[EL] "A Note on Campaign Finance Reform: Limiting the Right to Make Campa...
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Sun Aug 28 07:53:56 PDT 2011
Regarding RuthAlice's point, I too enjoyed the responses to my post and
LOL at Trevor's clever one comparing my views to that of Pol Pot's. But my
post was not intended to be personal but philosophical. I have been told
repeatedly that one must know the source of a communication to evaluate the
merit of the argument it contains. It is indisputable that everyone I
mentioned, and many more, agree with the view that "citizens can only participate
in the government if they get the government's permission." In my view,
that these people shared that point of view means nothing about merits of the
agrument, just as the fact that Marie Antoinette preferred cake lends no
discredit to bread. The responses demonstrated that I made my point.
If anyone took personal offense, of course, I apologize and especially
to RuthAlice, who, as her post clearly demonstrates, can certainly make
sharp personal points when she is inclined to do so. Jim Bopp
PS. As to my reference to "Neapolitan," I of course was referring to the
Duchy or Province of Naples. LOL
In a message dated 8/27/2011, _ruthalice.anderson at comcast.net_
(mailto:ruthalice.anderson at comcast.net) writes:
While I enjoyed the gentle rebukes to James Bopp's malignant email, I get
very tired of his continued insistence that he and he alone is exempt from
the rules about civility a and good manners. He's very fast to complain
about breaches of civility and defines the bar exceedlingly low when discussing
campaign finance and conflicts of interest yet blithely equates people who
disagree with him as Hitler, Pol Pot and yes, Neapolitan Ice Cream.
While he has been influential in changing campaign finance with his
Supreme Court suits and thus, surely, it is valuable to all on this listserv to
read and learn his opinions, however much some of us may disagree with them.
However, he repeated insulting and offensive language should not be
tolerated because of who he is. He claims the privilege of exemption from the
rules to bully people he disagrees with. I know I am not the only one who is
tired of his bullyboy language and tactics as other people have complained to
the listserv as well.
Still there are never any consequences. I would suggest that if he cannot
apologize and behave better that a temporary suspension might remind him
that there are some rules that we all follow and that he is not exempt.
RuthAlice Anderson=
In a message dated 8/27/2011, _jboppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:jboppjr at aol.com)
writes:
Oh, yes, but did I mention Genghis Kahn, Attila Hun and Marie Antoinette.
Jim
In a message dated 8/27/2011 11:38:08 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tpotter at capdale.com writes:
Gosh-
I thought Pol Pot's goal was to do away with all laws, and return to the
jungle...sorta like the anti-regulators...
Trevor Potter
Sent by Good Messaging (www.good.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu]
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 11:33 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: Brenda Wright
Cc: JBoppjr at aol.com; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu;
David at HoltzmanLaw.com
Subject: Re: [EL] "A Note on Campaign Finance Reform: Limiting the Right
to Make Campa...
It has been a while since campaign finance reformers were compared to
Nazis on this list.
So I find the whole Neapolitan thing not chilling but refreshing.
Rick
On 8/27/2011 8:19 AM, Brenda Wright wrote:
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 !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[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 independ
ent-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%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%
3Fp%3D22297&title=%E2%80%9CA%20Note%20on%20Campaign%20Finance%20Reform%3A%20
Limiting%20the%20Right%20to%20Make%20Campaign%20Finance%20Contributions%20wi
thout%20Violating%20the%20First%20Amendment%E2%80%9D&descriptio>
Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> |
Comments Off
--
David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
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
--
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
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,
we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise,
any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting,
marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
matter addressed herein.
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
_______________________________________________
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/20110828/f16a42d9/attachment.html>
View list directory