[EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws - The Pueblo Chieftain: Lo...

Wed Aug 10 11:25:32 PDT 2011

If this were a physical pushing of someone off of a stage where they were speaking, we’d say there was intent to push the person off the stage, for tort purposes, as Brian points out, even if the actor just wanted to get to the other side of the stage to turn down the amplifier. The same result would be reached if the actor lifted a floor panel to get at the amplifier, with knowledge that it was substantial certain the doing so would cause the speaker to fall off the stage. Actors often are treated as intentionally causing a result when the actor knows that the result is substantially certain to occur as a result of the action, even if the actor does not desire the result to occur.

To the extent that proponents of campaign rules know that their actions will push speakers off the political stage, it is fair to say that the result is intended, though perhaps only as an acceptable side-effect of their actions.
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
Malibu, CA 90263
(310)506-4667

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:12 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws - The Pueblo Chieftain: Lo...

                Let me offer a friendly amendment:  One can indeed assume (as a factual matter) that people intend – in the sense of purposefully aim at – the natural and probable consequences of their acts, but only if there are no other natural and probable consequences of note.  Thus, even in criminal law, if I point a loaded gun at someone and pull the trigger, a jury is entitled (though not required) to infer that I intended to kill the person, or at least seriously wound him, since that’s the main significant consequence of my action – though even there one could imagine circumstances that would rebut the inference.

                But such an inference stops being sensible when an action has many natural and probable consequences.  There, as Brian points out, one could act with the purpose of creating one consequence, and in spite of (i.e., without the purpose of creating) another consequence.  Thus, to consider a crime that famously turns on purpose – treason – say that I organize a strike during wartime, knowing that it will foreseeably interfere with the war effort and help the enemy.  That might be treason if I’m doing it with the purpose of helping the enemy, but it’s not if I’m doing with the purpose of getting better wages for members of my union, even if I know that it likely will help the enemy.  Nor would it be sound for a jury to infer a purpose to help the enemy simply because that is a natural and probable consequence of my actions:  Because there are two natural and probable consequences (raising wages, and helping the enemy), the mere act does not tell us what its purpose likely was.

                Eugene

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Brian Landsberg
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:53 AM
To: JBoppjr at aol.com; rhasen at law.uci.edu
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws - The Pueblo Chieftain: Lo...

Supreme Court says this is wrong, outside the tort area.  Question is whether the action was because of or in spite of the foreseeable consequences.

Brian K. Landsberg
Distinguished Professor and Scholar
Pacific McGeorge School of Law
3200 Fifth Ave., Sacramento CA 95817
916 739-7103
blandsberg at pacific.edu

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of JBoppjr at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:46 AM
To: rhasen at law.uci.edu
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws - The Pueblo Chieftain: Lo...

    I am not concerned about anyone's subjective motivation or what they are willing to admit to. We are entitled to assume that "people intend the natural and probable consequences of their acts."
Click here: Intention in English law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_in_English_law> If they don't, they would change what they do. Reformers watch people being driven out of the political system by their burdensome, complex and oppressive laws -- and they still think they are justified.  So they must intend this result.  Jim

In a message dated 8/10/2011 1:25:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
Jim,

Do you really believe reformers' goals are "to drive citizens of average means out of our political system?"  That certainly does not match up with my experience in talking to people who are strongly in favor of regulation.  Usually they express to me concerns about large money corrupting the system, concerns about inequality/lack of a level playing field, or concerns about the high costs of campaigns.  I cannot recall a single conversation over many years of speaking with reform-minded individuals who ever--publicly or privately--expressed a desire to drive citizens of average means out of our political system.

That's not to say that complex laws cannot have this effect.  I believe they can, and that to the extent that campaign finance laws do so, they need to be changed.  But you suggest a motive for such laws which seems so off from reality that I'm not sure if you are serious.

Rick

On 8/10/2011 10:19 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
Click here: Study shows who breaks campaign laws - The Pueblo Chieftain: Local<http://www.chieftain.com/news/local/study-shows-who-breaks-campaign-laws/article_9cf187fc-c185-11e0-baff-001cc4c002e0.html?mode=story>

 “Our office did a study and looked at who pays campaign finance fines, who doesn’t, who violates the law a lot, things like that,” said Secretary of State Scott Gessler. “And the bottom line is this: Volunteers and grass-roots groups are far more likely to run afoul of the law because the law is so complex. Large, big-money groups are able to hire attorneys and accountants and pay very, very few fines.”

But this is the purpose of campaign finance laws -- to drive citizens of average means out of our political system. Nice to see it is working. The "reformers" will be very pleased, I am sure.  Jim Bopp

--
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110810/c2c15ce7/attachment.html>