[EL] Citizens United as precedent

Tue Dec 6 15:36:16 PST 2011

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  Ah, now I see.  I think you are correct on this point Jim.  The word
> should not have been "precedent" but "logic" or "rational consequences."
>

And, Jim, didn't you file a small slew of lawsuits with the FEC and/or
elsewhere within days or weeks of the *Citizens United* decision that
argued that the "precedent," er, *logic and rational consequences* of
Citizens United, required multiple other changes in law and regulation?
Or, in doing so, do you rely solely on the narrow *holding* of *Citizens
United*?

Cases are termed "watershed" or "landmark" cases for reasons that go beyond
their narrow holding, even where that holding is a reversal of prior
precedent.  Such watershed or landmark cases tend to introduce new logic or
new approaches to areas of the law that tend to both call into question or
doubt prior case law as well as heavily influence later cases - at least if
the composition of the Court remains stable on the issue.

I can see Jim disagreeing on the question of how CU ultimately impacts this
latest case, but still can't understand Jim's reticence to own up to or
even be proud of the brave new world of election law logic Citizens United
introduced. He relies on that in his subsequent litigation, so why quibble
over whether it is the "holding" of CU or, instead, CU's new logic, its
rational consequences, or its assertion of new principles or re-emphasis of
older principles or any combination thereof that does the job?

Like it or not, it's a watershed case for reasons that go well beyond it's
"holding" or "precedent."  (And I do not like it).  I suppose the reason
some who do like CU don't celebrate this aspect of it is the cognitive
dissonance that results with other positions held, like opposition to
"judicial activism."

Paul Lehto, J.D.

>
> Rick
>
> On 12/6/11 3:09 PM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
>
>  Well, that is an issue for the Court now to decide, but to say that CU
> decided it somehow that for the Court to uphold the foreigner ban it must
> "ignore the precedent of Citizens United" is just flat wrong, as your
> question seems to assume.  Jim Bopp
>
>  In a message dated 12/6/2011 5:34:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>
> What's the compelling interest Jim?  I contend in my piece that "national
> security" and excluding foreigners from devices of democratic
> decisionmaking both boil down in the campaign finance context to one of the
> rejected compelling interests (corruption, antidistortion) rejected as a
> limitation on corporate independent expenditures in CU.
>
> On 12/6/11 12:10 PM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
>
> Rich's comment could not be more wrong:
>
> *Whether or not the Court sets the case for a full hearing, it is likely
> to conclude that our current law does not violate the First Amendment
> rights of foreigners. That would be the right result. But it would require
> ignoring the precedent of **Citizens United v. FEC*<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html>
> *, which upheld similar rights for corporations*
>
> The analysis of CU requires (1) is the speech protected by the First
> Amendment, (2) if so is there a compelling governmental interest sufficient
> to abridge it.   Regarding CU's (1), yes speech by foreigners, aliens, and
> the Red Chinese Army is speech protected by the First Amendment.  However,
> re CU's (2) CU did not decide if there is a compelling governmental
> interest sufficient to abridge the speech of foreigners.  That would be the
> question before the court not addressed in CU.
>
> So CU applies and use of its analysis is perfectly consistent with a
> holding that the speech of the Red Chinese Army may be banned.  Jim Bopp
>
>  In a message dated 12/6/2011 12:21:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>
>  “Will Foreigners Decide the 2012 Election? The Extreme Unintended
> Consequences of Citizens United.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26137>
> Posted on December 5, 2011 9:18 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26137>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I have written this commentary<http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98162/citizens-united-foreign-money>for
> *The New Republic*.  It begins:
>
> Let’s say that the leader of a foreign country, one with military or
> economic interests adverse to the United States, took a look at our 2012
> elections and decided to spend millions of dollars in hopes of determining
> which party held control over the House, the Senate, or the White House.
> Most of us would consider that scenario highly distressing, to say the
> least. And current federal law does indeed bar most foreign individuals,
> entities, and governments from spending money to influence U.S. elections
> and contributing to candidates.
>
> This isn’t a law that inspires much opposition in Washington: Neither
> party asserts that foreigners have a First Amendment right to participate
> in our elections. But according to the twisted logic of the Supreme Court’s
> recent decision in *Citizens United v. FEC<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html>
> *, the law’s constitutionality has been called into question.
>
> Fortunately, the Court may be wise enough not to use its own flawed
> decision as a future roadmap. On Friday, Supreme Court justices will meet
> in a private conference to consider<http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-275.htm>whether to hear
> *Bluman v. FEC<https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1766-37>
> *, a case that concerns the rights of foreign non-citizens living in the
> U.S to spend money in U.S. elections. Whether or not the Court sets the
> case for a full hearing, it is likely to conclude that our current law does
> not violate the First Amendment rights of foreigners. That would be the
> right result. But it would require ignoring the precedent of *Citizens
> United v. FEC <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html>*,
> which upheld similar rights for corporations.
>
> it concludes:
>
> In their <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/bluman-js.pdf>
> briefs<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Bluman-Opp-to-Motion-to-Dismiss-or-Affirm.pdf>before the Supreme Court, the
> *Bluman *plaintiffs point to some of my earlier writing<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1620576>noting the contradiction between the logic of
> *Citizens United* and the government’s position in this case. They—though
> not most of the campaign finance deregulation lobby, which (aside from the Institute
> for Justice <http://www.scribd.com/doc/67591387/Bluman-v-FEC-amicus-brief>)
> has sat out the case—urge the Court to hear the case, rather than simply
> affirm the lower court, to bring additional coherence to the law. But what
> the current challenge makes clear is that the Supreme Court has erred—not
> in its failure to extend election spending rights to foreign nationals, but
> in the faulty reasoning behind its decision in *Citizens United*.*
> *
>
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26137&title=â€œWill
> Foreigners Decide the 2012 Election? The Extreme Unintended Consequences of
> Citizens United.â€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26137&title=%E2%80%9CWill%20Foreigners%20Decide%20the%202012%20Election%3F%20The%20Extreme%20Unintended%20Consequences%20of%20Citizens%20United.%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
>  “The Broken System of Campaign Finance”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26134>
> Posted on December 5, 2011 9:02 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26134>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The *San Diego Union Tribune* offers this editorial<http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/dec/05/the-broken-system-of-campaign-finance/>
> .
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26134&title=â€œThe
> Broken System of Campaign Financeâ€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26134&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Broken%20System%20of%20Campaign%20Finance%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
>  “Mapping the Future: Chandler’s seat is focus of redistricting in
> Kentucky, but Democrats may want more”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26131>
> Posted on December 5, 2011 8:39 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26131>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The Fix reports<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/chandlers-seat-is-focus-of-redistricting-in-kentucky-but-democrats-may-want-more/2011/12/05/gIQAlskvWO_blog.html>
> .
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26131&title=â€œMapping
> the Future: Chandlerâ€™s seat is focus of redistricting in Kentucky, but
> Democrats may want moreâ€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26131&title=%E2%80%9CMapping%20the%20Future%3A%20Chandler%E2%80%99s%20seat%20is%20focus%20of%20redistricting%20in%20Kentucky%2C%20but%20Democrats%20may%20want%20more%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> | Comments
> Off
>  Redistricting Back Before the California Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26126>
> Posted on December 5, 2011 8:00 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26126>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Horvitz and Levy’s “At the Lectern” blog reports<http://www.atthelectern.com/redistricting-back-before-supreme-court/>
> .
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26126&title=Redistricting
> Back Before the California Supreme Court&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26126&title=Redistricting%20Back%20Before%20the%20California%20Supreme%20Court&description=>
>  Posted in citizen commissions <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=7>,
> redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> | Comments Off
>  “AlterNet: Bullies, Liars and Impostors: How Facebook and Go Daddy
> Shield Scott Walker’s Online Guerillas”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26124>
> Posted on December 5, 2011 7:57 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26124>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AlterNet <http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/153306> on
> chicanery in the Wisconsin recall and false information spread over the
> Internet.
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26124&title=â€œAlterNet:
> Bullies, Liars and Impostors: How Facebook and Go Daddy Shield Scott
> Walkerâ€™s Online Guerillasâ€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26124&title=%E2%80%9CAlterNet%3A%20Bullies%2C%20Liars%20and%20Impostors%3A%20How%20Facebook%20and%20Go%20Daddy%20Shield%20Scott%20Walker%E2%80%99s%20Online%20Guerillas%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>,
> recall elections <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=11> | Comments Off
>  “Gingrich’s Health Care Consultancy: Is It Lobbying?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26121>
> Posted on December 5, 2011 7:54 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26121>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NPR reports<http://www.npr.org/2011/12/05/143146399/gingrichs-health-care-consultancy-is-it-lobbying>
> .
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26121&title=â€œGingrichâ€™s
> Health Care Consultancy: Is It Lobbying?â€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26121&title=%E2%80%9CGingrich%E2%80%99s%20Health%20Care%20Consultancy%3A%20Is%20It%20Lobbying%3F%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in lobbying <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28> | Comments Off
>  “LA’s Civic Action Against Dark Money”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26119>
> Posted on December 5, 2011 7:52 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26119>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> *Mother Jones* reports<http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/la-civic-action-against-dark-money>
> .
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26119&title=â€œLAâ€™s
> Civic Action Against Dark Moneyâ€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26119&title=%E2%80%9CLA%E2%80%99s%20Civic%20Action%20Against%20Dark%20Money%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
> Off
>  “Justice Kennedy Dissents: What Campaign Finance And The Sixth Amendment
> Have In Common.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26116>
> Posted on December 5, 2011 7:40 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26116>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> *HuffPo* reports<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/05/justice-kennedy-dissents-campaign-finance-sixth-amendment_n_1126493.html>
> .
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26116&title=â€œJustice
> Kennedy Dissents: What Campaign Finance And The Sixth Amendment Have In
> Common.â€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26116&title=%E2%80%9CJustice%20Kennedy%20Dissents%3A%20What%20Campaign%20Finance%20And%20The%20Sixth%20Amendment%20Have%20In%20Common.%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29> | Comments Off
>  “Maryland Case May Discourage Political Dirty Tricks”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26113>
> Posted on December 5, 2011 7:36 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26113>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NPR offers this report<http://www.npr.org/2011/12/05/143142090/maryland-case-may-dissuade-political-dirty-tricks>on the robocall case. The case has now gone
> to the jury.<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/jury-begins-deliberations-in-maryland-robocall-case/2011/12/05/gIQAN73nXO_story.html>
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26113&title=â€œMaryland
> Case May Discourage Political Dirty Tricksâ€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26113&title=%E2%80%9CMaryland%20Case%20May%20Discourage%20Political%20Dirty%20Tricks%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
> | Comments Off
>  “Democrats win fight over Colorado Congressional boundaries”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26111>
> Posted on December 5, 2011 9:07 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26111>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> *Denver Post* <http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_19473229>:
> “Democrats have won this decade’s congressional redistricting battle. The
> Colorado Supreme Court this morning affirmed the ruling of a Denver’ chief
> district court judge, who selected the Democrats’ map after an October
> trial. The Supreme Court said in its ruling that a written opinion would be
> issued later.”  You can find the apparently unanimous court order here<http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Case_Announcements/Files/2011/11SC842-%20Order%20and%20Mandate.pdf>
> .
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26111&title=â€œDemocrats
> win fight over Colorado Congressional boundariesâ€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26111&title=%E2%80%9CDemocrats%20win%20fight%20over%20Colorado%20Congressional%20boundaries%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> | Comments
> Off
>  Read the Oppositions to Texas Congressional Redistricting Stay Request<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26106>
> Posted on December 5, 2011 9:04 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26106>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Here <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/pls-cong-opp.pdf> and
> here <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/malc-cong-opp.pdf>.
> The briefing now appears complete, unless Texas files an optional reply.
> Justice Scalia, or the Court, could rule at any time.
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26106&title=Read
> the Oppositions to Texas Congressional Redistricting Stay
> Request&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26106&title=Read%20the%20Oppositions%20to%20Texas%20Congressional%20Redistricting%20Stay%20Request&description=>
>  Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6>, Voting
> Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15> | Comments Off
>  A Repeat of Mid-Decade Redistricting Coming to Texas?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26103>
> Posted on December 5, 2011 8:47 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26103>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Could be.<http://txredistricting.org/post/13782484051/gop-state-chair-promises-to-push-to-have-legislature>
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=26103&title=A
> Repeat of Mid-Decade Redistricting Coming to Texas?&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D26103&title=A%20Repeat%20of%20Mid-Decade%20Redistricting%20Coming%20to%20Texas%3F&description=>
>  Posted in redistricting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=6> | Comments
> Off
>  --
> 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
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
> --
> 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
>

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111206/68cdbe59/attachment.html>