[EL] Check out Postal Worker Unions | Tea Party Group | MailService | The Daily C

Fri Sep 30 08:30:09 PDT 2011

The question we are thinking about is how extensive forced disclosure laws ought to be. What we see is a growing tendency to engage in organized harassment aimed at silencing political speech. Whether this or that particular example is overly burdensome is important, but not so important as recognizing that this trend exists. It is not limited to one side or the other. Organized efforts to hamper a group's operations are not aimed at persuasion, but at silence. This trend then must become part of the cost/benefit analysis of both existing compelled disclosure laws under attack from Jim, and the expansion of compelled disclosure laws sought by Joe, John, and many others. 

The justification for forced disclosure is that it is necessary to a) prevent corruption; and b) help the public evaluate the truthfulness or validity of the message. But the current efforts to expand compelled disclosure are not to prevent corruption or to evaluate the message. Rather, those seeking added forced disclosure have already evaluated the message, already know that they don't like the message, and their goal is to silence the speaker through harassment - "holding the speaker accountable." Interestingly, those seeking to "hold the speaker accountable" are, in most cases, protected by law from disclosing themselves.

Is there any compelling government interest - or even legitimate non-compelling interest - in the government assisting citizens to harass fellow citizens engaged in lawful activity? I don't think so. (I don't think this would have mattered in the Tea Party case Jim links to, in that the Tea Party clearly identified itself; but it would matter to efforts to "unmask" citizens who had contributed to the group.). If the government knows that its legitimate interests - fighting corruption and providing helpful information to voters - are being abused, and abused in such a way that it in some cases threaten government's important interest, indeed duty, to protect its citizens from harassment and in some cases vandalism and physical threats, this must be taken into account. 

As one who has defended "negative" campaigning and holds no illusion about the quality of political debate now or in the past, it still strikes me that our politics are rapidly expanding to a new and very nasty level aimed not at persuasion but at harassment and silence - "A few years ago, we could never have gotten together a blacklist so quickly." If we care about the quality of political discourse and information we should be taking steps to tap that down, not to provide the tools to encourage it.

Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 236-6317
http://www.law.capital.edu/Faculty/Bios/bsmith.asp

________________________________

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu on behalf of Joseph Birkenstock
Sent: Fri 9/30/2011 10:26 AM
To: John Tanner; JBoppjr at aol.com
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Postal Worker Unions | Tea Party Group | MailService | The Daily C

So, some people with the Tea Party undertook some political activity, and in response some other people wrote them letters?  Which is therefore, necessarily and without more, "harassment" of the folks in the Tea Party?  Seriously? 

Wow, Scalia was right, this *really* does not resemble the home of the brave...

________________________________
Joseph M. Birkenstock, Esq.
Caplin & Drysdale, Chtd.
One Thomas Circle, NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 862-7836
www.capdale.com/jbirkenstock
*also admitted to practice in CA

________________________________

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu on behalf of John Tanner
Sent: Fri 9/30/2011 9:56 AM
To: JBoppjr at aol.com
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Postal Worker Unions | Tea Party Group | Mail Service | The Daily C

LL Bean does the same thing to me

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:48 AM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:

        Click here: Postal Worker Unions | Tea Party Group | Mail Service | The Daily Caller <http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/30/going-postal-mail-worker-unions-overload-tea-party-group-with-more-than-100-pounds-of-mail/> 

        Another example of harassment by union/government workers This is why people fear disclosure of their political activity.  Jim Bopp

        _______________________________________________
        Law-election mailing list
        Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
        http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
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/20110930/a1a14a47/attachment.html>