DOCSLIB.ORG

~Ior 2003-/5- I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

McKenria Long RECEIVED Adante *r Alrlrirlcw* FEC MAIL SanDie9° & euJ ^™§ OPERATIONS CENTER SanFrandsco Los Angeles 303 Peachtree Street, NE • Suite 5300 • Atlanta,$8>#8 \\y A IP 09 Washington. D.C. Tel: 404.527.4000 • Fax: 404.527.4198 Philadelphia www.mckennalong.com Brussel$ 6. SCOTT RAFSHOON EMAIL ADDRESS (404) 527-4952 [email protected] April 14,2003 ^ 3 g cr aH5rp? Federal Election Commission J ^ ^^ ^"> ^ /v °"9 / ^ m r^B{5n Office of General Counsel /l/lD J {jlVS** I *\ ^ g*=*° 999EStreetNW ~iO^# ftR^ 2003-/5^^tV-> / ^ - -I * © Washington, DC 20463 Re: Advisory Opinion Request Dear Commissioners: On behalf of Denise Majette, a Member of the United States House of Representatives, and the Committee to Re-Elect Congresswoman Denise Majette (the "Committee"), we respectfully request an advisory opinion from the Federal Election Commission pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437f of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the "Act"). A civil lawsuit was brought against Representative Majette by supporters of her opponent in Georgia's 2002 primary election. As a direct result of that lawsuit, Representative Majette has incurred significant legal expenses. To defray those legal expenses, Representative Majette wishes to establish a Legal Expense Fund, as more specifically detailed below. We respectfully ask that you confirm that funds raised and spent by Representative Majette under the circumstances described in this letter, for the purpose of defraying the costs associated with defending against the described litigation, are not "contributions" or "expenditures" as defined in the Act, and are thus not subject to the provisions of the Act. Background In the 2002 Democratic Primary in Georgia's 4th United States Congressional District, then-Judge Majette challenged then-incumbent Representative Cynthia McKinney. After an active campaign and a record primary turnout, Judge Majette won the Democratic Primary with fifty-eight percent (58%) of the vote on August 20, 2002. Shortly thereafter, five supporters of the defeated incumbent filed suit in United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia challenging Georgia's "open primary" election system and asking the Court to block Judge Majette from taking office (the "Litigation"). Although the plaintiffs eventually amended their complaint to exclude Representative Majette as a defendant, she has incurred legal expenses in excess of $90,000.00 and continues to incur modest legal fees related to monitoring the on­ going litigation. It is also possible that the plaintiffs could amend the suit again because the ATLANTA:4540735.1 Mr. Lawrence Norton, Esq. April 14, 2003 Page 2 statute of limitations has not run. Therefore, it may be necessary to retain money in the Fund for: that contingency. Representative Majette intends to establish a Legal Expense Fund (the "Fund") to raise: money to defray these legal expenses. The Fund will be established in accordance with the Legal Expense Funds Regulations promulgated by the Committee on Standards of Official; Conduct of the U.S. House of Representatives. Among other requirements, the Fund will be! established as a Georgia trust (the "Trust"), administered by an independent trustee who will; oversee fundraising. Trust funds will be used only for legal expenses, including expenses: incurred in soliciting for and administering the Trust. Contributions will be limited to $5,000 per year from any individual or organization. The Trust will solicit funds from individuals, labor organizations and corporations, and all solicitations will be made in person or by mail and will be accompanied by a letter stating the. purpose of the Fund. The Statement of Purpose made during any solicitation will: be substantially as follows: "The purpose of this solicitation is to obtain personal funds to defray the cost of certain litigation against Representative Majette. Funds obtained by this solicitation will not be used for the purpose of influencing any election, and will not be used in any way to promote or maintain the official activities of any officeholder." In addition, contributors will be requested to sign a card to be returned with the donation affirming the purpose the gift. The card will state substantially as follows: "I, the undersigned, hereby confirm the donation! of $ to the Trust for purpose of funding certain litigation defense-related activity. This donation is not given for the purpose of influencing any election or as a campaign contribution or for the purpose of promoting or maintaining the official activities of any officeholder!'' Solicitations to the Fund will be conducted completely separate from any solicitations for or on behalf of the Committee. Analysis The Act, as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, provides that a "contribution" includes any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money, or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing the nomination or election of any person to federal office. 2 U.S.C. § 431(8). Similarly, the term "expenditure" is defined in an identical fashion as relating to payments made for the purpose of influencing a person's nomination or election to federal office. 2 U.S.C. § 431(9). The Commission has on several occasions considered the applicability of the Act to fundraising for purposes such as those anticipated here, including through establishment of Legal Expense Funds. See, e.g., Advisory Opinion Nos. 1996-39, 1983-37, 1983-30, 1983-21, 1982-37A, 1982-35, 1981-13, 1980-4: hi those opinions and others, the Commission concluded that the money being raised and spent wa$ not being raised and spent for the purpose of influencing a federal election. Because donations to, and disbursements from, the Trust will be exclusively connected with, and strictly for the purpose of, paying the cost of Representative Majette's legal defense, such donations and disbursements would not be "contributions" or "expenditures" as those terms are defined in the Act. Accordingly, donations to and disbursements from the Fund would not be ATLANTA:4540735.il Mr. Lawrence Norton, Esq. April 14, 2003 Page 3 subject to the restrictions and regulations of the Act, and nothing in the Act or Commission; regulations would limit or prohibit the Trust from receiving donations from sources, such' as corporations, that would be prohibited from contributing to the Committee. In addition, the; Trust would not be required to file disclosure reports under the Act or Commission regulations.; See Advisory Opinion No. 1979-37. In Advisory Opinion No. 1996-39, the Commission approved a similar request brought by a Republican Congressional Candidate, Susan Heintz, to establish a separate account to pay certain legal expenses. Opponents of Ms. Heintz had challenged the sufficiency of her nominating petitions to qualify for the Republican Primary election ballot. The state agency reviewing the challenge could not resolve the issue, forcing Ms. Heintz to seek a writ: of mandamus from the Michigan Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals directed that Ms, Heintz's name be placed on the primary election ballot, and the Commission concluded that "funds received and spent to pay for the expenses of the litigation described in your request would not be treated as contributions or expenditures for purposes of the Act, provided that they are raised and spent by an entity other than a political committee." Advisory Opinion No. 1996^ 39. i In rendering its opinion in Advisory Opinion No. 1996-39, the Commission relied, in part, on Advisory Opinion No. 1982-35B, in which the Commission approved the request of a potential candidate for federal office who was forced to initiate a legal challenge to a party rule that required a party convention endorsement vote before the candidate could qualify for the party's primary election ballot. The Commission observed that filing the.lawsuit to challenge;the party rule was "a condition precedent to the candidate's participation in the primary election') and concluded that raising funds to defray the cost of such litigation was outside the purview Of the Act. Advisory Opinion No. 1982-35B. In a related request, the Commission ruled that funds, raised by the state party to defend against the same lawsuit were not covered by the Act] Advisory Opinion No. 1983-37. \ Unlike Representative Gonzales whose legal expense fund was not approved in Advisory Opinion No. 1980-57, Representative Majette is not engaged in an "attempt to force an election opponent off the ballot." Instead, Representative Majette was forced to defend herself against a spurious legal challenge by supporters of her defeated primary opponent; therefore, her situation is more analogous to Ms. Heintz' request in Advisory Opinion No. 1996-39 than Representative Gonzales' situation. The Commission has previously distinguished between legal expenses incurred for defensive purposes and those incurred to initiate election challenges. In the former situation, a "Committee has no choice but to defend itself or admit the violations alleged by the plaintiff." Advisory Opinion No. 1980-4. See also Advisory Opinion No. 1982-35A. Although the specific issue addressed in Advisory Opinion No. 1980-4 involved donated legal services and not a legal expense fund, the rationale employed by the Commission in that situation should apply to Representative Majette's situation. The Commission reasoned, "to characterize the donated legal services as contributions in this case ... could, in turn, lead to the situation where any committee similarly situated would have to use up its expenditure limit (and perhaps its funds as well...) in defending lawsuits." Advisory Opinion No. 1980-4. ATLANTA:454Q735.) Mr. Lawrence Norton, Esq. April 14, 2003 Page 4 In conclusion, we respectfully submit that donations to the Fund (and expenditures from, the Fund) defraying legal expenses in relation to the Litigation do not constitute "contributions" or "expenditures" as defined by the Act, and that such fundraising is therefore not subject to the; prohibitions and restrictions contained in the Act.
Recommended publications
  • The Economic Effects of the Fairtax: Results from the Beacon Hill Institute CGE Model

    The Economic Effects of the Fairtax: Results from the Beacon Hill Institute CGE Model

    The Economic Effects of the FairTax: Results from the Beacon Hill Institute CGE Model David G. Tuerck, Ph.D. Jonathan Haughton, Ph.D. Keshab Bhattarai, Ph.D. Phuong Viet Ngo, MSIE Alfonso Sanchez-Penalver, MSF The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University 8 Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-573-8750 fax: 617-994-4279 Web: www.beaconhill.org E-mail: [email protected] February 2007 Table of Contents Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................1 I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................3 II. Overview of the BHI Model.......................................................................................................3 III. The Formal Specification of the BHI Model ............................................................................7 A. Production Function............................................................................................................ 10 B. Labor Supply and Capital Accumulation............................................................................ 13 C. Government Revenue and Spending................................................................................... 14 D. Foreign Direct Investment and Capital Inflows.................................................................. 15 E. Calibration ..........................................................................................................................
  • Federal Communications Commission Before the Federal

    Federal Communications Commission Before the Federal

    Federal Communications Commission Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Existing Shareholders of Clear Channel ) BTCCT-20061212AVR Communications, Inc. ) BTCH-20061212CCF, et al. (Transferors) ) BTCH-20061212BYE, et al. and ) BTCH-20061212BZT, et al. Shareholders of Thomas H. Lee ) BTC-20061212BXW, et al. Equity Fund VI, L.P., ) BTCTVL-20061212CDD Bain Capital (CC) IX, L.P., ) BTCH-20061212AET, et al. and BT Triple Crown Capital ) BTC-20061212BNM, et al. Holdings III, Inc. ) BTCH-20061212CDE, et al. (Transferees) ) BTCCT-20061212CEI, et al. ) BTCCT-20061212CEO For Consent to Transfers of Control of ) BTCH-20061212AVS, et al. ) BTCCT-20061212BFW, et al. Ackerley Broadcasting – Fresno, LLC ) BTC-20061212CEP, et al. Ackerley Broadcasting Operations, LLC; ) BTCH-20061212CFF, et al. AMFM Broadcasting Licenses, LLC; ) BTCH-20070619AKF AMFM Radio Licenses, LLC; ) AMFM Texas Licenses Limited Partnership; ) Bel Meade Broadcasting Company, Inc. ) Capstar TX Limited Partnership; ) CC Licenses, LLC; CCB Texas Licenses, L.P.; ) Central NY News, Inc.; Citicasters Co.; ) Citicasters Licenses, L.P.; Clear Channel ) Broadcasting Licenses, Inc.; ) Jacor Broadcasting Corporation; and Jacor ) Broadcasting of Colorado, Inc. ) ) and ) ) Existing Shareholders of Clear Channel ) BAL-20070619ABU, et al. Communications, Inc. (Assignors) ) BALH-20070619AKA, et al. and ) BALH-20070619AEY, et al. Aloha Station Trust, LLC, as Trustee ) BAL-20070619AHH, et al. (Assignee) ) BALH-20070619ACB, et al. ) BALH-20070619AIT, et al. For Consent to Assignment of Licenses of ) BALH-20070627ACN ) BALH-20070627ACO, et al. Jacor Broadcasting Corporation; ) BAL-20070906ADP CC Licenses, LLC; AMFM Radio ) BALH-20070906ADQ Licenses, LLC; Citicasters Licenses, LP; ) Capstar TX Limited Partnership; and ) Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc. ) Federal Communications Commission ERRATUM Released: January 30, 2008 By the Media Bureau: On January 24, 2008, the Commission released a Memorandum Opinion and Order(MO&O),FCC 08-3, in the above-captioned proceeding.
  • The Legal Profession's Failure to Discipline

    The Legal Profession's Failure to Discipline

    THE LEGAL PROFESSION’S FAILURE TO DISCIPLINE UNETHICAL PROSECUTORS Angela J. Davis* I. INTRODUCTION White students at Jena High School in Jena, Louisiana, hung nooses from a tree at the high school, provoking a series of fights between groups of black and white students. Punches were thrown on both sides, and both black and white students were injured. However, the prosecutor, Reed Walters, charged one white student with a misdemeanor while charging six black students with serious felonies in adult court. In Douglasville, Georgia, a seventeen-year-old boy named Genarlow Wilson had consensual oral sex with a fifteen-year-old girl. The prosecutor charged him with aggravated child molestation and other sex offenses. Oral sex with a person under fifteen years old is aggravated child molestation in the state of Georgia, and consent is no defense. Wilson was acquitted of all charges except the child molestation offense, which at the time carried a mandatory sentence of ten years in prison. A judge later found that Wilson’s sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment and ordered him released. But the prosecutor appealed the judge’s decision, and Wilson remained in prison for over two years until the Georgia Supreme Court ordered his release on October 26, 2007.1 Delma Banks was charged with capital murder in the state of Texas. The prosecutor in his case withheld exculpatory evidence and repeatedly coached the main witness on what his testimony should be. The prosecutor even threatened to prosecute this witness if he did not conform his testimony to the prosecutor’s version of the case.
  • Richard Russell, the Senate Armed Services Committee & Oversight of America’S Defense, 1955-1968

    Richard Russell, the Senate Armed Services Committee & Oversight of America’S Defense, 1955-1968

    BALANCING CONSENSUS, CONSENT, AND COMPETENCE: RICHARD RUSSELL, THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE & OVERSIGHT OF AMERICA’S DEFENSE, 1955-1968 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Joshua E. Klimas, M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2007 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor David Stebenne, Advisor Professor John Guilmartin Advisor Professor James Bartholomew History Graduate Program ABSTRACT This study examines Congress’s role in defense policy-making between 1955 and 1968, with particular focus on the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), its most prominent and influential members, and the evolving defense authorization process. The consensus view holds that, between World War II and the drawdown of the Vietnam War, the defense oversight committees showed acute deference to Defense Department legislative and budget requests. At the same time, they enforced closed oversight procedures that effectively blocked less “pro-defense” members from influencing the policy-making process. Although true at an aggregate level, this understanding is incomplete. It ignores the significant evolution to Armed Services Committee oversight practices that began in the latter half of 1950s, and it fails to adequately explore the motivations of the few members who decisively shaped the process. SASC chairman Richard Russell (D-GA) dominated Senate deliberations on defense policy. Relying only on input from a few key colleagues – particularly his protégé and eventual successor, John Stennis (D-MS) – Russell for the better part of two decades decided almost in isolation how the Senate would act to oversee the nation’s defense.
  • Objectivity, Interdisciplinary Methodology, and Shared Authority

    Objectivity, Interdisciplinary Methodology, and Shared Authority

    ABSTRACT HISTORY TATE. RACHANICE CANDY PATRICE B.A. EMORY UNIVERSITY, 1987 M.P.A. GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY, 1990 M.A. UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN- MILWAUKEE, 1995 “OUR ART ITSELF WAS OUR ACTIVISM”: ATLANTA’S NEIGHBORHOOD ARTS CENTER, 1975-1990 Committee Chair: Richard Allen Morton. Ph.D. Dissertation dated May 2012 This cultural history study examined Atlanta’s Neighborhood Arts Center (NAC), which existed from 1975 to 1990, as an example of black cultural politics in the South. As a Black Arts Movement (BAM) institution, this regional expression has been missing from academic discussions of the period. The study investigated the multidisciplinary programming that was created to fulfill its motto of “Art for People’s Sake.” The five themes developed from the program research included: 1) the NAC represented the juxtaposition between the individual and the community, local and national; 2) the NAC reached out and extended the arts to the masses, rather than just focusing on the black middle class and white supporters; 3) the NAC was distinctive in space and location; 4) the NAC seemed to provide more opportunities for women artists than traditional BAM organizations; and 5) the NAC had a specific mission to elevate the social and political consciousness of black people. In addition to placing the Neighborhood Arts Center among the regional branches of the BAM family tree, using the programmatic findings, this research analyzed three themes found to be present in the black cultural politics of Atlanta which made for the center’s unique grassroots contributions to the movement. The themes centered on a history of politics, racial issues, and class dynamics.
  • The History of Redistricting in Georgia

    The History of Redistricting in Georgia

    GEORGIA LAW REVIEW(DO NOT DELETE) 11/6/2018 8:33 PM THE HISTORY OF REDISTRICTING IN GEORGIA Charles S. Bullock III* In his memoirs, Chief Justice Earl Warren singled out the redistricting cases as the most significant decisions of his tenure on the Court.1 A review of the changes redistricting introduced in Georgia supports Warren’s assessment. Not only have the obligations to equalize populations across districts and to do so in a racially fair manner transformed the makeup of the state’s collegial bodies, Georgia has provided the setting for multiple cases that have defined the requirements to be met when designing districts. Other than the very first adjustments that occurred in the 1960s, changes in Georgia plans had to secure approval from the federal government pursuant to the Voting Rights Act. Also, the first four decades of the Redistricting Revolution occurred with a Democratic legislature and governor in place. Not surprisingly, the partisans in control of redistricting sought to protect their own and as that became difficult they employed more extreme measures. When in the minority, Republicans had no chance to enact plans on their own. Beginning in the 1980s and peaking a decade later, Republicans joined forces with black Democrats to devise alternatives to the proposals of white Democrats. The biracial, bipartisan coalition never had sufficient numbers to enact its ideas. After striking out in the legislature, African-Americans appealed to the U.S. Attorney General alleging that the plans enacted were less favorable to black interests than alternatives * Charles S. Bullock, III is a University Professor of Public and International Affairs at the University of Georgia where he holds the Richard B.
  • Black Women's

    Black Women's

    Voices. Votes. Leadership. “At present, our country needs women's idealism and determination, perhaps more in politics than anywhere else.” Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm About Higher Heights Higher Heights is the only organization dedicated solely to harnessing Black women’s political power and leadership potential to overcome barriers to political participation and increase Black women’s participation in civic processes. Higher Heights Leadership Fund, a 501(c)(3), is investing in a long-term strategy to expand and support Black women’s leadership pipeline at all levels and strengthen their civic participation beyond just Election Day. Learn more at www.HigherHeightsLeadershipFund.org About The Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) The Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP), a unit of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, is nationally recognized as the leading source of scholarly research and current data about American women’s political participation. Its mission is to promote greater knowledge and understanding about women's participation in politics and government and to enhance women's influence and leadership in public life. CAWP’s education and outreach programs translate research findings into action, addressing women’s under-rep- resentation in political leadership with effective, imaginative programs serving a variety of audiences. As the world has watched Americans considering female candidates for the nation's highest offices, CAWP’s over four decades of analyzing and interpreting women’s participation in American politics have provided a foundation and context for the discussion. Learn more at www.cawp.rutgers.edu This report was made possible by the generous support of Political Parity.
  • Campaign Committee Transfers to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee JOHN KERRY for PRESIDENT, INC. $3,000,000 GORE 2

    Campaign Committee Transfers to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee JOHN KERRY for PRESIDENT, INC. $3,000,000 GORE 2

    Campaign Committee Transfers to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT, INC. $3,000,000 GORE 2000 INC.GELAC $1,000,000 AL FRIENDS OF BUD CRAMER $125,000 AL COMMITTEE TO ELECT ARTUR DAVIS TO CONGRESS $10,000 AR MARION BERRY FOR CONGRESS $135,000 AR SNYDER FOR CONGRESS CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE $25,500 AR MIKE ROSS FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE $200,000 AS FALEOMAVAEGA FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE $5,000 AZ PASTOR FOR ARIZONA $100,000 AZ A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE FOR GRIJALVA CONGRESSNL CMTE $15,000 CA WOOLSEY FOR CONGRESS $70,000 CA MIKE THOMPSON FOR CONGRESS $221,000 CA BOB MATSUI FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE $470,000 CA NANCY PELOSI FOR CONGRESS $570,000 CA FRIENDS OF CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER $310,000 CA PETE STARK RE-ELECTION COMMITTEE $100,000 CA BARBARA LEE FOR CONGRESS $40,387 CA ELLEN TAUSCHER FOR CONGRESS $72,000 CA TOM LANTOS FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE $125,000 CA ANNA ESHOO FOR CONGRESS $210,000 CA MIKE HONDA FOR CONGRESS $116,000 CA LOFGREN FOR CONGRESS $145,000 CA FRIENDS OF FARR $80,000 CA DOOLEY FOR THE VALLEY $40,000 CA FRIENDS OF DENNIS CARDOZA $85,000 CA FRIENDS OF LOIS CAPPS $100,000 CA CITIZENS FOR WATERS $35,000 CA CONGRESSMAN WAXMAN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE $200,000 CA SHERMAN FOR CONGRESS $115,000 CA BERMAN FOR CONGRESS $215,000 CA ADAM SCHIFF FOR CONGRESS $90,000 CA SCHIFF FOR CONGRESS $50,000 CA FRIENDS OF JANE HARMAN $150,000 CA BECERRA FOR CONGRESS $125,000 CA SOLIS FOR CONGRESS $110,000 CA DIANE E WATSON FOR CONGRESS $40,500 CA LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD FOR CONGRESS $225,000 CA NAPOLITANO FOR CONGRESS $70,000 CA PEOPLE FOR JUANITA MCDONALD FOR CONGRESS, THE $62,000 CA COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT LINDA SANCHEZ $10,000 CA FRIENDS OF JOE BACA $62,000 CA COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT LORETTA SANCHEZ $150,000 CA SUSAN DAVIS FOR CONGRESS $100,000 CO SCHROEDER FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE, INC $1,000 CO DIANA DEGETTE FOR CONGRESS $125,000 CO MARK UDALL FOR CONGRESS INC.
  • ("DSCC") Files This Complaint Seeking an Immediate Investigation by the 7

    ("DSCC") Files This Complaint Seeking an Immediate Investigation by the 7

    COMPLAINT BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION CBHMISSIOAl INTRODUCTXON - 1 The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ("DSCC") 7-_. J _j. c files this complaint seeking an immediate investigation by the 7 c; a > Federal Election Commission into the illegal spending A* practices of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee (WRSCIt). As the public record shows, and an investigation will confirm, the NRSC and a series of ostensibly nonprofit, nonpartisan groups have undertaken a significant and sustained effort to funnel "soft money101 into federal elections in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended or "the Act"), 2 U.S.C. 5s 431 et seq., and the Federal Election Commission (peFECt)Regulations, 11 C.F.R. 85 100.1 & sea. 'The term "aoft money" as ueed in this Complaint means funds,that would not be lawful for use in connection with any federal election (e.g., corporate or labor organization treasury funds, contributions in excess of the relevant contribution limit for federal elections). THE FACTS IN TBIS CABE On November 24, 1992, the state of Georgia held a unique runoff election for the office of United States Senator. Georgia law provided for a runoff if no candidate in the regularly scheduled November 3 general election received in excess of 50 percent of the vote. The 1992 runoff in Georg a was a hotly contested race between the Democratic incumbent Wyche Fowler, and his Republican opponent, Paul Coverdell. The Republicans presented this election as a %ust-win81 election. Exhibit 1. The Republicans were so intent on victory that Senator Dole announced he was willing to give up his seat on the Senate Agriculture Committee for Coverdell, if necessary.
  • Box Number: M 17 (Otw./R?C<O R 15

    Box Number: M 17 (Otw./R?C<O R 15

    This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas http://dolearchives.ku.edu Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics REMOVAL NOTICE Removed from: S\>QQClt\es, j'Ot1Lt Mc..C.luv\Uj I ( 1 'f<-f Accession: Box Number: m17 (otw./r?C<O r 15 z,cr ~ fftt«r Rt (Jub/t'c CV1 Removed to: Oversized Photographs Box I (Circle one) Oversized Publications Box Campaign Material Box Oversized Newsprint Box Personal Effects Box Mem~rabilia Btm- _:£__ Oversized Flats [Posters, Handbills, etc] Box Political Cartoons Box -- Textiles Box Photograph Collection Box \ ,,,,,,,.... 4" Size: X , 2 5 >< • 7J Format: Pi v'\ Description: Ret k~v\o.>1 Dat~: rn4 > ol ""'~\ t ~', Subject Terms (ifanyJ. Restrictions: none Remarks: Place one copy with removed item Place one copy in original folder File one copy in file Page 1 of 188 This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas http://dolearchives.ku.edu Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics REMOVAL NOTICE Date: from: ~pe (!c_~J Jt:'~C. e rf)c C..lun ji l'7°1 Accession: Box Number: B 0 ~ \ t ro 'I"' l'l • l 5 6L/ /;;Ff So'"":t-h.v\V"'\ 'R-e._plA l; co-"' ~~~~ Removed to: Oversized Photographs Box C.O~t-('U"UL.. ( C ircle one) Oversized Publications Box Campaign Material Box Oversized Newsprint Box Personal Effects Box Memorabilia -:tJ1f X Oversized Flats [Posters, Handbills, etc] Box __ Political Cartoons Box Textiles Box Photograph Collection Box Restrictions: none Remarks: Place one copy with removed item Place one copy in original folder File one copy in file Page 2 of 188 This document is from the collections at the Dole Archives, University of Kansas http://dolearchives.ku.edu WH"A T , S .INN AT ENGL ..ISH MANOR AND LA.KE .RA.BUN .INNS ..IN 1 994 FOR THOSE OF YOU #HO HAVEN'T BEEN OUR t;UESTS IN THE PAST OR HAVEN'T VISITED US RECENTLY, ENt;LISH ANO I #OULO LIKE TO ACQUAINT YOU ANO BRINE; YOU UP TO DATE.
  • Chapter 9 - Black Incumbents, White Districts: a Georgia Analysis

    Chapter 9 - Black Incumbents, White Districts: a Georgia Analysis

    Voss Familiarity Doesn’t Breed Contempt 201 Chapter 9 - Black Incumbents, White Districts: A Georgia Analysis The civil rights community made a serious tactical blunder when the U.S. Supreme Court began striking down “racial gerrymanders” in the mid-1990s.1 Filled with dismay after watching majority- minority districts fall one by one at the Court’s hands, activists got carried away with their rhetoric, foretelling a doom destined not to descend. NAACP Legal Defense Fund attorney Theodore Shaw prophesied, for example, that minority members of Congress “eventually” would be able to “meet in the back seat of a taxi cab” (Charen 1996).2 Deval Patrick, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, went even further: he said the Shaw v. Reno line of court decisions portended “a return to all-white government” (Baltimore Sun 1996). Other activists borrowed ugly images from Southern history. U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney, whose Georgia district traded away heavily black precincts for much whiter Atlanta suburbs (Tucker 1995), threatened that African-American legislators would face “the same level of extinction” as they did after Reconstruction (Applebome 1994). Elaine Jones, head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, summoned memories of lynchings; she said the Supreme Court was “closing the noose” on black legislators (Savage 1996). Not to be outdone, the Rev. Jesse Jackson reached beyond U.S. history for his metaphor–calling the rulings (in an oft-quoted line) “a kind of ethnic cleansing” (Tilove 1996). “The fact that 1996 looks more like 1896 every day cannot be ignored.” No matter how restrained, all implied an immediate and direct threat to congressional diversity.
  • A History of Maryland's Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016

    A History of Maryland's Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016

    A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 Published by: Maryland State Board of Elections Linda H. Lamone, Administrator Project Coordinator: Jared DeMarinis, Director Division of Candidacy and Campaign Finance Published: October 2016 Table of Contents Preface 5 The Electoral College – Introduction 7 Meeting of February 4, 1789 19 Meeting of December 5, 1792 22 Meeting of December 7, 1796 24 Meeting of December 3, 1800 27 Meeting of December 5, 1804 30 Meeting of December 7, 1808 31 Meeting of December 2, 1812 33 Meeting of December 4, 1816 35 Meeting of December 6, 1820 36 Meeting of December 1, 1824 39 Meeting of December 3, 1828 41 Meeting of December 5, 1832 43 Meeting of December 7, 1836 46 Meeting of December 2, 1840 49 Meeting of December 4, 1844 52 Meeting of December 6, 1848 53 Meeting of December 1, 1852 55 Meeting of December 3, 1856 57 Meeting of December 5, 1860 60 Meeting of December 7, 1864 62 Meeting of December 2, 1868 65 Meeting of December 4, 1872 66 Meeting of December 6, 1876 68 Meeting of December 1, 1880 70 Meeting of December 3, 1884 71 Page | 2 Meeting of January 14, 1889 74 Meeting of January 9, 1893 75 Meeting of January 11, 1897 77 Meeting of January 14, 1901 79 Meeting of January 9, 1905 80 Meeting of January 11, 1909 83 Meeting of January 13, 1913 85 Meeting of January 8, 1917 87 Meeting of January 10, 1921 88 Meeting of January 12, 1925 90 Meeting of January 2, 1929 91 Meeting of January 4, 1933 93 Meeting of December 14, 1936