Matthew Alvarez

Attorney practicing the laws of our democracy at Rutan & Tucker, LLP. #CampaignFinance #Elections #PoliticalJunkie #USCLaw #BC #LoyolaHigh

[Matthew Alvarez @all_alvy]

@UnrigLA Do you know how many signatures they submitted in total?

[Matthew Alvarez @all_alvy]

@HarryBerezin @FB_Helmet_Guy The Oracle still got it! Hope all is well bud.

[Matthew Alvarez @all_alvy]

@ZavalaA Regardless of the merits, this is unconstitutional from the start.

[Matthew Alvarez @all_alvy]

@AlexCVassar @MattRexroad Pretty much anyone in CA has standing to sue over a ballot measure in CA state court. The prop 8 stuff was about who has standing to litigate over a ballot measure in federal court.

[Matthew Alvarez @all_alvy]

@JimGriffith_SV @grace_hase @SCCDP Ya it’s a common misconception. This actually stems from the lesser known holding from Bush v. Gore, which stand for this proposition - ie, no picking and choosing precincts to change the official results.

[Matthew Alvarez @all_alvy]

@JimGriffith_SV @grace_hase @SCCDP Candidate pick best precincts to recount first (to see if he picks up votes and to see if continuing is worth the cost), but official results won’t change unless the entire district is recounted. Can’t pick and choose which precincts to recount and then stop once you are ahead.

[Matthew Alvarez @all_alvy]

@JimGriffith_SV @grace_hase @SCCDP In order to change the official results, the entire district has to be recounted. The losing candidate will have to pay for this. If the recount results in a change of winners (or a tie), then the two counties will refund the losing candidate his money.

[Matthew Alvarez @all_alvy]

@PacoTorresCA Why's it a two year cooling off period?

[Matthew Alvarez @all_alvy]

@RogerSalazar @SovernNation Ya it’s just an email! If she was going there physically to campaign, then maybe that’s noteworthy. But a fundraising email? Come on. That’s nothing.

[Matthew Alvarez @all_alvy]

@AaronGuhreen @cmaiduc @AGRobBonta @heatherhaddon Once it qualifies for the ballot via signatures, the underlying law is stayed (i.e., does not go into effect) until the voters vote on it.

[Matthew Alvarez @all_alvy]

@LevinsonJessica @stuartwaldman Same question arose with City Attorney candidate Marina Torres this cycle. Court allowed her to stay on the ballot. Nothing to see here, IMO.

[Matthew Alvarez @all_alvy]

@SauloLondono @Patterdude 24hour reporting of campaign contributions happens already in California (min. $1000s) and I’ve never seen anyone make the crazy flow of data useful or user friendly. And tons have tried.

[Matthew Alvarez @all_alvy]

@FlashReport @Patterdude IEs would still have existed regardless of contribution limits. They can do and say stuff that candidates can’t. But really, consultants make money off of them and consultants always know how to make money.

[Matthew Alvarez @all_alvy]

@Patterdude @FromBenC You’d basically have to get rid of contribution limits entirely, which creates its own ethics issues. No state leg candidate is getting corrupted at $4,900 a pop, but $50k? $100k? More?

[Matthew Alvarez @all_alvy]

@dillonliam Been this way for a couple years now. The Oakland case was a sideshow issue.

[Matthew Alvarez @all_alvy]

@DavidZahniser @boreskes Pretty certain the CA constitution prohibits initiatives that provide real estate transfer taxes for a special purpose (as opposed to a the money going into the general fund).

[Matthew Alvarez @all_alvy]

@JamesQueallyLAT What's the faceplant here?

[Matthew Alvarez @all_alvy]

@PacoTorresCA ^this is the only reasonable take on this question. Agree 100%.

[Matthew Alvarez @all_alvy]

@Heminator Think this is a state level fix. The Feds don't have initiatives and referendums. California, for example, already has a law that prohibits foreign spending in initiatives and referendums. What the FEC has to say on the matter is irrelevant if state law bars it already.

[Matthew Alvarez @all_alvy]

@mikegatto @LA_Filings Generous use of the word ‘interesting’! 😜