[EL] ALEC Boycott

Thu Apr 12 12:20:44 PDT 2012

you're nitpicking though rather than taking on the main thrust of Mark's
argument. Let's assume that at least some of the corporations give to ALEC
because they view conservative model legislation that ALEC writes and state
legislators introduce, sometimes verbatim, requiring photo identification
to vote, supporting gun rights and a very robust right to use your gun in
self-defense, weakening labor unions and so forth is consistent with the
corporations' intrinsic interest, purpose, values or ethos. So what? Why
does that mean that liberals who are offended by some of these laws
shouldn't boycott those corporations? How is this silencing corporate
speech? If I learned that a company I buy products from conceives of itself
as a politically conservative enterprise and it donates to efforts to (in
my view) disenfranchise African-Americans, then I might stop buying their
products. If a bunch of people like me do that, it's a boycott.

I'm not actually a huge fan of boycott politics myself. I find it
exhausting to keep track of the political commitments of all the
corporations I might buy products from. In some cases I suspect boycotts
are unlikely to achieve their stated goals. And when it comes to boycotting
companies that buy advertisements during a program some group finds
objectionable, I'm especially leery, since I don't think buying ads during
a program necessarily constitutes an endorsement of the views expressed in
the program. But that just means I can use my free speech writes to write
articles, as I have from time to time, urging people to calm down and not
boycotting company X or Y. That doesn't mean the boycott is anti-free
speech just because it may be unwise. It's all in the game.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:10 PM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:

> **
> 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
> @mschmitt9 <https://twitter.com/#%21/mschmitt9>
>
> On 4/12/2012 9:23 AM, 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,
> 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 listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://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/20120412/751b556f/attachment.html>