William & Mary Law School | Election Law Society
By: Canaan Suitt
On July 4, 2020, Kanye West tweeted that he was running for President of the United States. However, the following day CNN reported that Kanye had not taken any of the necessary steps to effectuate this plan – including filing paperwork with the FEC and getting on state ballots. In fact, by mid July West had already missed several states’ deadlines to get on the November ballot.
[Read more…] about Kanye West Won’t Be on the VA Ballot (For Now, At Least)
By: Helen L. Brewer
The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that spending money on political campaigns is a First Amendment right. Donations to, and expenditures by, campaigns—according to the Court—are political speech. As such, the First Amendment protects this money from government regulation. Laws can only place limits on campaign money if there is a risk the money will cause quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of such corruption. Therefore, despite the First Amendment’s protection of campaign funds, individual donations to candidate campaigns can be limited by the government. This prevents an individual from donating mass amounts of money to a campaign in exchange for special treatment when the candidate is elected to office.
[Read more…] about Money Talks, but Donors’ Voices Don’t Matter
By: Laura Misch
Currently, Oregon is one of five states—along with Alabama, Nebraska, Utah, and Virginia—that allows for unlimited campaign contributions. As a result, the money has been pouring into state elections. Just last year, the gubernatorial race between Democratic incumbent Kate Brown and Republican Knute Buehler became the most expensive one in the state’s history, as contributions amounted to over $37 million. Phil Knight, a co-founder of Nike, alone donated $2.5 million to the Buehler campaign. The Oregonian also published a series called “Polluted by Money,” which found that over the last ten years corporate interests gave more money to Oregon lawmakers than any other state in the United States.
By: Kristin Palmason
The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) enacted by Congress in 2012 with overwhelming bipartisan support, provides federal funds to states for the purpose of reforming the administration of elections, including upgrading voting equipment and eliminating punch-card and lever voting machines. As HAVA was enacted in response to the 2000 contested election of Bush v. Gore, which hinged on outdated voting equipment and “hanging chads,” HAVA funds were intended to streamline internal election processes and updating archaic voting systems. Arizona committed to using the funds to replace punch card voting systems, add touch screen equipment and update voter registration, provisional balloting, and grievance processes. By 2015, approximately $3.3 billion in HAVA funds for election assistance was awarded to states nationwide, with approximately $52.5 million awarded to Arizona.
By: Jack Notar
In 1931, the American Mafia reorganized leadership. Rather than have one boss at the head of the table, each of the major crime families would have a seat, sharing power and making decisions as a cohesive unit. “The Commission,” comprising of the seven premier mafia families in the country, was formed. The Commission would go on to meet up every few years or so to settle disputes, set boundaries, and discuss innovations in crime. Occasionally, the bosses would vote on whether or not to whack someone. To anyone’s knowledge, the last time The Commission met as a whole was in 1985. By then, there had simply become too much to lose by gathering all family heads in one place. Any major decisions of importance could always be made in a safer, less vulnerable manner. This strategy has paid off, with no major mafia busts in recent years. A boss or underboss might get arrested or clipped, but never more than one at a time, and business is still flowing. “Per noi e solo noi, ora e per sempre.”
[Read more…] about THE COMMISSION; THE DEFEAT OF “CONCON” IN HAWAII; MISSED OPPORTUNITIES ALL AROUND