[EL] "A Note on Campaign Finance Reform: Limiting the Right to Make Campa...
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Sat Aug 27 08:50:15 PDT 2011
Oh, yes, but did I mention Genghis Kahn, Attila Hun and Marie Antoinette.
Jim
In a message dated 8/27/2011 11:26:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
bwright at demos.org writes:
Ah, Godwin’s law comes into play on the third post, but with a refreshing
twist – not merely invoking Hitler (that is so 1990s), but also King George
III, Pol Pot, Caesar and “Neapolitan” – yes, the well-known “Emperor of
Ice Cream” (see Wallace Stevens). A truly chilling point.
____________________________________
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: Saturday, August 27, 2011 9:34 AM
To: David at HoltzmanLaw.com; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] "A Note on Campaign Finance Reform: Limiting the Right
to Make Campa...
David asks:
"Is it (the right to contribute, and hence associate) a right that can be
extended? Or since it’s universal to begin with, only constricted?"
There is two views of this. "Reformers," just like the King George III,
Neapolitan, Caesar, Hitler and Pol Pot, believe, as did all governments
before ours, that citizens can only participate in the government if they get
the government's permission. This is the premise of this article. Our
First Amendment was written to reverse this premise -- that the natural state
of things would be that people are free to participate in the government
without restriction. So freedom does not have to be justified, but
restrictions on freedom must be. Failing to grasp this requirement of American law
makes this article suitable for discussion in Russia, but not the USA. Jim
Bopp
In a message dated 8/27/2011 2:58:49 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
David at HoltzmanLaw.com writes:
The abstract says, “Extending the right to make contributions in a
particular election to groups that do not have the right to vote in that election
[] violates simple logic, since without the right of people to vote there
would be no need for contributions.”
“[S]imple logic,” maybe.
But what of the felon, who wants to get the right to vote (or otherwise
change the law) by getting supportive candidates elected?
What of the non-profit seeking to educate candidates and voters nationwide
in order to elect USReps who promise to change a particular law, or stop a
particular war?
What of the government worker or private worker or student in the district
who lives outside the district but is affected by district-specific
decisions like: what porkmarks will come to the district, how gov’t contracts
will affect the district, what the military will do there, what types of
events the USRep will hold there, who the USRep will hire, how accessible the
USRep will be? (Or should communication access to USReps be limited to CVAP
residents of the district?)
What of stockholders in companies similarly affected?
What of people outside competitive districts who will lose out if a
certain political party gets a majority in the House?
What of those seeking to knock a senior USRep from office to give their
own district’s USRep a better shot at becoming a committee chair?
What of legal noncitizen residents who are affected by the actions of
USReps elected by districts drawn in consideration of a count of all residents
-- supposedly so the USReps can represent all residents?
What of non-voting family of the candidates, who already have plenty of
access and just want to help their kinfolk?
What of the orphan who’s not yet old enough to vote?
What of volunteering for campaigns - same restriction?
- dah
p.s. Is it (the right to contribute, and hence associate) a right that can
be extended? Or since it’s universal to begin with, only constricted?
<!--[if !supportLineBrea_kNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
On 8/26/2011 8:57 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
“A Note on Campaign Finance Reform: Limiting the Right to Make Campaign
Finance Contributions without Violating the First Amendment”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=22297)
Posted on _August 26, 2011 12:36 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=22297)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
William Grigsby, Emeritus Professor in City and Regional Planning,
University of Pennsylvania, has written_ this draft_
(http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/grigsby-campaign-finance.pdf) , which I have posted on my
blog. Here is the abstract:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission has made it possible for individuals who are not eligible to vote in a
particular federal election and for organizations, who have no voting
rights at all, to make unlimited campaign contributions, expanding their
pre-existing right to make contributions with dollar caps. These two groups of
contributors without the right to vote already outspend eligible voters in
some states by an order of magnitude. Citizens United will simply widen
the difference. The dominant role of campaign contributors who are not
eligible voters has a serious corrupting effect on the federal election system.
Since candidates and office-holders properly listen to the views of all
contributors, not just to the views of eligible voters, the ballot speech of
the eligibles is substantially diluted, if not entirely overwhelmed, by the
money-speech of the non-eligibles. This is true even with respect to
donors to independent-expenditure campaigns, since their identity will almost
immediately become known to candidates through disclosure requirements.
Additionally, their uncapped donations would in some cases be so large as to
invite at least the appearance of quid pro quo corruption.
Extending the right to make contributions in a particular election to
groups that do not have the right to vote in that election also violates simple
logic, since without the right of people to vote there would be no need
for contributions
Eligibility limits with respect to contributions speech should be
co-terminus with those for voting speech. Since individuals join together in
organizations in order to make their voice more widely and strongly heard,
organizations should still be allowed to make campaign contributions but only
as conduits for donations by persons who are eligible voters in the election
whose outcome the organizations are attempting to influence.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=22297&title=“
A%20Note%20on%20Campaign%20Finance%20Reform:%20Limiting%20the%20Right%20to%20Make%20Campaign%20Finance%20Contributions%20without%20Violating%20t
he%20First%20Amendment”&descriptio)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) |
Comments Off
--
David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
_david at holtzmanlaw.com_ (mailto:david at holtzmanlaw.com)
Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be
confidential, for use only by intended recipients. If you are not an intended
recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email to an intended
recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any
use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.
_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110827/a89cc08b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1551 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110827/a89cc08b/attachment.gif>
View list directory