Political Activity Law/Political Law/Election Law

A discussion of political activity law issues and practice.

Political Activity Law/Political Law/Election Law
Skip to primary content
Skip to secondary content
  • About
  • Disclaimer

Daily Archives: April 29, 2010

Post navigation

← Older posts

“What will Crist donors do?”

Posted on April 29, 2010 by Eric Brown

That’s what a Politico headline asks. If Charlie Crist follows through on plans to abandon the Republican Party Thursday evening, the next most important issue on his political agenda is what to do about his Senate campaign donors. A host of … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized

DISCLOSE Act: Is there a chill in the air?

Posted on April 29, 2010 by Eric Brown

Citizens United notes and warns of the dangers of laws that can chill speech a number of times.  (Quotations below from Citizens United.) Prolix laws chill speech for the same reason that vague laws chill speech:  People “of common intelligence … Continue reading →

Posted in Const Law Issues

What happened at the Federal Election Commission today

Posted on April 29, 2010 by Eric Brown

The Federal Election Commission held an open session meeting today and approved a new rule regarding federal candidate/officeholder participation in nonfederal fundraising events.  Documents related to the rule are available here (the rule was approved with some amendments and the … Continue reading →

Posted in FEC

As I tweeted earlier, no fast track SCOTUS review for DISCLOSE Act challenges

Posted on April 29, 2010 by Eric Brown

The DISCLOSE Act, unlike BCRA (in section 403), does not provide for a fast track appeal to the Supreme Court.  (Sec. 501 of the Senate version.)  Instead, those who seek to challenge the constitutionality of the Act’s provisions will have … Continue reading →

Posted in Const Law Issues

Express advocacy: why should courts and the FEC have all the fun?

Posted on April 29, 2010 by Eric Brown

The DISCLOSE Act doesn’t seem to directly define “express advocacy”; it amends the definition of “independent expenditure” in 2 USC 431(17) to provide that the term means an expenditure by a person that, when taken as a whole, expressly advocates … Continue reading →

Posted in Const Law Issues

Post navigation

← Older posts
© 2012 Eric Brown