The law of politics and the politics of law: election law, campaign finance, legislation, voting rights, initiatives, redistricting, and the Supreme Court nomination process
Rick Hasen's web log

"Obama Raised $750 Million for Presidential Campaign, Aide Says"

Bloomberg has this report.

Who's Winning Minnesota?

Almost a month after the election, there are conflicting views on this question. In this AP story from an hour ago, it's estimated that Coleman still leads by 215 out of some 2.9 million votes cast, though some counties won't have their recount done until Friday. The biggest shift appears to arise from a voting machine in Ramsey County that broke down on Election Day; when the optical scan ballots were finally counted, Franken picked up 91 votes and Coleman 54. The Franken campaign, however, reportedly claims that its internal count has it up by 22 votes.

Meanwhile, the Minneapolis Star Tribune still has Coleman up by 295 votes and reports here that Franken is withdrawing 633 ballot challenges that it made, in order to speed up the process. That still leaves more than 5000 challenged ballots yet to be ruled on by the state canvassing board, if the Star Tribune's numbers are accurate. With Secretary of State Mark Ritchie's order that local election officials review 12,000 rejected absentee ballots, and the possibility that the Senate could ultimately resolve the election, the situation remains very fluid.

So who's winning? It depends on who you ask, but at this moment it appears that Coleman is still winning ... with Franken gaining.

"McCain wins Missouri by 3,903 votes"

As the AP reports, this makes Obama "just the second president in more than 100 years to take office without winning Missouri."

"Tax activist's ad challenges Obama's eligibility for office"

The Chicago Tribune has this report. I've written this comment on the justiciability of cases challenging the eligibility of Senators Obama and McCain to serve as President, as part of an online symposium published by the Michigan Law Review's First Impressions.

Ohio Election Summit

Election Law @ Moritz summarizes here yesterday's summit convened by Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. The Columbus Dispatch has this report, which also discusses a bill proposed by Republicans (SB 380).

"Democrats file voting rights lawsuit as recount begins in Texas House race"

The Dallas Morning news has this report on the battle for Texas House District 105.

"Election Reform and the Right to Vote, Pt 1"

Bob Bauer's latest.

Off to DC, Chicago; Dan Tokaji Guest Blogging Through Monday

Tomorrow I will be speaking about the future of presidential public financing at the Making Elections Work conference sponsored by the Election Law Journal, UCDC, and the AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project. You can watch a webcast of the entire event, including the opening panel with Bob Bauer (Obama campaign general counsel) and Trevor Potter (McCain campaign general counsel) at this link.

On Monday, I am speaking in Chicago at the COGEL conference on "Internet Campaigning and Fundraising."

Dan Tokaji (who unfortunately could not make the DC event) will be guest-blogging as I travel, though I may post from time-to-time as well. Thanks Dan!

"Lawmakers Spar Over GOP Elections Proposal"

AP offers this report from Ohio.

"Senate recount: Pendulum swings to Franken"

The latest from Minnesota.

Revised Version of My Paper on Presidential Primary Fundraising Now Available

The SSRN draft has now been updated to incorporate the new Campaign Finance Institute data on small donors. (See especially pages 10 and 11 of the draft, which provide some comparative charts).

The draft will appear as a chapter that Jack Citrin and David Karol are putting together coming out of a recent Berkeley conference on the presidential nominating process. It will be published by Rowman and Littlefield.

"Obama's Fundraising Obliterates Records"

USA Today offers this report.

Voter Fraud in Beverly Hills?

That's the allegation.

"Legislators Urge Gates to Reform Military's Absentee Ballot System "

The Washington Post offers this report.

Lawrence Norton Also Not Happy with FEC's Recent Non-Advisory Advisory Opinion

See here (second item).

"Senate Democrats should abandon the gerrymander"

Joshua Spivak has written this oped for the Buffalo News.

"Franken May Ask Senate to Intervene in Minn. Recount"

The Hill offers this report. See also this report in the Star Tribune.

"Obama, the Billion-Dollar Man"

Jeanne Cummings has written this Pit Bull column for Politico.

"Vote count drags on Election Day"

Ohio.com offers this report.

"Second Home Owners Prevail on Election Law Challenge"

This post appears at the Wind Power Law Blog.

Could President-Elect Obama Remain Senator and Become President?

Tillman and Calabresi debate.

"Claim on 'Myth' of Obama's Small Donor Base Challenged"

Editor & Publisher offers this report.

"For Franken, A Math Problem"

The latest from Minnesota.

"Who are the New Voters? Look Closer"

Eliza Newlin Carney's new National Journal column is available.

More on Pres.-Elect Obama's "Micro-Donors"

Following up on this post, see the comments of Bob Bauer and Brad Smith.

"Obama's Army of E-Mail Backers Gives Him Clout to Sway Congress"

Bloomberg News offers this report.

Blackberry test post

This is a test. I am Treo free.

A Third Perspective on Obama and Small Donors

Earlier this week, the Campaign Finance Institute issued a report, "Reality Check: Obama Received About the Same Percentage from Small Donors in 2008 as Bush in 2004; Obama Also Raised 80% More from Large Donors than Small, Outstripping All Rivals and Predecessors." The release quotes Michael Malbin as saying "The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama's finances....The reality of Obama's fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth."

Bob Bauer responded with a blog post calling the CFI report "strange" and "peculiar:" Bob concludes that "small donors, contra CFI, were the 'financial engine of the Obama campaign,' for the reason, not denied by this study, that without them, the record-breaking performance would not have been possible." He suspects that the reason for CFI's analysis is a "worry that the reform program will falter on too strong a showing that such a small donor, Internet-driven candidacy can succeed on private funding alone."

Some of this debate is semantic and depends on categorization. The two divide over whether donors who give more than $200 but less than $1,000 (or donors who give more than $200 in the aggregate through small donations) should still be considered 'small donors." Michael's point seems to be that it is not true that donors giving very small amounts in the aggregate (under $200, who I have termed "micro-donors") "drove" Obama's fundraising. Bob thinks Michael's categorization of small donors is unduly narrow.

There is something more than semantic to this argument. If the Obama campaign demonstrated that one could run a viable presidential campaign fueled principally or primarily by micro-donors, that would be an important milestone for political equality in campaign funding (a point I make in my draft paper). The CFI report acknowledges that Obama raised so much money overall in so many categories (from micro-donors to bundled contributions, mostly at the maximum of $2,300 per person) that it is hard to draw firm conclusions generally. Importantly, we cannot use the Obama campaign to draw conclusions about the viability of a solely (or mostly) micro-donor funded campaign.

Yet despite the fact that the percentage of micro-donors is comparable across other recent primary campaigns (Obama 26%, McCain 21%; Clinton 16%; Kerry 20%; Bush 25%), the overall amount of money raised by Obama from micro-donors is impressive: $117.7 million. Bush (2004 primary) comes in second with $64 million. Obama's campaign doesn't prove that micro-donors can be the primary funders for a presidential campaign, but it sure suggests it is possible.

The numbers are also useful in seeing how campaign fundraising techniques are additive rather than substitutionary. Obama did not choose to replace bundling with Internet-based small fundraising; he aggressively pursued both.

Finally, one of the great lessons of the Obama campaign is the frequency of "repeater" donors, especially at the lower end giving over the Internet. According to the CFI report, over 200,000 Obama donors started off giving contributions of $200 or less and then crossed the reporting threshold by giving more. CFI: "About 93,000 of these repeaters gave in cumulative amounts of no more than $400 for the full primary season. Another 106,000 repeaters ended up between $401 and $999." So some of what must be studied now is not why these donors gave, but why they gave repeatedly. How much was due to enthusiasm for the candidate, how much to the long campaign, and how much to the lower transaction costs of repeat giving over the Internet with saved account information?

There's plenty to chew on here, and people will be studying the Obama fundraising phenomenon for some time. I am personally grateful to CFI for making these data public and allowing us to draw our own conclusions about the normative implications of the 2008 election.

"Are Long Lines the 'New Poll Tax'?"

In These Times offers this article containing this interesting graphic. I'd be interested to hear from others if the methodology of this study is sound (especially in its reliance on news reports of long lines).

"'Unbelievable' sum of money in Ga. runoff"

USA Today offers this report.

Quote of the Day

"I am about 99 and 44/100 percent convinced that the loser goes to court."

---David Schultz, commenting on the Minnesota Senate controversy.

Bauer Piles On

In this post, I criticized the FEC for issuing an "Advisory" Opinion that offers no advice: the FEC just could not agree on whether the second of two ads under discussion was entitled to an exemption from certain campaign finance rules on constitutional grounds. Bob adds the following salient point which I was remiss in not making: " This decision is without a doubt remarkable, in part for the reason that Hasen notes. Not to be overlooked is another reason: for neither this ad, nor for another it ruled on, does the Commission offer any explanation for its conclusion."

The FEC must do better, even if it means that commissioners issue their own separate explanations as to the basis for their votes.

Law Professor Mark Alexander on Obama Transition Team Reviewing FEC

See here.

Guy Charles from Minnesota to Duke

See here. Good luck, Guy, on the new Center for Race and Politics.