[EL] Let's Put Citizens United to the Test: Pakistani Agent $ in U.S. Ele...

[BZall at aol.com]

While I don't want to interrupt the explosion of comments on foreign  
contributions, I wonder if we could acknowledge that it isn't Citizens  United 
that supposedly said "that the identity of the speaker does not  matter"? 
Those phrases come from Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 784-85  (1978):
 
We thus find no support in the First . . . Amend-ment,  or in the decisions 
of this Court, for the proposi-tion that speech that  otherwise would be 
within the protection of the First Amendment loses that  protec-tion simply 
because its source is a corporation that cannot prove, to the  satisfaction of 
a court, a material effect on its business or property. . . .  [That 
proposi-tion] amounts to an impermissible legislative prohibi-tion of  speech 
based on the identity of the interests that spokesmen may represent in  public 
debate over controversial issues and a requirement that the speaker have  a 
sufficiently great interest in the sub-ject to justify communication.
. . .  . .
“In the realm of protected speech, the legislature is constitutionally  
disqualified from dictating the sub-jects about which persons may speak and the 
 speak-ers who may address a public issue.”
 
And see Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of  Cal., 475 U. S. 
1, 8 (1986) (plurality opinion)(“The  identity of the speaker is not 
decisive in determining whether speech is  protected. Corporations and other 
associations, like individuals, contribute to  the ‘discussion, debate, and the 
dissemination of information and ideas’ that  the First Amendment seeks to 
foster” (quoting Bellotti, 435 U.  S., at 783)). Not to mention Grosjean v. 
American Press Co., 297 U. S.  233, 244-45 (1936) (tax on corporate speech 
cannot violate First Amendment),  etc. etc. 
 
Barnaby Zall
Of Counsel
Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani,  LLP
11300 Rockville Pike, Suite 1200
Rockville, MD 20852
301-231-6943  (direct dial)
_www.wjlaw.com_ (http://www.wj/) 
bzall at aol.com



_____________________________________________________________
U.S.  Treasury Circular 230 Notice

Any U.S. federal tax advice included in this  communication (including
any attachments) was not intended or written to be  used, and cannot be
used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding U.S. federal  tax-related penalties
or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another  party any
tax-related matter addressed  herein.
_____________________________________________________________
Confidentiality

The  information contained in this communication may be confidential, is 
intended  only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally 
 
privileged. It is not intended as legal advice, and may not be relied upon  
or used as legal advice. Nor does this communication establish an attorney  
client relationship between us. If the reader of this message is not the  
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,  
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is  
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,  
please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original  
message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank  you.
______________________________________________________________   

 
In a message dated 7/19/2011 3:23:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:

Could you  please explain the "national security" argument further?  How 
can "more  speech" be a national security risk?  And what of CU's language 
that the  identity of the speaker does not  matter?
Thanks!
Rick



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110719/73d80f9c/attachment.html>