[EL] ALEC Boycott

Thu Apr 12 12:10:09 PDT 2012

But this does nothing to support your categorical (and false)  statement:

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

. Of course there are conservative, pro-free  enterprise corporate owners 
and managers who would give to ALEC  because they like the pro-free 
enterprise conservative legislation  that ALEC proposes.   

Jim Bopp

In a message dated 4/12/2012 2:44:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
schmitt.mark at gmail.com writes:

Let's  compare the fundraising pitches of the Brennan Center and ALEC. 

Here's  Brennan, from the "donate" page of its web site:

"The Brennan Center is  the best organization to push for deep reforms. We 
are independent. We get  results. We base our advocacy on facts, not 
partisan talking points. We need  your help."

Compare ALEC. Instead of asking for plain old no-strings  donations, ALEC 
invites corporate contributors to become "private-sector  members" at several 
levels, with specific benefits at each level, from  "Washington Circle" to 
"Jefferson Circle." Here's the pitch:

"One of  ALEC’s greatest strengths is the public-private partnership. ALEC 
provides the  private sector with an unparalleled opportunity to have its 
voice heard, and  its perspective appreciated, by the legislative members."

Those are  totally different approaches to donors. It makes it very 
explicit that ALEC is  a lobbying network selling access, not just "good work." 
ALEC also engages in  political speech (such as promotion of Stand Your 
Ground), and the boycott  made the companies question whether it was political 
speech they wanted to be  associated with. Apparently many of them didn't.

Mark Schmitt
Senior Fellow, _The Roosevelt  Institute_ (http://www.newdeal20.org/) 
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
_ at mschmitt9_ (https://twitter.com/#!/mschmitt9) 

On 4/12/2012  9:23 AM, _JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com)  wrote:  
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, _s
chmitt.mark at gmail.com_ (mailto: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
_ at mschmitt9_ (https://twitter.com/#!/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)   
[_mailto: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_ 
(mailto: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_ (mailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu)  
_http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp_ 
(http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp) 

_______________________________________________

Law-election mailing list

_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_ 
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu) 

_http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election_ 
(http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election) 

_______________________________________________
Law-election  mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_ 
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu) 
_http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election_ 
(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/20120412/3ea35e14/attachment.html>