[EL] Danielczyk

[JBoppjr at aol.com]

Unfortunately, this is the state of the law, as we  pointed out to the VA 
court in our amicus brief.  
_Click  here: United States v. Danielczyk | Cases_ 
(http://www.jamesmadisoncenter.org/cases/06-02-2011/465/)   But that does not mean that  the court 
was wrong in Danielczyk, it means that Beaumont  needs to be overturned.  Jim 
Bopp

 
 
In a message dated 6/8/2011 10:45:08 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:

_The Perverse Holding  of Danielczyk_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=18888) 
Posted  on _June 8, 2011_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=18888)  by _Rick 
Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)  
 
In response to my query in _this post_ (http://electionlawblog.o
rg/?p=18851) , a few readers have  said that the opinion means it is unconstitutional 
to limit the direct  contributions of for-profit corporations to candidates, 
but it  remains constitutional under the controlling authority of Beaumont 
to  limit the direct contributions of ideological, non-profit  corporations. 
Of course, as my readers point out, if this is what it means, it is a  
perverse holding: those groups which should be entitled to the most  First 
Amendment protections (even under Austin and before  Citizens United, such groups 
could spend their treasury funds  independently on candidate campaigns) get 
the least protection. 
That’s another reason why the district court’s ruling should be _appealed  
immediately_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=18859) .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110608/f46099c7/attachment.html>