people. In the 1920s, when the size of the city council increased from 9 to 15 members, L.A.'s population was 576,000, less than the size of two of today's 15 city council districts. Back then each city council person represented about 38,000 people; today each represent 15 times more people.
Finish reading this article on KCET.org.
So why on earth should we hire more politicians? Should we consider expanding the size of our fifteen-person city council? A recent Los Angeles Times Editorial says yes.
Currently there are almost four million people living in Los Angeles, which means each city council person represents approximately 267,000 people. In the 1920s, when the size of the city council increased from 9 to 15 members, L.A.'s population was 576,000, less than the size of two of today's 15 city council districts. Back then each city council person represented about 38,000 people; today each represent 15 times more people.
Finish reading this article on KCET.org.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
2012 Republican June Primary: California Could Matter
Time for me to eat my words? I recently wrote about the importance (or lack there of) of California in presidential politics. I essentially argued that California's importance in the 2012 election was limited to that of an ATM machine -- candidates come here to raise money, but not to serious campaign for votes.
Was I wrong? Well, not with respect to the general election. With 55 electoral votes, California has more electoral votes than any other state in the nation. Based on registration numbers -- Democrats comprise 44% of registered voters, Republicans constitute approximately 31% of that population and decline to state voters make up a little over 20% of registered voters -- there won't be much of a dog fight for California in the general election.
However, California could play a role in picking who President Obama's opponent will be. California does not hold its primary election until June 5. Typically this is late enough in the primary season that the parties have already picked their nominees. Maybe not this time!
As Sherry Bebitch Jeffe recently blogged, the Republican needs to take California seriously this time around. If Romney does not sow up the nomination by June, which seems entirely possible, California and its 172 delegates (yes, you read that right, 172) will be vitally important.
Was I wrong? Well, not with respect to the general election. With 55 electoral votes, California has more electoral votes than any other state in the nation. Based on registration numbers -- Democrats comprise 44% of registered voters, Republicans constitute approximately 31% of that population and decline to state voters make up a little over 20% of registered voters -- there won't be much of a dog fight for California in the general election.
However, California could play a role in picking who President Obama's opponent will be. California does not hold its primary election until June 5. Typically this is late enough in the primary season that the parties have already picked their nominees. Maybe not this time!
As Sherry Bebitch Jeffe recently blogged, the Republican needs to take California seriously this time around. If Romney does not sow up the nomination by June, which seems entirely possible, California and its 172 delegates (yes, you read that right, 172) will be vitally important.
The City of Bell: The Never-Ending Scandal
Just when you thought the tales of bad behavior coming out of the city of Bell had come to an end, the scandals just keep on coming. The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), the state's political watchdog, is now investigating incidents involving former Bell City Manager Robert Rizzo, former Mayor Oscar Hernandez and former City Councilman Luis Artiga.
The FPPC is smartly focusing its efforts on significant violations of the Political Reform Act. With limited resources the FPPC is initiating investigations and putting resources towards the larger potential violations of the act that could truly threaten the integrity of the political and electoral processes.
Unfortunately, the scandal-plagued city of Bell is proving to be a fertile ground for necessary inquiries and actions by the FPPC. Specifically, the commission is investigating potential significant violations of conflict-of-interest and gift laws. One focus, among other things, are Rizzo-funded trips to his Washington state horse ranch. According to allegations, the former city manager apparently paid for plane tickets for Hernandez (plus his girlfriend and her three children) and Artiga to travel up to his horse ranch.
You may ask how Rizzo could afford to own a horse ranch and pick up the tab for visitors. Well, during his time as Bell's City Manager Rizzo made, at one point, $1.5 million per year. That will no doubt buy a number of plane tickets to a horse ranch. Rizzo may be the poster child for bad behavior, but he was not alone. During his tenure council members were paid $100,000 per year to perform, at best, part-time work.
Finishing reading this post on KCET.org.
The FPPC is smartly focusing its efforts on significant violations of the Political Reform Act. With limited resources the FPPC is initiating investigations and putting resources towards the larger potential violations of the act that could truly threaten the integrity of the political and electoral processes.
Unfortunately, the scandal-plagued city of Bell is proving to be a fertile ground for necessary inquiries and actions by the FPPC. Specifically, the commission is investigating potential significant violations of conflict-of-interest and gift laws. One focus, among other things, are Rizzo-funded trips to his Washington state horse ranch. According to allegations, the former city manager apparently paid for plane tickets for Hernandez (plus his girlfriend and her three children) and Artiga to travel up to his horse ranch.
You may ask how Rizzo could afford to own a horse ranch and pick up the tab for visitors. Well, during his time as Bell's City Manager Rizzo made, at one point, $1.5 million per year. That will no doubt buy a number of plane tickets to a horse ranch. Rizzo may be the poster child for bad behavior, but he was not alone. During his tenure council members were paid $100,000 per year to perform, at best, part-time work.
Finishing reading this post on KCET.org.
Monday, March 5, 2012
California's Addition to Direct Democracy Continues
My latest post on KCET.
Suit up. It is almost time for another election in California. We all know what that means: more ballot initiatives. (Insert sighs, grumbles and other sounds of disappointment here).
In June we will be asked to vote on a proposed cigarette tax. Opponents of the measure -- big tobacco companies, including Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco -- have raised almost $15 million to defeat the measure. But if you're looking for ads from them, it will be much easier for you to look for the committee they have funded, Californians Against Out-of-Control Taxes and Spending. (Note to California legislators, time to improve disclosure and transparency for ballot measure spending).
Proponents of the measure have raised almost $3.2 million. The committee receiving those funds is called Californians for a Cure.
These costly electoral campaigns hardly capture the public's imagination. If anything, they perpetuate the feeling that our government doesn't function well and instead every election we must endure endless battles over the fate of ballot initiatives. For the many who may not differentiate between legislatively-initiated ballot measures and citizen-initiated ballot measures, it just feels like another expensive political campaign.
Here is an idea that will never happen. Let's treat these ballot initiative campaigns like lawsuits. Instead of duking it out and either failing to pass an initiative only to bring it back in the next election, or passing an initiative which will end up being litigated well past the next election, let's try settling. In the case of the cigarette tax, both sides would donate the amount they are prepared to spend supporting or opposing the initiative to the end goal of the initiative. Of course this won't always work (or let's be honest, mostly it won't even be feasible). But in this particular case, this would mean $18 million for cancer research 3 months before the election. There is no doubt that number will rise.
Finish reading the post on KCET.org.
Suit up. It is almost time for another election in California. We all know what that means: more ballot initiatives. (Insert sighs, grumbles and other sounds of disappointment here).
In June we will be asked to vote on a proposed cigarette tax. Opponents of the measure -- big tobacco companies, including Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco -- have raised almost $15 million to defeat the measure. But if you're looking for ads from them, it will be much easier for you to look for the committee they have funded, Californians Against Out-of-Control Taxes and Spending. (Note to California legislators, time to improve disclosure and transparency for ballot measure spending).
Proponents of the measure have raised almost $3.2 million. The committee receiving those funds is called Californians for a Cure.
These costly electoral campaigns hardly capture the public's imagination. If anything, they perpetuate the feeling that our government doesn't function well and instead every election we must endure endless battles over the fate of ballot initiatives. For the many who may not differentiate between legislatively-initiated ballot measures and citizen-initiated ballot measures, it just feels like another expensive political campaign.
Here is an idea that will never happen. Let's treat these ballot initiative campaigns like lawsuits. Instead of duking it out and either failing to pass an initiative only to bring it back in the next election, or passing an initiative which will end up being litigated well past the next election, let's try settling. In the case of the cigarette tax, both sides would donate the amount they are prepared to spend supporting or opposing the initiative to the end goal of the initiative. Of course this won't always work (or let's be honest, mostly it won't even be feasible). But in this particular case, this would mean $18 million for cancer research 3 months before the election. There is no doubt that number will rise.
Finish reading the post on KCET.org.
More Latino Representation in Compton?
One of my recent posts on KCET.org.
Last week the city of Compton agreed to put a measure on the ballot, which would institute voting by district in city council races. Currently, Compton's city council members are elected based on at-large city-wide voting.
The decision came in reaction to criticisms that Latinos are massively underrepresented in city government. Critics of the current system filed a lawsuit under the California Voting Rights Act, contending that Latinos must have a larger voice in local government. Specifically, proponents of the lawsuit argue that the current at-large elections dilute Latino voting power, and that if elections occur on a district basis, there will be at least one majority-Latino district.
Latinos now account for almost two-thirds of the city's nearly 100,000 residents. However, only a percentage of those residents are eligible to vote, because of age and other factors. Latinos make up much less than two-thirds of the members of the city government.
Proponents of the lawsuit and the city agreed to settle the suit by placing a measure of the ballot that would create by-district voting. If the measure fails in June it will be back on the November ballot.
Finish reading this post on KCET.org.
Last week the city of Compton agreed to put a measure on the ballot, which would institute voting by district in city council races. Currently, Compton's city council members are elected based on at-large city-wide voting.
The decision came in reaction to criticisms that Latinos are massively underrepresented in city government. Critics of the current system filed a lawsuit under the California Voting Rights Act, contending that Latinos must have a larger voice in local government. Specifically, proponents of the lawsuit argue that the current at-large elections dilute Latino voting power, and that if elections occur on a district basis, there will be at least one majority-Latino district.
Latinos now account for almost two-thirds of the city's nearly 100,000 residents. However, only a percentage of those residents are eligible to vote, because of age and other factors. Latinos make up much less than two-thirds of the members of the city government.
Proponents of the lawsuit and the city agreed to settle the suit by placing a measure of the ballot that would create by-district voting. If the measure fails in June it will be back on the November ballot.
Finish reading this post on KCET.org.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Time for Another Ballot Measure About Redistricting
If I had a nickel for every time I wrote that headline...
It will soon be time for another state election. In California, as recent history demonstrates, that has meant another opportunity to vote on redistricting. In 2008 and 2010, Californians voted to create an independent redistricting commission. Per the responsibility given to them by the voters, this 14-member commission drew state and federal legislative district lines. Then a predictable thing happened: at least one party didn't like those lines.
In this case it is the Republican Party, who correctly recognize that they could risk losing their one-third minority in the state's upper legislative house under the current lines, and who are fighting hardest to get the new maps tossed out. This is particularly disconcerting for the GOP because it takes a two-thirds majority of both legislative houses to pass tax and fee increases. Legislative Republicans stand to lose a good deal of power if their membership falls below one-third in the state's upper house. After largely unsuccessful trips to the courthouse, a GOP-based group called Fairness and Accountability in Redistricting (FAIR) submitted enough signatures to get their state senate map-killing measure on the November 2012 ballot.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Dear New Residents of L.A.: Please Participate
Welcome to the city of traffic jams, plastic people, air pollution and drive-thru cafes. What's not to love? In the words of Woody Allen's "Annie Hall," "I don't want to move to a city where the only cultural advantage is being able to make a right turn on a red light."
But Los Angeles is more than Hollywood and a perceived lack of substance. It is a city on the edge, literally. As Mike Davis wrote in Ecology of Fear, "The entire world seems to be rooting for Los Angeles to slide into the Pacific or be swallowed by the San Andreas fault." To live in Los Angeles is to be somewhere and someplace, acutely aware of fragility.
More than a city forever between natural disasters, Los Angeles has been described as a place with no center. Both mentally and physically this is true. We have no place where we all coalesce. Los Angeles is indeed the antithesis of the community with a town square.
Finish reading this article on KCET.org.
But Los Angeles is more than Hollywood and a perceived lack of substance. It is a city on the edge, literally. As Mike Davis wrote in Ecology of Fear, "The entire world seems to be rooting for Los Angeles to slide into the Pacific or be swallowed by the San Andreas fault." To live in Los Angeles is to be somewhere and someplace, acutely aware of fragility.
More than a city forever between natural disasters, Los Angeles has been described as a place with no center. Both mentally and physically this is true. We have no place where we all coalesce. Los Angeles is indeed the antithesis of the community with a town square.
Finish reading this article on KCET.org.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
"California's elections chief: Postal center closures threaten integrity of upcoming election"
I am quoted in this article in the Mercury News.
Perhaps neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays its couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds, but the U.S. Postal Service's downsizing plan is threatening the integrity of California's upcoming elections, the state's top elections official said Wednesday.
Beleaguered after years of falling revenue, the Postal Service has proposed closing up to 11 mail processing centers in California as part of a national restructuring. And that could delay hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots from arriving at registrars across the state in time to be counted, Secretary of State Debra Bowen warned.
...
Loyola Law Professor Jessica Levinson, an election-law expert who edits the PoLawTics blog, thinks that's wise. Voting by mail costs less than traditional polling places and boosts voter participation, she said, "but the mail service has to be functional and predictable, and it sounds like this is a close-to-disastrous decision when it comes to protecting the integrity of that system."
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Will California's Judicial and Legislative Branches Please Stop Fighting?
Family fights are among the nastiest clashes. Something about them tends to make many of us cringe. "Why are they battling, they are family?" we may wonder. "Can't they rise above this?" we might question. Something in us wants peace, not war.
I have had the same cringe-worthy feeling as I watch the inter- and intra-branch feud between California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, other members of the judicial branch and members of the Assembly, particularly Assembly Speaker John Perez (D) and Assemblyman Charles Calderon (D). Assembly Bill 1208 is at the heart of the current feud. It would take away power from the Judicial Council, which is controlled by the Chief Justice, and give local trial courts more power over spending decisions. AB 1208, which would disperse control of the state judiciary, is supported by a coalition of lower court judges and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), on behalf of courthouse employees. Cantil-Sakauye is understandably less than thrilled, but her means of delivering her message of displeasure has left something to be desired among many observers.
Monday, February 20, 2012
"Political watchdog has a full set of teeth under Ann Ravel's charge"
Very smart OpEd in the Bakersfield Californian about the FPPC.
"I consider the previous two (Republican) chairs of the Fair Political Practices Commission friends of mine and I admire them both greatly. Further, I am a longtime Republican denizen of the state Capitol, having worked for state Senate Republicans and served in the administrations of Govs. Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger. So it may seem out of character for me to rise in defense of Gov. Jerry Brown's liberal Democrat appointee as chairwoman of the commission.
I do so because, despite our diametrically opposed political philosophies, I know Ann Ravel to be a tough, no-nonsense administrator and an honorable friend and colleague. So let me set the record straight."
"I consider the previous two (Republican) chairs of the Fair Political Practices Commission friends of mine and I admire them both greatly. Further, I am a longtime Republican denizen of the state Capitol, having worked for state Senate Republicans and served in the administrations of Govs. Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger. So it may seem out of character for me to rise in defense of Gov. Jerry Brown's liberal Democrat appointee as chairwoman of the commission.
I do so because, despite our diametrically opposed political philosophies, I know Ann Ravel to be a tough, no-nonsense administrator and an honorable friend and colleague. So let me set the record straight."
Sunday, February 19, 2012
"School board to discuss Rios arrest"
I am quoted in this article in the Press Enterprise.
The Moreno Valley school board’s plan to privately discuss this week’s arrest of one of their own members should instead be done in public, one board member and an open-government expert said Friday.
...
Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law school professor, said if the school district believes it faces legal action over the arrest, board members can discuss their options in private with their lawyer.
“But if it is anything other than that, this is the type of issue the public needs to know about it,” she said.
The Moreno Valley school board’s plan to privately discuss this week’s arrest of one of their own members should instead be done in public, one board member and an open-government expert said Friday.
...
Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law school professor, said if the school district believes it faces legal action over the arrest, board members can discuss their options in private with their lawyer.
“But if it is anything other than that, this is the type of issue the public needs to know about it,” she said.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
You Can Thank the Supreme Court for 'Obamajams'
The state of California may be low on funds, but many of our residents are not. Yesterday President Obama flew into Los Angeles for one of his seemingly frequent fundraising trips. These trips typically follow a similar pattern: President Obama lands, President Obama creates traffic, President Obama collects money, President Obama creates more traffic, President Obama leaves.
Some have complained that his focus on the Golden State seems to be fundraising, not governing. It is no doubt that the President has made repeated fundraising trips through Los Angeles and other parts of California. But the reality is that candidates needs to raise money in order to keep their jobs, jobs which allow them to govern. As we all know, campaigns depend on money, and presidential campaigns depend on lots and lots of money.
President Obama isn't to blame for our current campaign finance system, although he hasn't done an enormous amount to try to fix it. For those of you (perhaps those of us) who can get frustrated by the delays and hassles that come with President Obama's fundraising trips, I believe your anger is best directed to the majority of the Supreme Court who, in 1976, essentially found that money is speech. Because of that decision, the number of restrictions by the government on how much people (and corporations) can raise and spend in elections is severely limited. Put another way, money flows relatively freely throughout the political marketplace.
Finish reading this post on KCET.org.
Some have complained that his focus on the Golden State seems to be fundraising, not governing. It is no doubt that the President has made repeated fundraising trips through Los Angeles and other parts of California. But the reality is that candidates needs to raise money in order to keep their jobs, jobs which allow them to govern. As we all know, campaigns depend on money, and presidential campaigns depend on lots and lots of money.
President Obama isn't to blame for our current campaign finance system, although he hasn't done an enormous amount to try to fix it. For those of you (perhaps those of us) who can get frustrated by the delays and hassles that come with President Obama's fundraising trips, I believe your anger is best directed to the majority of the Supreme Court who, in 1976, essentially found that money is speech. Because of that decision, the number of restrictions by the government on how much people (and corporations) can raise and spend in elections is severely limited. Put another way, money flows relatively freely throughout the political marketplace.
Finish reading this post on KCET.org.
Courts bill would shift power but to whom? Large trial courts would gain influence while Legislature regains the purse strings.
I am quoted in this article in the Los Angeles Daily Journal.
To hear the two sides tell it, either the sky will fall or the sea will part.
Since the unexpected passage last month of a controversial bill to decentralize control of the state judiciary, Assembly Bill 1208's supporters and opponents have continued to make countering claims about what will happen if it becomes law.
Detractors say the bill would dismantle the statewide administration of justice, letting fickle legislators stampede over judicial branch autonomy. Supporters say it would strip budget decisions from incompetent managers, ensuring trial courts get 100 percent of the money they're due.
The reality of a "decentralized" court system, if passed by the state Senate this year, would fall somewhere in between those claims.
In practice, the bill would fundamentally limit the authority of the policymaking Judicial Council - and its chair, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye - making it more difficult to push through statewide infrastructure projects. But while trial courts could see more money and greater autonomy over their own budgets, the bill would almost certainly keep power centralized by handing the purse strings to Sacramento and granting a larger say to the biggest trial court, Los Angeles County.
Far from truly "decentralized," the judiciary also wouldn't return to the days when there were 58 completely independent trial courts - called "fiefdoms" by some. The "California Rules of Court" that create a uniform system of paper forms and procedural policies will remain in effect. Services like self-help centers and drug courts are unlikely to go by the wayside. And the current scheme for determining how much money each county receives would remain intact.
"The bill would take a lot of the budgetary power away from the Judicial Council, and it would basically be dispersed. And when you take away budgetary power, you take away power," said Jessica Levinson, a government professor at Loyola Law School who has reviewed the current bill's language. "It's intended to a certain extent to cut the legs out from under the Judicial Council."
...
To hear the two sides tell it, either the sky will fall or the sea will part.
Since the unexpected passage last month of a controversial bill to decentralize control of the state judiciary, Assembly Bill 1208's supporters and opponents have continued to make countering claims about what will happen if it becomes law.
Detractors say the bill would dismantle the statewide administration of justice, letting fickle legislators stampede over judicial branch autonomy. Supporters say it would strip budget decisions from incompetent managers, ensuring trial courts get 100 percent of the money they're due.
The reality of a "decentralized" court system, if passed by the state Senate this year, would fall somewhere in between those claims.
In practice, the bill would fundamentally limit the authority of the policymaking Judicial Council - and its chair, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye - making it more difficult to push through statewide infrastructure projects. But while trial courts could see more money and greater autonomy over their own budgets, the bill would almost certainly keep power centralized by handing the purse strings to Sacramento and granting a larger say to the biggest trial court, Los Angeles County.
Far from truly "decentralized," the judiciary also wouldn't return to the days when there were 58 completely independent trial courts - called "fiefdoms" by some. The "California Rules of Court" that create a uniform system of paper forms and procedural policies will remain in effect. Services like self-help centers and drug courts are unlikely to go by the wayside. And the current scheme for determining how much money each county receives would remain intact.
"The bill would take a lot of the budgetary power away from the Judicial Council, and it would basically be dispersed. And when you take away budgetary power, you take away power," said Jessica Levinson, a government professor at Loyola Law School who has reviewed the current bill's language. "It's intended to a certain extent to cut the legs out from under the Judicial Council."
...
A new campaign finance system based on when contributors give
Here is my latest piece, which appears in the Los Angeles Daily Journal.
This month marks the two-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s much maligned decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (Jan. 21, 2010). In that case, a bare majority of the Court found that for purposes of spending money in the political marketplace, corporations must be treated as identical to people. The Court also ruled that expenditures made independent of candidate campaigns – no matter how large those expenditures are – cannot be corrupting.
The result of the Citizens United decision is that corporations can spend unlimited sums in elections. We have already seen the consequences in the Supreme Court’s handiwork with the advent of Super PAC spending in Iowa and New Hampshire. This is surely only the beginning.
Since the Supreme Court’s January 2010 decision, many have been scrambling to find new ways to limit the influence of money in politics. One largely unexplored way to limit the negative consequences of money in electoral campaigns is to institute temporal restrictions on campaign contributions. I recently published a law review article, entitled “Timing Is Everything: A New Model for Countering Corruption Without Silencing Speech in Elections,” in which I advocate for the imposition of limits on when money may be given and spent during campaigns.
Most jurisdictions seek to stem the pernicious influence of money on electoral processes by limiting the size of campaign contributions. Those jurisdictions have concluded that large campaign contributions may give rise to actual or apparent corruption and therefore place per election limits on the size of campaign contributions. However, other jurisdictions impose restrictions based on when those contributions are made and received. These temporal (or time-based) campaign contribution limits may take various forms, including pre-election, legislative-session, off-year, or post-election restrictions on contributions.
Temporal contribution limits are enacted with the understanding that money given candidates during certain time periods may pose a unique threat of actual or apparent corruption. To use but one example, a contribution given a few months after the election, and therefore at least a few years before a possible future campaign, may be given (or at least appear to be given) for access or influence, not to help a candidate wage a campaign that is years away. As another example, a contribution given during a legislative session can raise issues of corruption because the contribution may be given when a candidate is voting on an issue, which may directly affect that contributor. Members of the public should ask themselves why people are giving money to candidates, particularly incumbents. Quite obviously, elected officials should serve the interests of all of their constituents, not just those who can and do give or spend money in support of their candidacies.
Courts alternatively treat temporal limits on campaign contributions as either contribution limits or expenditure limits in disguise. On the one hand some courts view limits on when people can given money as akin to limits on how much money people can give. On the other hand, some courts view time restrictions on campaign contributions as expenditure limits, reasoning that if candidates cannot raise money during certain blackout periods then they are essentially prohibited from spending any money as well. This distinction makes a huge difference, as contribution limits are generally permissible while expenditure limits are not.
Many temporal contribution restrictions should pass constitutional muster. These restrictions allow candidates to amass the resources necessary to effectively advocate for themselves and serve to preserve the integrity of electoral and governmental processes by preventing money from flowing directly to candidates during time periods seen to be uniquely susceptible to corruption or its appearance.
Unfortunately, the majority of courts have found that the most effective temporal restrictions stand on constitutionally infirm grounds. Therefore I propose a novel legislative model in which jurisdictions could adopt variable contribution limits based on the time contributions are made and received. Under this proposal, per election contribution limits would remain the same, but contribution limits during the first half of an election cycle would be lowered to one third of the total limit. For instance, if the overall contribution limit for a four-year cycle is $3,000, a contributor could give a candidate no more than $1,000 in the first two years of the election cycle. The contributor could then give $2,000 in the last two years of the cycle.
This legislative model draws on two existing systems, found to be constitutional, for support. First, courts have already upheld variable contribution limits based on the identity of the contributor – for instance lobbyists can be subject to contributions limits to which other individuals cannot. Second, courts have also upheld variable contribution limits based on whether a candidate opts into a public campaign financing program. In both cases the purpose of the variable limits is to prevent corruption or its appearance.
This proposal would limit political fundraising when it is most likely to result in actual or apparent corruption and when it is least needed, in the beginning of an election cycle. This proposal would also allow contributors and candidates to give and accept the same per election contributions that they otherwise could. In sum, this new contribution limit structure would serve the government’s interests with minimal impact on the rights of contributors and candidates. At a time when public approval of elected officials is at an all time low, we must take steps to increase public confidence in electoral and political processes.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
"Welcome to California, Ka-Ching!"
Hello and welcome to the Golden State, a fitting name indeed. But wait, we are not only gold, but also blue. Democrats easily outnumber Republicans in California. Democrats make of 44% of registered voters, Republicans constitute almost 31% of that population, and decline to state voters comprise a little over 20% of registered voters.
California is more than just a color palette; it is also a size, extra large. California, as we all know, is enormous. And with that enormity comes the most electoral votes of any state in the land, 55.
However, even with the prize of 55 electoral votes, few presidential candidates seriously campaign in California. Why? Please see above (we're blue).
Finish reading this post on KCET.org.
California is more than just a color palette; it is also a size, extra large. California, as we all know, is enormous. And with that enormity comes the most electoral votes of any state in the land, 55.
However, even with the prize of 55 electoral votes, few presidential candidates seriously campaign in California. Why? Please see above (we're blue).
Finish reading this post on KCET.org.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Prop 8 Decision Reads Like a Letter to Justice Kennedy
The big legal news of this week was the Ninth Circuit ruling in the Proposition 8 case. The appeals court ruled, on narrow grounds, that the passage of Proposition 8, which in 2008 banned same-sex marriage in California, is invalid under the U.S Constitution.
But the opinion is as important for what it didn't say, as for what it did. In a 2-to-1 decision, the majority of the three-judge panel steered clear of broader issues surrounding gay marriage. The court specifically noted that it need not, and would not, rule on whether marriage is a fundamental right. Instead, the court's analysis focused on a narrower question that is likely to arise infrequently at best.
Finish reading the post on KCET.org.
But the opinion is as important for what it didn't say, as for what it did. In a 2-to-1 decision, the majority of the three-judge panel steered clear of broader issues surrounding gay marriage. The court specifically noted that it need not, and would not, rule on whether marriage is a fundamental right. Instead, the court's analysis focused on a narrower question that is likely to arise infrequently at best.
Finish reading the post on KCET.org.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
"Prop. 8 ruling: why it might not go the the Supreme Court"
I am quoted in this article in the Christian Science Monitor.
Justice Kennedy is seen as the key swing vote on the US Supreme Court, and “I think Judge Reinhardt absolutely wrote a narrow decision as if he were writing a letter directly to Justice Kennedy,” says Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
By pointing to Romer v. Evans, Professor Levinson says, Reinhardt “made it sound like this decision [on Prop. 8] followed undeniably from some of Kennedy’s own thinking on that case.”
She also notes how Reinhardt steered clear of any implication of a broader right to gay marriage. “We …. need not and do not consider whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry,” the opinion stated.
Justice Kennedy is seen as the key swing vote on the US Supreme Court, and “I think Judge Reinhardt absolutely wrote a narrow decision as if he were writing a letter directly to Justice Kennedy,” says Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
By pointing to Romer v. Evans, Professor Levinson says, Reinhardt “made it sound like this decision [on Prop. 8] followed undeniably from some of Kennedy’s own thinking on that case.”
She also notes how Reinhardt steered clear of any implication of a broader right to gay marriage. “We …. need not and do not consider whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry,” the opinion stated.
"A Question of Integrity: Politics, Ethics, and the Supreme Court"
I'll be a panelist at this event at UCLA on Monday 2.13.12.
Alliance for Justice
American Constitution Society at UCLA
California Common Cause
and CREDO Action
Invite you to attend the Los Angeles premiere of the Alliance for Justice's newest short documentary, A Question of Integrity: Politics, Ethics, and the Supreme Court, narrated by actor, director and activist Edward James Olmos.
Monday, February 13, 2012
5:00pm
UCLA Law School
Please join us for the film followed by an exciting and informative panel discussion featuring:
Jessica Levinson, Professor at Loyola Law School
John Wellington Ennis, Filmmaker and Activist
Kathay Feng, Executive Director of California Common Cause and UCLA Law Graduate.
American Constitution Society at UCLA
California Common Cause
and CREDO Action
Invite you to attend the Los Angeles premiere of the Alliance for Justice's newest short documentary, A Question of Integrity: Politics, Ethics, and the Supreme Court, narrated by actor, director and activist Edward James Olmos.
Monday, February 13, 2012
5:00pm
UCLA Law School
Please join us for the film followed by an exciting and informative panel discussion featuring:
Jessica Levinson, Professor at Loyola Law School
John Wellington Ennis, Filmmaker and Activist
Kathay Feng, Executive Director of California Common Cause and UCLA Law Graduate.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Republicans: No Need for Tax Increases with Facebook's IPO
Goodbye, budget deficits; hello, surplus funds? I could "like" that.
Last week Facebook filed its Initial Public Offering (IPO). In less time than it takes me to "like," comment, post or share, some claimed that California's budget problems were about to be solved (or at least eased).
Breaking News: Ninth Circuit to Rule on the Merits of Prop 8 Tuesday 2.7.12
More from Reuters.
"The ruling on California's same-sex marriage ban, passed by voters in 2008, could set national policy, if the Supreme Court takes the case. Both sides have indicated they will appeal if they lose the case in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
About 40 U.S. states have outlawed same-sex marriage, but the issue has been decided on a state-by-state basis"
Saturday, February 4, 2012
"Prop 14 Could Change How San Fernando Valley Congressional Race Plays Out"
Many us who watched the state's independent redistricting commission drawing congressional lines collectively sighed when we saw the newly drawn lines in the San Fernando Valley. Because of the way the lines were drawn two incumbent Congressman, both Jewish Democrats with similar voting records that are determined to win, will face off in elections this year.
Representatives Howard Berman and Brad Sherman and running for the same congressional seat. The two prodigious fundraisers have wasted no time. Reports that came out this week show that Berman has raised a total of $2.9 million and Sherman has raised $3.7 million.
The Berman-Sherman matchup is expected to be one of the most expensive Congressional races this year. The fundraising reports support this conclusion. But savvy voters must ask themselves an important question: will such a matchup ever occur?
Thursday, February 2, 2012
"Pro-Romney super PAC rakes in cash from Calif. donors"
If super political action committee dollars were votes in the Republican presidential primary, California would already have voted resoundingly for Mitt Romney.
...
With California's presidential primary not until June, the state's role in the race is mainly that of an ATM, said Jessica Levinson, campaign finance scholar at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. Super PACs, she said, have allowed for a "shadow campaign finance system" that is detrimental to the political system.
"If money’s speech, then people with more money get more speech, and this is a fundamental problem in a representative democracy," Levinson said. "It’s giving people with money a megaphone in the current debate."
Finish reading this article on California Watch.
...
With California's presidential primary not until June, the state's role in the race is mainly that of an ATM, said Jessica Levinson, campaign finance scholar at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. Super PACs, she said, have allowed for a "shadow campaign finance system" that is detrimental to the political system.
"If money’s speech, then people with more money get more speech, and this is a fundamental problem in a representative democracy," Levinson said. "It’s giving people with money a megaphone in the current debate."
Finish reading this article on California Watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)