Archives for February 2016

The Political Power of Wealth?: An International Perspective on Campaign Financing

Election Law Society · February 29, 2016 ·

By: Hannah Thompson

In June 2013, the New Zealand Parliament passed the Local Electoral Amendment Act 2013 with the primary intention of tightening rules on campaign financing in local elections. The Act determined that donations exceeding NZD $1,500 (roughly USD $995) – whether in cash, or in goods and services – made to candidates in relation to an election campaign could not be done so anonymously. Any person involved in the administration of the affairs of a candidate, relating to his or her election campaign, can now be liable for failing to disclose a donor’s identity (where it is known) for a fine not exceeding NZD $5,000 (USD $3,380). The relative modesty of the donation amount to be disclosed is intended to ensure that the identities of all moderate financial contributors to local electoral campaigns are publicly accessible information. In addition, the Electoral Act 1993 determines that candidates must file a return with the New Zealand Electoral Commission in respect of all donations from a single donor exceeding a total of NZD $30,000 (USD $19,900).

NY Loophole Allows Individual’s $4.3 Million in Direct Contributions, Part II

Election Law Society · February 26, 2016 ·

By: Dan Carroll

As detailed in a recent State of Elections post, a misguided 1996 New York State Board of Elections (BOE) decision treating limited liability companies (LLCs) as individual people rather than corporate entities. The decision allows LLCs to directly contribute up to $60,800 to an individual candidate for statewide office while traditional corporate entities are limited to $5,000 in aggregate contributions to all candidates in a year. LLCs need not disclose the identities of their founders, membership or officers, so their political activities are difficult to link to their funders.

The Will of the People: Michigan’s Ballot Initiative to Allow By-Mail Voting

Election Law Society · February 24, 2016 ·

Alexander Hamilton once said, “A share in the sovereignty of the state, which is exercised by the citizens at large, in voting at elections is one of the most important rights of the subject, and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law.” In Michigan, the citizens have incredible power to voice their opinion and influence the sovereignty of their state. Through initiative, Michiganders may propose either a constitutional amendment, which does not require state legislative approval before being placed on the ballot, or state statutes, which must first be submitted to the state legislature for approval before being placed on the ballot. In order to participate in the initiative process, Michigan does not even require that the petitioner register with the state, but rather only requires that the petitioner report campaign contributions in excess of $500. However, petitioners may submit their proposal to the Bureau of Elections in order to greatly reduce the chance that formatting errors will prevent the proposal from being accepted.

Trying to Stop Drive-By-Voting in New Hampshire

Election Law Society · February 22, 2016 ·

By: C. Rose Moore

Round two of the “drive-by voting” battle in New Hampshire ended on September 16^th, 2015 when the New Hampshire Senate failed to override Governor Maggie Hassan’s veto of Senate Bill 179. That proposal would have required potential voters to be domiciled in the state for at least thirty days prior to an election. This was the second initiative purportedly aimed at combatting this type of fraud, which can be illustrated by the actions of Vice-President Joe Biden’s niece. While “she didn’t break the letter of the law… many people think she violated the spirit of it” by voting in the 2012 elections in New Hampshire after only working on the campaign there for a short time.

The Crossroads of America v. The Lone Star State: Comparison of Indiana and Texas ID Laws

Election Law Society · February 19, 2016 ·

By: Katie Teeters

Voter ID laws are spreading across the country leaving controversies in their wakes. Advocates believe requiring ID is a good way to prevent in-person voter fraud and increase public confidence in the election process, while opponents say that voter ID laws unduly burden the right to vote. Still, a total of 36 states have passed laws requiring a showing of some form of identification in order to vote. This blog post will take a look at voter ID laws and their respective implications in Texas and Indiana.