Posts Tagged ‘campaign regulation’

July 11 roundup

  • Update: Australian judge tells Men at Work to pay 5% of royalties to “Kookaburra” owner, far less than was demanded [Lowering the Bar, earlier here and here]
  • McDonald’s CEO pushes back vs. ogrish CSPI’s anti-Happy Meal campaign [Stoll, Mangu-Ward] “Milk, Coke and the Calorie Police” [Jason Kuznicki, Cato]
  • “Lawyer sues basketball star LeBron James, alleging he is his father” [CNN, BLT] Update: judge tosses suit.
  • Small business tort liability costs estimated at $133 billion [NERA study (PDF) for Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform (press release) via PoL]
  • Crawlers, robots.txt and fear of litigation: “Some closure on my collision with Facebook” [Pete Warden]
  • Now what was Citizens United supposed to open the floodgates for, exactly? [Bainbridge]
  • DOJ “entered into undisclosed agreement with Amex to freeze out the employment of exec who ultimately was cleared of wrongdoing” [Podgor, Kirkendall via Steele]
  • Easter egg in financial regulation bill could result in new pressure for gender, ethnic quotas across wide sectors of economy [Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Real Clear Politics; Mark Perry with some figures on the degree of gender balance in Dodd’s and Frank’s committees]

June 30 roundup

June 16 roundup

  • Shameless: House leadership exempts NRA lest it sink bill to regulate political speech [John Samples, Cato]
  • Employment law: “Arbitration Showdown Looms Between Congress, Supreme Court” [Coyle, NLJ]
  • “Wake Up, Fellow Law Professors, to the Casualties of Our Enterprise” [Tamanaha, Balkinization]
  • Move to allow international war crimes trials over “aggression,” a notoriously slippery term [Anderson, Brett Schaefer/NRO “Corner” via Ku]
  • Litigation slush funds: “Cy pres bill in Ohio House” [Ted Frank, CCAF]
  • “Recent Michigan Prosecutions for ‘Seducing an Unmarried Woman’” [Volokh]
  • Scalia: “…least analytically rigorous and hence most subjective of law-school subjects, legal ethics” [LEF]
  • Silicosis settlement scandal update: “As 2 Insurance Execs Admit Bribes, PI Lawyer Says He Can’t Be Retried” [Houston Chronicle via ABA Journal, earlier]

January 30 roundup

  • Attention journalists: a trademark opposition and a trademark lawsuit are two different things [Legal Satyricon]
  • I explain (slightly rudely) why I think the Citizens United decision will probably help the Dems this cycle [National Journal blogger poll] Plus: no big effect on campaigns? [Ann Althouse] And it’s not as if Chuck Schumer has made up his mind or anything: he’s titled his hearing on Citizens United next week “Corporate America vs. the Voter” [PoL, yet more here and here]
  • Olson and Boies should realize these are not the days of the Warren Court [Dale Carpenter, Independent Gay Forum]
  • Motorists beware Tenaha, Texas: the legal sequel [WSJ Law Blog, earlier here, etc.]
  • “Detroit Lawyer Fined For Chasing Buffalo Air Crash Victims” [Turkewitz]
  • Symbolic venue? Administration chooses to unveil new press-lenders-to-serve-minorities campaign at Jesse Jackson event [N.Y.Times]
  • Remembering pinball prohibition [Popular Mechanics back in August, Radley Balko]
  • Judge cuts “shocking”, “monstrous” $2 million award to $54,000 in Jammie Thomas-Rasset music-download suit [AmLaw Litigation Daily, earlier] Naughty librarians: “Offline Book ‘Lending’ Costs US Publishers Nearly $1 Trillion” [Eric Hellman]

State of the Union: Lip-reading Justice Alito

In his State of the Union message, President Obama claimed the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United would “open the floodgates” for foreign companies to “spend without limit in our elections.” Justice Samuel Alito could be seen mouthing words and in particular, per Gerard Magliocca, the phrase “That’s not true”. For why he might have reacted that way, see Politifact “Truth-o-Meter”.

More from Randy Barnett at Politico:

In the history of the State of the Union has any President ever called out the Supreme Court by name, and egged on the Congress to jeer a Supreme Court decision, while the Justices were seated politely before him surrounded by hundreds Congressmen? To call upon the Congress to countermand (somehow) by statute a constitutional decision, indeed a decision applying the First Amendment? What can this possibly accomplish besides alienating Justice Kennedy who wrote the opinion being attacked. Contrary to what we heard during the last administration, the Court may certainly be the object of presidential criticism without posing any threat to its independence. But this was a truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order. A new tone indeed.

The President also made an erroneous reference to “reversing a century of law”, which Linda Greenhouse corrects at the New York Times “Opinionator” blog.

And: Tony Mauro/NLJ, Ann Althouse. Althouse also notes that there’s a lesson for Citizen United critics in the ways Alito’s few seconds of silent protest upstaged the President: “It’s not how much or how loud you speak that counts, is it?” And Howard Wasserman at Prawfsblawg rounds up reactions on both sides from the perspective of a “somewhat-rare Democrat and Obama supporter who believes Citizens United was correctly decided.” And did the speech as delivered tone down rhetoric about Citizens United that had been distributed in printed versions?

January 22 roundup

  • Early reactions to Supreme Court’s blockbuster Citizens United ruling striking down ban on independent election advocacy [Point of Law, more, yet more]
  • Vision Media Television Group continues its legal push against online critics, Section 230 or no [Consumer Law & Policy, earlier]
  • Big FBI sting operation could leave firearms business “wounded”, some say [Point of Law]
  • Runaway’s suit against McKeesport, Pa. school district dismissed on statute of limitations grounds [AP/Law.com]
  • “Sandra Day O’Connor Backs Campaign to End Judicial Elections” [Schwartz, NY Times, my two cents]
  • “Sheriff Joe’s Enabler” [Radley Balko on Maricopa County D.A. Andrew Peyton Thomas; earlier here, here, etc.]
  • Why some D.C. lawyers make so much money year in, year out [Hill & Lat, Washingtonian, quotes Ted; Ribstein and more]
  • “Hampshire woman jailed for false rape claim” [BBC]
  • P.S. At this point, politically, Dems almost have to pass something labeled health care reform whether or not the resulting legislation makes any sense [my comment in National Journal blogger’s poll, more]

June 10 roundup

  • British TV regulators field many complaints about performers’ setbacks on reality contest shows [Guardian via Marginal Revolution]
  • “Judge Tosses Much of Campaign Contributions Case Against Katrina Lawyer” (Pierce O’Donnell, said to have reimbursed employees for donations to Edwards race) [NLJ, earlier]
  • Patrick Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney in Chicago, threatens to sue publisher over contents of forthcoming book [WSJ Law Blog, NY Mag “Intelligencer”]
  • Late-night neighbor dispute: “Honking horn not constitutionally protected” [Seattle Times]
  • “Strippers Sue to Be Classified as Employees, Not Independent Contractors” [NLJ]
  • Boston-based James Sokolove, biggest legal pitchman, is planning to get even bigger with $25 million ad budget [Wicked Local via Ambrogi]
  • What more satisfying for a lawyer than to win an anti-SLAPP motion against someone trying to silence one’s client? [Ken @ Popehat]
  • “Despite crazy rules, convoluted taxes and rampant lawyers, America is still a great place to do business” [The Economist]

Grand jury probes John Edwards-Rielle Hunter payments

What with all the money in Edwards’ own name from his legal career, not to mention the late Texas trial lawyer Fred Baron’s generosity in solving the housing needs of Edwards’ girlfriend, it wouldn’t seem necessary to use campaign or charitable funds for her benefit, too, but a U.S. attorney is said to be pursuing allegations along those lines. Hunter was paid $100,000 to do documentary filmmaking about the Edwards campaign, which gave the couple many opportunities to be close to each other. [New York Daily News, CBS News, Raleigh News & Observer] More: Althouse, Kaus.

Marc Dann’s “Where Are They Now?” Moment

Overlawyered readers may well recall the travails of disgraced former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann.  Dann dropped off the radar earlier this year after he was driven from office amid allegations of sexual harassment and workplace affairs within his office.  Before stepping down, Dann touched off a brief constitutional crisis in Ohio, similar to what Illinois is now experiencing thanks to Rod Blagojevich.

Now Dann is back in the news, with a less sexy scandal involving campaign finance expenditures:

Former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann used his campaign account to bankroll home repairs and family vacations, according to a newspaper review of state investigative reports.

Interestingly, beyond the expected “lies all lies!” defense, Dann responds that while he didn’t do it, if he did do it, he did it on the advice of counsel:

“The allegations that have been made in these complaints are either false or they lack a basis in law,” Dann said. “We operated the campaign committee lawfully, and all the expenditures were made with the advice of counsel and were appropriate.”

It would be nice to know which counsel advised the former attorney general that home repairs and family vacations were appropriate campaign expenditures.  Assuming that the counsel wasn’t Marc Dann.

Via Instapundit, who observes that the AP’s treatment of this story leaves the reader puzzled as to Dann’s party identity.  Perhaps Marc Dann was an independent.