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

Wed Aug 10 12:12:24 PDT 2011

"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."

One might equally well ask, to the extent that proponents of tearing
down campaign regulations know that their actions will allow into our
political process a flood of money from well-heeled interests that
drown out the voices of "people of average means or made up of people
of average means" (to quote Mr. Bopp) -- or that the shredding of
regulations seems to disproportionately affect the fortunes of one
political party, is it fair to say that the result is intended, though
perhaps only as an acceptable side-effect of their actions?

Seems this sword cuts both ways.

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Scarberry, Mark
<Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu> wrote:
> To paraphrase someone (Mark Twain?), even a dog knows the difference between
> being stumbled over and being kicked. John didn’t know he was going to gain
> the pounds when he went to France. If you kick your dog, perhaps in order to
> get past the dog to answer the door, the dog will know it was kicked. To use
> John’s language of trampling, if you step on someone to get to the fire exit
> when a fire breaks out in the theater, you surely intended the person to be
> trampled, even if you are sorry you had to do it.
>
>
>
> 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 John
> Tanner
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:24 AM
> To: Volokh, Eugene
>
> Cc: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws - The
> Pueblo Chieftain: Lo...
>
>
>
> To offer another illustration, I gained five pounds on a recent trip to
> France.  I did not go with the intent of gaining weight or any real
> expectation of gaining weight, despite a wealth of consistent past
> experience, I did not think about gaining weight at any time until I got
> home and found that the damage was done; indeed, if anything I assumed
> that my due to my long walks from restaurant to restaurant, the pounds were
> melting away.  Perhaps I am unique in being blinded by foie gras and creme
> brulee (and barbecue, banana pudding, and...), but it seems that others are
> similarly blinded by, for example, their desire to level the playing field
> or, on the other hands, to open the playing field to players of all sizes -
> regardless of who gets trampled
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>                 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 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 wrote:
>
> Click here: Study shows who breaks campaign laws - The Pueblo Chieftain:
> Local
>
>
>
>  “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
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
Dilexi iustitiam et odivi iniquitatem, propterea morior in exilio.

(I have loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile.)

    -- the last words of Saint Pope Gregory VII (d. 1085)