Loyola Professors Enrich Supreme Court Conversation

Loyola Law School, Los Angeles professors continue to enrich the dialogue about U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence after the court concluded its 2015 term in June with commentary on cases ranging from evidence collection and affirmative action to immigration and abortion access. Their analyses reached millions of people nationwide via such outlets as NPR, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, Politico, Bloomberg and more on an array of cases:

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: FISHER v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

Professor Kimberly West-Faulcon, the James P. Bradley Professor of Constitutional , weighed in on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 4-3 rejection of a challenge to the affirmative action-based admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin. West-Faulcon, a nationally recognized expert on standardized testing and reverse discrimination claims, filed an amicus brief in the case. She provided analysis to several outlets:

“Surprisingly, Facts Rule the Day in Fisher II,” SCOTUSblog, June 24, 2016

Yesterday’s decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin marks the first time Justice Anthony Kennedy has ruled in favor of a racial affirmative action policy in the twenty-eight years he has served on the Supreme Court. Unwilling to sound the death knell on racial affirmative action in higher education, Kennedy ventured down a path he had never taken before. He upheld the race-conscious component of the University of Texas at Austin’s admissions policy as satisfying the stringent strict-scrutiny standard of review. Instead of siding with rejected white applicant Abigail Fisher or ruling that affirmative action is per se unconstitutional as Fisher’s lawyers contended, Kennedy upheld the policy Fisher challenged as unconstitutional despite an oft-articulated constitutional aversion to race consciousness.

“Supreme Court Upholds Use of Affirmative Action at Universities,” Los Angeles TImes, June 23, 2016

“This is momentous,” said Kimberly West-Faulcon, a law professor at the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “Justice Kennedy has finally found a racial affirmative action policy that he was willing to endorse. This is a significant departure.”

“Scholars: Fisher Decision Gives Colleges ‘Breathing Room’ to Consider Race in Admissions,” Diverse Issues in Higher Education, June 23, 2016

Kimberly West-Faulcon, the James P. Bradley Chair in Constitutional Law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said Kennedy’s decision represents a “significant departure” from his previous decisions in affirmative action cases.“This is momentous,” West-Faulcon said. “Justice Kennedy has finally found a racial affirmative action policy that he was willing to endorse.“This is a significant departure from every racial affirmative action case Justice Kennedy has decided to date,” West-Faulcon continued, referring to Kennedy’s votes against affirmative action policies in two higher education cases — Grutter and Gratz — as well as other cases.

POLITICAL CORRUPTION: McDonnell v. U.S.

Professor Jessica Levinson, who teaches Laws of the Political Process and Money, Politics & the Supreme Court, opined on the Supreme Court’s vacating of the political corruption conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. Her commentary appeared in several stories:

“Politics As Usual Is Not Illegal,” Sacramento Bee (Op-Ed), June 28, 2016

As a result of the court’s opinion, plenty of really disgusting behavior, like that of McDonnell, is now legal. This is because the court significantly narrowed the types of behavior that are impermissible under the federal bribery statutes by reading the term “official acts” as requiring more than “merely arranging a meeting, attending an event, hosting a reception, or making a speech.” Instead, in order to be found guilty anofficial must “make a decision or take an action on (an) action or matter.”

“Supreme Court Throws Out Corruption Conviction of Ex-Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell,” Wall Street Journal, June 27, 2016

The decision “kind of blesses a lot of activities that are problematic,” said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “If I were a prosecutor, I would be more circumspect.”

“McDonnell Ruling a Big Blow to Corruption Law,” Politico, June 27, 2016

"It allows for a great deal of activity that really sidelines the average person who can't give a Rolex, a Ferrari or throw a wedding for someone," said Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. "It essentially acknowledges that business as usual in political means money talks really loudly."

SUPREME COURT COMPOSITION: Effects of Scalia’s absence on court’s jurisprudence

Professor Allan Ides, the Christopher N. May Professor of Law and a former clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Byron White, deconstructed how the alterered Supreme Court composition affected case outcomes.

“How a Bench of 8 Justices Changes Supreme Court Decisions,” KPCC-FM’s Take Two, June 24, 2016
Professor Allan Ides discusses the effects of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia’s death on the Supreme Court at it wraps up its 2015 term.

“Supreme Court Limps to Finish,” The Hill, June 26, 2016

“For run of the mill cases this is having no effect, but the high-profile cases — Friedrichs, the contraceptive case, immigration — it has had an impact and you can see it where the court has been unable to resolve the case or tried to find some gimmick to send it back to the lower court,” Allan Ides, a professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said about the impact of a short-handed court."

IMMIGRATION: U.S. v. Texas

The co-directors of the Loyola Immigrant Justice Clinic – alumnae Marissa Montes and Emily Robinson – were go-to sources of commentary on the Supreme Court’s opinion in U.S. v. Texas, which struck down President Obama’s executive action on immigration, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA).

“Deadlocked Supreme Court Fails To Revive Obama's Immigration Plan,” NPR, June 24, 2016

Marissa Montes, Co-Director of Loyola Law School, Los Angeles’ Immigrant Justice Clinic, joins Morning Edition to discuss the Supreme Court's tie vote, which blocked an attempt to help millions of unauthorized immigrant families. The case goes back to the court of a conservative federal judge in Texas.

“After Supreme Court Deadlock on Immigration, What's Next?” Dallas Morning News, June 24, 2016

"We would be naive to think he is going to side with the immigrant advocates in this country who want protections," Emily Robinson, co-director of the Loyola Immigrant Justice Clinic in Los Angeles, said in an interview Friday.

EVIDENCE COLLECTION: UTAH v. STRIEFF

The Supreme Court opinion in Utah v. Strieff allows into court evidence found during an unlawful stop if the suspect was later found to have an outstanding warrant. Loyola professors opined on the impact of this decision in several stories:

“Illegal Evidence Allowed in Court,” Bloomberg Law, June 20, 2016

Professor Laurie Levenson, the David W. Burcham Professor of Ethical Advocacy, analyzed for Bloomberg BNA the Supreme Court opinion that On why this type of evidence is not considered fruit of the poisonous tree: “The court was using the Attenuation Doctrine. It’s never been used before in this situation,” said Levenson. “ The only thing you had here intervening was the arreseting officer finding an outstanding warrant.”

“Thoughts on Utah v. Strieff: A Blow to Democratic Accountability of Police,” Summary Judgments, June 21, 2016
Professor Eric Miller, who teaches Criminal Procedure and related cased, assessed the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Utah v. Strieff, which opened the door for police evidence to be presented in court even when obtained without a search warrant and without initial probable cause. His commentary appeared on the Summary Judgments faculty blog, “The police can now target high-crime neighborhoods in which individuals have greater likelihood of warrants and engage in random stops with virtual impunity. In a city like Ferguson, Missouri, where the number of outstanding warrants is larger than the number of citizens, the right to avoid the police is a chimera.”

Miller's commentary was featured on SCOTUSblog.

O’Bannon v. NCAA: Antitrust case In which Athletes Seek Payment for Likenesses in Videogame

Professor Jennifer Rothman has closely followed the case of O’Bannon v. NCAA, a case in which NCAA athletes are seeking payment for the use of their likenesses in a videogame. The case involves right of publicity issues – an area on which Professor Jennifer Rothman, Joseph Scott Fellow, is a nationally renowned expert. Rothman runs Rothman’s Roadmap to the Right of Publicity. Her filing of an amicus brief to the Supreme Court received coverage:

DC Antitrust Group, Law Profs Back NCAA's O'Bannon Appeal,” Law 360, June 17, 2016

Another brief from 28 legal scholars, dated Monday, focused on what the professors described as a problem with the Ninth Circuit’s First Amendment analysis. The 28 law professors are represented by Eugene Volokh of the UCLA School of Law and Jennifer E. Rothman of Loyola Law School, Los Angeles.

LIABILITY UNDER FALSE CLAIMS ACT: Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar

Professor Paul T. Hayden's book, "The Law of Torts," is cited in the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion turning on when liability arises under the False Claims Act.
[Excerpt from the opinion]

We need not resolve whether all claims for payment implicitly represent that the billing party is legally entitled to payment. The claims in this case do more than merely demand payment. They fall squarely within the rule that half-truths—representations that state the truth only so far as it goes, while omitting critical qualifying information—can be actionable misrepresentations. A classic example of an actionable half-truth in contract law is the seller who reveals that there may be two new roads near a property he is selling, but fails to disclose that a third potential road might bisect the property. See Junius Constr. Co. v. Cohen, 257 N. Y. 393, 400, 178 N. E. 672, 674 (1931) (Cardozo, J.). “The enumeration of two streets, described as unopened but projected, was a tacit representation that the land to be conveyed was subject to no others, and certainly subject to no others materially affecting the value of the purchase.” Ibid. Likewise, an applicant for an adjunct position at a local college makes an actionable misrepresentation when his resume lists prior jobs and then retirement, but fails to disclose that his “retirement” was a prison stint for perpetrating a $12 million bank fraud. See 3 D. Dobbs, P. Hayden, & H. Bublick, Law of Torts §682, pp. 702–703, and n. 14 (2d ed. 2011) (citing Sarvis v. Vermont State Colleges, 172 Vt. 76, 78, 80–82, 772 A. 2d 494, 496, 497–499 (2001)).

If You're Going to Be a Single-Issue Voter, Make That Issue the Supreme Court

By: Professor Jessica Levinson
This is an excerpt from an op-ed Professor Levinson wrote for Pacific Standard

Justice Antonin Scalia's unexpected death has thrown the importance of the Supreme Court into focus. Amid all the partisan bickering and obstructionist, political posturing we should take a moment to talk about why the composition of the United States' highest-ranking court matters. Simply put, the people who sit in its nine chairs can have lasting power far beyond the man (or perhaps, someday, woman) who appoints them.

First, while presidents can hold office for a maximum for eight years, Supreme Court justices (along with all lower federal judges) hold lifetime appointments. Justices can—and often do—stay in office for decades.

Read the full article here.

Court to decide principle of one person, one vote

By Professor Jessica Levinson
This is an excerpt from an op-ed published in the Sacramento Bee

A priest, a rabbi and a minister walk into a bar. They each live in a different state Senate district with 100,000 people in each district. There are 80,000 voters in the priest’s district, 50,000 in the rabbi’s district and 20,000 in the minister’s district.

This is not the beginning of a joke, but rather the basis of one of the most important election law cases to hit the U.S. Supreme Court in years.

If two candidates run for state Senate in each district, the priest will have to convince 40,001 of his friends to vote for his preferred candidate. The rabbi, by contrast, will only have to sway 25,001 voters. And the minister has the easiest task; he must only persuade 10,001 voters in order for his preferred candidate to win the election. Put another way, in the priest’s district it takes many more voters to elect the candidate of his choice.

Read the full article here.

Female Political Candidates Are Treated As Circus Freaks

By: Professor Jessica A. Levinson

This is an excerpt from an article by Professor Jessica A. Levinson on the San Francisco Chronicle

The message that these comparisons between Clinton and Fiorina send is clear — each side gets its one female candidate, no more, no fewer. It is all but understood that Clinton would not pick a female running mate. There would be no need, because we have already checked the gender box on her candidacy. Similarly, in the unlikely event that Fiorina were nominated for president, or chosen as a vice presidential candidate, it is all but assured that she would be the only female on that ticket.

Female candidates are therefore made into circus-like oddities. Come one, come all, and take a look at the women who want to be president. Let’s stop making female candidates circus freaks.

Read the full article here

California Recounts Are Rare, and Should Be Fair

By Professor Jessica Levinson

This post originally appeared in The Sacramento Bee.

Until former Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez called it off Friday, we were in the midst of what was likely to become the biggest election recount in California history. If anything good comes of this political tempest, it is to remind us how badly we need to reform our recount laws.

The race to be the next state controller was excruciatingly tight. Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin, a Republican, is now set to face off against Board of Equalization member Betty Yee. Four hundred eighty-one votes separated Pérez and Yee, both Democrats. After the recount, which cost approximately $30,000, Perez picked up 10 votes.

For the complete story, click here.

Ballot Initiatives Gone Wild

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

This op-ed originally appeared on Politix and was re-posted by The Huffington Post.

Here a ballot initiative, there a ballot initiative, everywhere in California a ballot initiative.

How did we get here? About a hundred years ago the processes of direct democracy spread across the country. States gave their citizens the ability to directly enact laws (via the ballot initiative), to directly repeal laws (via the referendum), and to oust elected officials (via the recall). The purpose of direct democracy is to empower average citizens and decrease the power than moneyed interests may have over elected officials. Sounds quaint, doesn't it?

Welcome to 2014, when the very special interests direct democracy was meant to guard against now direct and control those processes. And specifically, welcome to California, where we have not only ousted a governor (Gray Davis) via the recall, but where we frequently use the ballot initiative process. Want to change how many lawmakers it takes to pass the state's budget? Pass a ballot initiative. Want to change the definition of marriage? Pass a ballot initiative. Want to cut or increase taxes? Pass a ballot initiative. Want to change the penalties for criminal offenses? Once again, pass a ballot initiative.

Read the complete piece.

Much Ado About McCutcheon

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

This piece appears in Pacific Standard.

Shaun McCutcheon wants to make political donations to federal candidates. Allow me to clarify; McCutcheon wants to make a LOT of political donations to federal candidates. The Republican National Committee, among others, wants him to be able to do so. So what's the problem?

Currently, McCutcheon can give $2,600 per election directly to a federal candidate, a total of $48,600 per election to all federal candidates, and $74,600 per election to federal political party committees and political action committees, or PACs, that give money to federal candidates. Put another away, McCutcheon (and other individuals) are subject to a $123,200 per election aggregate contribution limit with respect to candidates, political parties, and PACs. McCutcheon, a general contractor living in Alabama, would like to change that. The result is the latest and greatest campaign finance question to hit the high court since Citizens United.

In the early 1970s, in the wake of the Watergate scandals that lead to the resignation of President Nixon, Congress implemented the nation's first comprehensive campaign finance law. The law limited how much could be given to and spent by candidates, how much could be spent by independent groups and organizations, required that certain donations and expenditures be disclosed to the public, and created a system of public campaign financing for presidential candidates.

In 1976, in a decision that remains the bedrock of campaign finance law, Buckley v. Valeo, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially accepted half of Congress' attempt to regulate money in politics. The court upheld limits on contributions, disclosure provisions and the public financing program. However, the court struck down limits on spending by candidates and independent organizations. In the court's patchwork opinion it upheld the limits on the total amount of contributions that donors could give to candidates, political party, and other political committees, finding that those limits were a way to prevent the evasion of the direct limits on contributions from individuals to candidates. The court's analysis is less than satisfying on this point. In the almost 40 years since that decision much has changed regarding campaign finance laws. Money now flows relatively freely, and in some cases in undisclosed amounts, through our political system. But the aggregate limits on contributions have stood.

Now the Supreme Court appears poised to change that and the only question for McCutcheon is how big his likely win will be. In order to determine the size and scope of McCutcheon's potential victory, we need to look at the current state of the law.

I Am Luscious, and Other Campaign Slogans

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

This op-ed was originally posted on Pacific Standard.

I have a new idea to increase civic engagement, and it is all about vegan food.
Some background for the non-hipsters out there. So all three of you, listen up. There is a vegan restaurant with locations, unsurprisingly, in Los Angeles, Santa Cruz, and Berkeley, the birthing centers of true hipster culture. The fun (or perhaps failure, depending on your perspective) of this chain is how they name their dishes: Each is a personal, positive, declarative statement. Instead of rice with lentils, you'll order the "I Am Humble." Feel like hummus and pesto? You'll dine on the "I Am Abundant."

If you're a rain-on-your-parade curmudgeon like me, you'll do your best to avoid ordering the dishes by their given names. Instead of confidently telling my server, "I Am Terrific," I prefer to spend three minutes describing the dish, which is, as the name fails to indicate, made of kelp noodles. One of my very favorite dining companions suggested that I should "pick my battles," but the opportunity to avoid announcing, "I Am Liberated" (another kelp noodle dish) is well worth the time I spend boorishly pointing at the menu.

The Supreme Court Rules There Is No One Left Standing To Appeal Prop. 8

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

This op-ed was originally posted on Jurist

In a 5-4 opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the US Supreme Court has ruled that there is simply no one left standing to appeal California's infamous 2008 ballot initiative, Proposition 8. Prop 8, as the entire world now knows, amended the California State Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman to the exclusion of same-sex marriages.

In the much-anticipated case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Court avoided the larger, and more politically charged issue potentially presented by the case: whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits California from defining marriage as between a man and a woman. This question raises the issues of whether gays and lesbians are members of a so-called "suspect class" and whether there is a "fundamental" right to marry.

Chief Justice Roberts ruled on narrower grounds, finding that proponents of ballot initiatives lack the "standing" under Article III, ¨ 2 of the Constitution. Standing, the Court reiterated, is necessary to appeal a case in federal court.

Battle Over CA's Public Records Act was Actually a Budget Deal

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

This op-ed is cross-posted from KCET.

Some of you may have gotten whiplash following the latest kerfuffle over California's Public Records Act (CPRA).

First, as part of the budget deal it looked like there would be limited access to government documents. Why? Because the deal provided that the CPRA would be suspended, instead of paid for from state coffers. Specifically, the state is required to reimburse local agencies for the cost of compliance. The anticipated cost of the CPRA totals in the tens of millions of dollars.

Under the budget plan, local agencies would have the ability to opt out of certain portions of the law, those requiring local agencies to help people trying to access information, provide respond to record requests within 10 days, and furnish people with electronic records when they are obtainable.

Then, predictably, there was a significant backlash. And then, equally predictably, legislators reacted. At the end of last week two State Senators introduced a constitutional amendment purportedly intended to strengthen the CPRA. State President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D - Sacramento) and State Senator Mark Leno (D - San Francisco) introduced an amendment, which would require that local agencies comply with and pay the costs of complying with the CPRA.

Who's Killing the Voting Rights Act, Congress or the Supreme Court?

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

This op-ed was originally published by Pacific Standard Magazine
In a much-anticipated case decided Tuesday, the Supreme Court concluded that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, a landmark civil rights law originally enacted a half century ago to reverse the rampant disenfranchisement of Southern blacks, is unconstitutional. The VRA itself is not dead, but a key section of it is undoubtedly on life support. And while a 5-4 court majority wielded the weapon, know that Congress' inaction gave the court an excuse to take it up.

If you've been following the saga of pre-clearance, you may have expected to read that Section 5--not Section 4--was declared invalid. Section 5, after all, has gotten most of the press. Allow me to explain.

WHAT IS THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT?

Congress passed the VRA in 1965 in response to pervasive discrimination against African American voters. This landmark piece of legislation contains two key provisions.

The first is Section 2, which provides a general prohibition against any voting procedure or practice that discriminates on the basis of race, color, or membership in certain language minority groups. Section 2 was not at issue in Shelby County v. Holder but likely will begin to bear a much heavier weight thanks to the Supreme Court declaring Section 4 invalid.

What's Next for Medical Marijuana in California?

This post by Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson originally appeared on KCET's website.

Here we go again. Yet another tale of the legal challenges that frequently follow the passage of ballot initiatives in California.

In a unanimous decision last week, the California Supreme Court ruled that cities and counties can prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries.. The state's highest court found that two state laws, the Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program, do not preempt the ability of localities to use zoning laws to ban pot shops. The Compassionate Use Act was enacted via the ballot initiative process in 1996. The Medical Marijuana Program is a companion piece of legislation passed by the legislature in 2003.

The court ruled that the California Constitution gives localities so-called "police powers" under which they can legislate for the health, safety, and welfare of their jurisdictions. The court found that under those powers, localities have the authority to prohibit pot shops because the state statutes did not explicitly or implicitly prevent localities from imposing those prohibitions.

If the instead Compassionate Use Act had included a specific statement providing that localities cannot use their police powers to ban marijuana dispensaries then the court's decision likely would have come out the other way. But, of course, the initiative did not include such language. Any such language would have been a gift to opponents of the initiative. Thus the court was able to read the state laws narrowly.

Now, the question seems to be, what's next? There is, of course, the possibility of a new law on the state level, either through the legislative process or the ballot process. The state legislature could follow the lead of other states and legalize the recreational use of marijuana. The legislature could try to explicitly preempt this area of the law by state that localities cannot use their police powers to ban marijuana dispensaries. Another option is for the people to propose yet another ballot initiative to the same effect.

Yet another possibility is that on the local level people in localities that banned medical marijuana dispensaries could circulate initiatives which essentially overturn those bans.

And with all that said, this is happening in nation where the federal government lists marijuana as a Schedule 1 substance. Doctor's note or not, it's illegal in their eyes.

Welcome to the super PAC era

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

This post originally appeared on KCET's website.
Is candidate centered campaign fundraising a thing of the past?

Greetings, and welcome to the Super PAC era. Thanks in part to the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United, we now have new entities called "Super PACs," which are organizations that can raise and spend unlimited political funds.

Contributions given directly to candidates are unlimited, but again, contributions to outside groups such as Super PACs are not. Therefore, as many predicted, individuals and entities who wish to support candidates but have given up to the legal limit, now have a new outlet for their campaign donations. This pattern, however, is nothing new. Before there were Super PACs big donors gave to political parties or other outside organizations like independent expenditure groups.

Campaign fundraising by candidates is increasingly being marginalized and fundraising by independent groups including Super PACs is coming to the forefront. We are seeing this phenomenon play out real time in the Los Angeles mayoral race where the contribution limit to candidates is $1,300 both in the primary and the runoff elections.

While fundraising by candidates is still outpacing fundraising by Super PACs in the mayoral race, at some point in the near future that could change. In this election both candidates have raised approximately $5.7 million and independent groups have raised roughly $4.7 million for Greuel and $1.3 million for Garcetti. That means about one-third of the money raised in the mayor campaign has been raised by outside organizations. Again, the lion's share has gone to groups supporting Greuel.

Of course those giving money to outside groups are generally those who have a financial interest in what happens in City Hall. For instance, donors include real estate developers, labor unions, members of the entertainment industry, and lawyers and law firms. This set up raises a host of problems including corruption, the appearance of corruption, undue access and preferential treatment.

Because of the Supreme Court's misguided interpretation of limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, there is little hope, at least in the short term, of limiting how much can be given to and spent by outside groups. The best way to regulate the influence of money in politics is to advocate for robust campaign disclosure.

Angelenos: United in Voter Apathy?

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica A. Levinson

Mayoral candidates Eric Garcetti and Wendy Greuel are now in the final stretch of their campaign to become the next mayor of Los Angeles. Following the March 5 election, both candidates will seek to motivate voters to go to the polls. But what voters? According to preliminary numbers, only 16 percent, yes that's right, only one out of six voters went to the polls or mailed in ballots. In a city divided over so many issues, it seems elections have managed to unite 84 percent of eligible Angelenos in laziness, boredom, apathy, or all of the above.

In Los Angeles, the second most populous city in the nation, there are approximately 1.8 million eligible voters and 3.8 million residents. This means approximately 290,000 voters weighed in on decisions that will affect nearly four million people. Another way of thinking of this is that each voter voted for the interests of 12 people living in Los Angeles.

I cannot claim to have a comprehensive knowledge of the reasons behind this significantly depressed turnout, therefore I cannot seek to propose solutions to this problem. But I do know that by sitting out elections we are giving a few of our fellow Angelenos, those who cast ballots, a great deal of power over the face of our city government. In essence what we have is a city of residential representatives who chose our political representatives. But, of course, no one appointed or elected this first group -- they merely decided to take part in our democracy.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org.

The Case of Lady Gaga and California Political Fundraising

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

Wondering if legislators ever go back to their offices and "just dance?" Don't think your elected officials have a "poker face?" Dubious as to whether your lawmakers were "born this way?" Curious as to whether, just like us, our lawmakers sometimes have a "bad romance?"

We may not know the answer to those questions, but we do know that State Senators Ricardo Lara and Ron Calderon were at Staples Center this past weekend to take in a Lady Gage concert. Is this official business?

Well, it's officially a fundraising event for them. Lara is running for re-election to the Senate and Calderon is running for state controller next year. The two democratic senators were slated to hold a joint campaign fundraiser at the concert. Contributors who gave $3,900 were rewarded with a ticket to the concert and a night in a nearby hotel.

Lara and Calderon's joint fundraiser at Lady Gaga's concert likely says less about their devotion (or lack thereof) to the performer than it does about their desire to raise large campaign donations at popular venues. In our current system, in which campaign contributions to candidates are limited, but expenditures by candidate campaigns are not, the third for campaign funds is all but unquenchable. Put another way, once candidates get on the fundraising treadmill, it is difficult to see when and how they will ever get off that treadmill.

The seemingly endless fundraising race is not, of course, the fault of the candidates and officeholders. The current legal framework breeds the almost ceaseless need for campaign cash. This actually harms not only the public, but also officeholders who spend so much of their time fundraising rather than legislating or governing.
Here is hoping that Lady Gaga's next hit is about that sexy topic we call "political reform."

This post originally appeared on KCET-TV's SoCal Focus blog, for which the author writes regularly.

Do Ballot Initiatives Foster the Darker Side of Political Spending?

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

Californians will soon go to the polls to weigh in on no less than eleven ballot initiatives. These initiatives could change the law on everything from the death penalty to the labeling of food.

I have previously written here about the pitfalls of the initiative process. This mechanism of direct democracy, designed to guard against the power special interests held over our elected officials, is now similarly controlled by special interests. Money is the driving factor behind which proposals qualify for the ballot.

Large sums are spent not only to pay signature gatherers to get proposals placed on the ballot but also to support or oppose those measures once they qualify for the ballot. One need only to open the mailbox or certain websites, or turn on the television or radio, to see the enormous amounts of money being spent to attempt to sway voters on these eleven initiatives.

Last week I wrote about a large donation, $11 million to be exact, given by an Arizona non-profit corporation to two ballot measure committees in California.

Proposition 32: The Battle Heats Up

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

On November 6, California voters will be faced with 11 ballot measures. Ten are initiatives, one is a referendum (what's the difference?), and none of these were legislatively initiated. One of these initiatives is Proposition 32, which is deceptively being peddled as a good government reform. It is not.

Prop 32 would prohibit unions from using funds deducted from payroll for political purposes. The prohibition also applies to corporations and government contractors. Among other things, it would also prohibit unions and corporations from giving campaign contributions directly to candidates or the committees that candidates control.

While it may seem even-handed, it will have a much, much greater impact on unions, dramatically reducing their power, than corporations. Corporations have many other avenues to raise political funds. Money is, after all, power, particularly in political campaigns in California.

So who would support Prop 32, a proposal to similar, rejected ones in 1998 and 2005? Recently an organization connected to the conservative Koch brothers (who have spent enormous sums to support conservative causes and candidates throughout the nation) gave $4 million to a new committing supporting the passage of Prop 32. It is important to note that the non-profit organization that came forward with these funds does not have to report its donors.

Supporters of Prop 32 had previous raised approximately $3 million; opponents have raised more than $36 million. For a breakdown of who is donating (at least of who is legally reportable), check KCET's campaign finance database here.

If you want unions to have much less political power in California but are comfortable with corporations maintaining their current level of control, and you don't mind voting "yes" on ballot initiatives, then you might want to take a look at Prop 32. If you are either opposed to initiatives, or believe in a more even-handed approach to reducing the influence of money in politics, then Prop 32 is not for you.

Proposition 32: Another Money Pit?

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

[This post originally appeared on KCET's SoCal Focus Blog.]

One of my least favorite things about the ballot initiatives process is the huge sums that those in favor and against these measures typically shell out during the election cycle. This is particularly true for the initiatives which, like bad pennies, just keep coming back every few election cycles. Proposition 32, the so-called "Paycheck Protection" initiative is no exception.

The measure, if approved, would prohibit union and corporate contributions to state and local officials (which may be only a minor problem for these groups because they can just make independent expenditures), prohibit contributions from government contractors to politicians who have a say over their contracts, and prohibit corporations and unions from using automatic payroll deductions for political purposes without their members' permission. That last prohibition will likely cut the legs out from under unions when it comes to their ability to raise and spend political funds. Under our current campaign finance system such a decrease in fundraising and spending ability correlates to a marked drop in political power.

If Prop 32 sounds familiar, it should. We've seen it before in 2005 and in 1998. In less than 15 years we've seen the same idea on the ballot three times. And yet, here we are again -- fundraising, spending, and fighting.

Those against Prop 32 have raised more than $18 million. Opponents of the initiative are likely to outspend proponents. (See who's funding both sides of the issue here.)

It is somewhat difficult to predict how Prop 32 will fare. Spending against proposed measures is typically more effective than spending for those measures. That would indicate that this proposal is headed for its third defeat. However, voters are likely harboring greater anti-union sentiments than they were in the past few years.

One has to wonder whether those whose paychecks are funding the anti-Prop 32 war, the paychecks that measure would purportedly protect, would have preferred not to wage this battle at all.

Ballot Initiative Season Has Begun, and it's Not Exactly a Good Thing

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

[This post originally appeared on KCET's SoCal Focus Blog.]

Ready, set, go. Ballot initiative season is officially upon us. The 11 (yes, 11) ballot initiatives that we will be voting on in November now have numbers, which means the fundraising race will kick into high gear. Expect many advertisements via your television, radio, mailbox and likely your computer screen as well.

We will be voting on tax increases (courtesy of Governor Jerry Brown, attorney Molly Munger and billionaire Tom Steyer), changes to the budget process, how labor unions and corporations can spend money in elections, auto insurance rates, the death penalty, human trafficking, the three-strikes law and the labeling of genetically modified food.

We are simply weighing in on too many decisions via a flawed process.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The ballot initiative process is riddled with problems. As it currently stands it does not provide citizens with a good process to make vitally important decisions about the laws that govern us.

The ballot initiative process asks voters to make crucially important decisions in isolation. Our government is too big and too complex to make decisions on a piecemeal basis.

In addition, it is entirely rational for each voter to vote in favor of more services and against revenue increases. The ballot initiative process does not require that voters weigh the consequence of their decisions. Further, voters are accountable only to themselves, not a group of constituents, so quite reasonably may make decisions for their benefit.

The idea behind the ballot initiative process -- to empower citizens to enact legislation when the legislature couldn't or wouldn't act because of the power of special interests -- was a good one. However, moneyed interests, not grassroots organizations, now control the initiative process. This is bad for the voters and bad for the state.

With Text-to-Donate Now in Play, Younger Voters May Have a Bigger Voice

By Associate Clinical Professor Jessica Levinson

Last year, California became the first state to permit campaign contributions via text message, a move that was followed up by the Federal Election Commission in June, setting the stage for text-to-donate in national elections.

But the question is why. The purpose behind new policy is to allow more people to participate in the electoral and political processes. The idea is text message contributions will make it quicker and easier for small dollar contributors to give. In addition, the belief is that it will be the younger members of the electorate, who do not typically give campaign donations, who will disproportionately take advantage of these new rules.

These are real and important goals. Younger members of the electorate do not vote nearly as much as older members. Perhaps if they buy in, both literally and figuratively, to the electoral process they will feel compelled to make their voices heard at the ballot box in greater numbers.

In addition, bringing in new contributors by allowing contributions by text message could change the tone and substance of the debate. If candidates feel that young people and/or small contributors are engaged in the process, they could hear more from, and hence be more responsive to, the concerns of more segments of the electorate.

The new rules largely enjoy bipartisan support. A cynic would say this is in part because it looks bad for any politician to come out against a proposal that could increase civic engagement. In addition, which politician wouldn't like the chance to collect more campaign contributions?

Happy texting, campaign contributors.