[EL] Fwd: Re: ALEC Boycott
Mark Schmitt
schmitt.mark at gmail.com
Thu Apr 12 12:20:46 PDT 2012
Fair enough. It was too categorical. There may be some corporations that
donate outside of the transactional framework that is ALEC's pitch.
ALEC's pitch to corporations is not "pro-free enterprise conservative
legislation." It's access to the process of writing that legislation.
(And of course, very often the legislation that's in the interest of a
particular corporate donor is not "pro-free enterprise" at all.)
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 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] *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 likeprotected 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/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/a67997ec/attachment.html>
View list directory