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

Fri Sep 30 09:04:44 PDT 2011

Didn't the British seek to silence political speech back a couple of hundred
plus years ago? Didn't Joe McCarthy actually silence some political speech a
few decades ago. Isn't the desire to silence the other guy's speech woven
into the fabric of "this great land of ours"? 

Want to hear hate speech? Sit in the headquarters of a candidate for office
in a hotly contested election about two weeks before Election Day. Field the
phone calls that come in.  

Here's an idea in keeping with today's push for voter ID cards. Why not have
a Political Donor and Speech Authorization card with an assigned code number
that can be used for disclosure? That number would appear on campaign
finance reports instead of the donors' names and addresses so auditors could
track the accuracy of the reports without having the names of the donors
disclosed to the public. That number also would appear on all political
mail, TV and radio commercials, robo calls, and all other forms of political
speech. The speaker need never be identified to the public yet auditors
could monitor who is paying for the speech. One could stand in the public
square and shout to the sky without ever giving his or her name as long as
there was a card in plain view with the Authorization number. Think of the
possibilities: we could pre-screen people for violent or radical tendencies
before issuing the card, which they would then need to present before
entering the hall or park for an appearance by an elected official, or a
public building, or board an airplane.   

Oh, the evils that have been accomplished in pursuit of the perception of
corruption. 

Larry 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Smith,
Brad
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 8:30 AM
To: Joseph Birkenstock; 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

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/20110930/79711d2f/attachment.html>