[EL] ALEC Boycott

Thu Apr 12 08:48:37 PDT 2012

I accidentally sent this reply just to Brad, I'm new to the list and
learning its ways:

Hello everyone, I'm Ben Adler, a writer--mostly for The Nation--and this is
my first time posting to the list. I'm with Mark.

Brad, I think your analogies are obviously way off. People aren't
boycotting restaurants because one employee gave to a political cause. They
aren't boycotting companies because one employee gave to ALEC. They are
boycotting companies that gave *the company's* money to ALEC. The proper
analogy would be if people boycotted a restaurant which gives its own money
to a cause, not one employee donating. When a company gives its funds to a
political cause they are stating that their purpose and the political
organization's purpose are one and the same. If so, then it's perfectly
logical and appropriate that people who disagree with that political
organization will conclude that they should not give their money to that
purpose. In other words, when companies donate to ALEC they are saying "we
are a conservative organization." People who aren't conservatives, having
just learned that a company is conservative, will naturally consider not
buying their products. This isn't silencing speech, it's a perfect exercise
of speech. If companies decide that it no longer behooves them to be openly
conservative, they haven't been silenced. The marketplace of ideas has
worked. If you--and the companies giving to ALEC--think the free market is
such a wonderful, efficient mechanism, then you should applaud this, not
bemoan it.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Sean Parnell <
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com> wrote:

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

-- 
Ben Adler
Contributing Writer, The Nation
347-463-0429
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120412/89c8bdeb/attachment.html>