You can find the unanimous opinion in Sissel v. HHS here.
I discuss the Origination Clause and Sissel (and explain why the origination clause would likely fail), on pages 12-13 of my new Legislation, Statutory Interpretation and Election Law: Examples and Explanations.
HuffPo‘s Paul Blumenthal:
A campaign strategy memo prepared for Georgia Democratic Senate candidate Michelle Nunn last year and leaked online on Monday reveals far more than just the inner workings of one high-profile Senate campaign. Details in the memo illuminate the dominant role of fundraising in the political world.
“Hitting our targets will require us to prioritize fundraising above all else and to focus the candidate’s time on it with relentless intensity,” the memo, written in December 2013 and leaked to National Review, states in a section on the campaign’s finance plan.
To reach the campaign’s target of raising $15 million to $20 million for the entire race, the memo urges that Nunn’s time be budgeted almost exclusively for fundraising, at least until the tail end of the race. Nunn, who would face no serious competition in the Democratic primary, should spend between 70 and 80 percent of her time raising money from January through September, according to the memo. Only in October does the recommended fundraising time drop to 50 percent.
The memo estimates that there are 2,500 campaign hours in 2014 and recommends that 2,201 of them be spent raising money.
Nick Confessore/NYT on Lessig/Mayday PAC.
Must-read Open Secrets deep dive:
Bruce Rauner is a Chicago billionaire who has never held political office, yet this spring he mowed down a crowd of rivals and claimed the GOP nomination to be Illinois’ next governor. David Perdue is a wealthy former executive who also has never been elected to public office, yet he too knocked off a string of far more experienced Republican opponents to win the party’s Senate nomination in Georgia.
Despite never having endured a run for office, both men battled through crowded fields studded with much more campaign-savvy candidates, digging into their own wallets to heavily finance their bids. In a primary season defined by the insider-vs-outsider story line, in both cases the new-guy-with-money pushed by the insiders and outsiders and got the win.
The pair are seeking very different offices in very different states, and don’t seem particularly ideologically aligned. But their campaigns have had two common elements, aside from their success thus far.
First, both benefited from large ad buys by a mysterious Ohio nonprofit that hides its donors and has no obvious interest in Rauner or Perdue’s campaigns. The ads have harshly attacked the two men’s rivals.
Second, they both employed a political consultant named Nick Ayers.
And Ayers, it turns out, worked for the very same groups that funded the attacks against Rauner and Perdue’s opponents.
Charles Nathan blogs at the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation.
Clarion-Ledger editorial: “He continues to say he has evidence of voter fraud, but McDaniel is starting to sound more like Chicken Little yelling about the sky falling than the respected state lawmaker and GOP candidate who captured national attention when this race first began.”
Louis Hoffman writes in Arizona Capitol Times.
ACLU Press Release: “The New Hampshire Superior Court issued an order today permanently blocking the controversial 2012 New Hampshire law which added language to the state’s voter registration form that threatened to disenfranchise voters who live in this state.”
Read Adam Serwer on the Gruber Obamacare remarks.
Hard to believe the Cuomo forces are not behind this.
if that’s true, then why is he not a co-sponsor of the #VRAA or offering his own legislation?
There’s a great irony in those who up until yesterday supported the DC Circuit’s strict textualist reading of the ACA now pointing to a statement made by a supporter of the law involved in its drafting as evidence of the statute’s meaning. (Never mind that Gruber now says his statement was a mistake.)
Of course, for textualists, the statements of anyone about the meaning of a statute would seem to be irrelevant (except, according to Justice Scalia, such statements might be admissible to prove that a seemingly absurd reading of a text was actually what was intended).
What about for those who rely on legislative history? For the great majority of judges who do rely on legislative history, committee reports are considered the most reliable. Statements of individual legislators are the least reliable. The statement of Gruber seems less reliable still of evidence of the intent of Congress.
There have been some occasions where judges have relied on statements on nonlegislative drafters, but they are controversial. There is a good discussion in the leading Legislation casebook on this question, Eskridge, Frickey and Garrett, at 1018-20 (notes following Kosak case.) A snippet which comes after explaining why statements of nonlegislative drafters of legislation should not be given much weight:
Notwithstanding these objections, the Supreme Court or individual Justices have occasionally relied on statements by public, nonlegislative officials who draft or promote statutes. [Citations.] Note, however, that (as in Kosak) the Court will not rely on these statements as the most probative — and certainly not the only – evidence of statutory meaning. There are very few state cases; almost all of them either reject or denigrate such evidence. [Citations.]…
At least [the person whose testimony was relied on in Kosak] was a public servant. Should the Court consider authoritative the statements of interest groups which draft and press legislation? In some instances the Court or some Justices have considered testimony about legislation by private groups or individuals who drafted or commented on the legislation.
UPDATE: Ed Whelan responds, going with the anti-absurdity point.
Ben Jacobs reports for The Daily Beast.
“[W]rite the biggest, fattest check that you can possibly write.”
—First Lady Michelle Obama, on the best way to have a voice in politics.
The anti-McDaniel “Y’all Politics” says “According to McDaniel sources, #McDDay version 2.0 should be on Friday. That’s when we are supposed to see the formal protest to the MS GOP executive committee followed immediately by a lawsuit. “
The latest on the Michigan dispute over Senate candidate Terri Land’s self-financing.
When did Sam Hall stop beating his wife?
“Blogs put your voice in front of the digital world. But Judicial Watch reminds that ‘election fraud is a sensitive issue, and you should have no difficulty getting people to respond.’”
—David Freddoso, Widespread or Not, Stopping Voter Fraud is Essential for Honest Elections