[EL] ALEC Boycott

Thu Apr 12 07:35:56 PDT 2012

“It's interesting how quickly some of the corporations have abandoned ALEC based on a very small boycott. That suggests to me that the corporations didn't feel they were getting much value from their involvement with ALEC, or not enough to offset the very small cost of a little of bad publicity in a limited community. A boycott effort by colorofchange.org is simply not going to prevent a company from doing something it really wants to do.”

Wait, what? I thought the entirety of the angst over ALEC, indeed over corporate political involvement in general, is that this activity provides significant and unfair advantages in the public policy process to corporations. Hence you have wild claims of legislators being bought, of corporations reaping vast  and undeserved profits by excess influence over elected officials (Here’s an NPR story reporting on the supposed 22,000 percent return on investment for corporations lobbying on the repatriation of overseas profits: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/06/144737864/forget-stocks-or-bonds-invest-in-a-lobbyist).

Are we to understand that this line of thinking was a mistake, that corporations actually don’t get much value out of their lobbying efforts? Or at the least that ALEC is a particularly ineffective venue for lobbying and advancing corporate public policy interests?

If that were the case, of course, we probably wouldn’t have this hysterical crusade against ALEC and corporate political engagement.

Sean Parnell

President

Impact Policy Management, LLC

6411 Caleb Court

Alexandria, VA  22315

571-289-1374 (c)

sean at impactpolicymanagement.com

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of JBoppjr at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 9:21 AM
To: schmitt.mark at gmail.com; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] ALEC Boycott

Why would someone say this obviously erroneous statement:

"No corporation gives to ALEC because it "does good work" in the abstract."

Of course they would.  ALEC is pro free enterprise and most companies like the free enterprise system.  There are, of course, conservative businessmen out there who like conservative policies and legislators..

I assume the corporations that give to the Brenan Center also do so because they do "good works" in the view of the donor.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 4/11/2012 10:32:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, schmitt.mark at gmail.com writes:

 The problem with that theory is that ALEC isn't a public good. Corporate giving to ALEC is entirely transactional -- companies give because corporate sponsors get X number of seats at the annual conference, and opportunities to weigh in on some of the task forces. If you don't give, you lose that access. No corporation gives to ALEC because it "does good work" in the abstract. 

To some extent, in demonizing ALEC, the left has exaggerated what it is. It's just a network for lobbyists connected to a network of legislators. 

Mark Schmitt
Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute <http://www.newdeal20.org/> 
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
@mschmitt9 <https://twitter.com/#%21/mschmitt9> 

On 4/11/2012 4:36 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote: 

                It’s possible, but this might also be a classic public goods situation – even if a corporation thinks ALEC is doing superb work, the marginal effect of that corporation’s withdrawal of its contribution is likely to be fairly modest, so that the corporation might stop contributing.

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Schmitt
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 12:50 PM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] ALEC Boycott

It's interesting how quickly some of the corporations have abandoned ALEC based on a very small boycott. That suggests to me that the corporations didn't feel they were getting much value from their involvement with ALEC, or not enough to offset the very small cost of a little of bad publicity in a limited community. A boycott effort by colorofchange.org is simply not going to prevent a company from doing something it really wants to do.

Most likely, no one at a particularly high level of the companies had even been involved in the decision to fund ALEC. It was probably a decision made by the company's DC office, as a way of ensuring access to the ALEC member legislators, rather than an act of political speech. 

The effect of the boycott, then is to make the corporation notice what its lobbyists are doing and ask whether it makes any sense. That seems like a healthy development. 

On 4/10/2012 12:15 PM, Rick Hasen wrote: 

These are all excellent questions, and I'd recommend Economic Boycotts as Harassment: The Threat to First Amendment Protected Speech in the Aftermath of Doe v. Reed <http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2776&context=llr> 

On 4/10/2012 8:57 AM, Smith, Brad wrote: 

“While I’ve heard some conservatives saying that political activism from liberals to get groups to not support ALEC is intimidation, it looks to me like protected First Amendment boycott-like activity <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=31462> .”

Of course, it can be both. One question we are going to have to ask ourselves is whether we want the meanness of the society that is shaping up. While boycotts have some honorable history and can be a useful tool, nobody really much wants to live in a boycott world. Labor law has long prohibited secondary boycotts, largely for that reason. 

We’ll also have to address more honestly whether the government has a compelling interest in forcing people to disclose activity that may subject them to boycotts and other forms of harassment. Notice that those boycotting and organizing boycotts are not required to disclose themselves, neither their identity nor their sources of financing. 

Justice Scalia has voiced concern that a world without compulsory disclosure would be particularly nasty. I think he’s got it backwards – compulsory disclosure, supported primarily because it enables opponents of speech to engage in boycotts and other harassment, is creating an increasing nasty political environment. 

One can certainly see something as protected First Amendment activity while recognizing it as intimidation as well. And that raises the question as to what interest the government has in enabling intimidation.

Bradley A. Smith

Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault 

  Designated Professor of Law

Capital University Law School

303 East Broad Street

Columbus, OH 43215

(614) 236-6317

bsmith at law.capital.edu

http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp

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

_______________________________________________
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/20120412/f175ab10/attachment.html>