Rick Hasen
Role at the time: Professor of law and political science at UCLA and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project, posting on his own Bluesky account
Statement summary
Responding to press inquiries the day after Trump's announcement, UCLA election law professor Rick Hasen said the Supreme Court has held that generalised campaign promises are protected by the First Amendment, so the pledge does not amount to illegal vote buying, and linked to the authority he relied on. He added a parenthetical questioning why anyone would believe the promise would be kept. The word "slouch" in his post appears to be a typing error for "such."
“For all the reporters asking me if this is illegal vote buying, the Supreme Court has said slouch generalized campaign promises are First Amendment protected”
The speaker's own post on Bluesky, quoted exactly as written; "slouch" appears to be a typing error for "such." Hasen posted in response to press inquiries the day after the announcement and linked to the Supreme Court authority he relies on.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Why we used this label
Hasen disputes the legal characterisation directly, holding that the conduct falls within protected campaign speech rather than unlawful inducement, without endorsing or condemning the pledge itself. The closest competing label is “Defended or excused”, since concluding the conduct is lawful could be read as excusing it. That loses because he offers no view that the pledge is proper or desirable and in the same post doubts it will be honoured; he is answering a legal question, not defending the policy.