[EL] ALEC Boycott

Fri Apr 13 07:01:53 PDT 2012

Citizens can effectively communicate their views regarding practices of 
corporations and businesses. The civil rights movement, the end apartheid 
in Africa and refusal to purchase diamonds that are used to fuel the war in Africa
are important education and social engagement tools.

The language of business is currency and if individuals want to use that 
medium to communicate a view then that should be permissible. Corporations 
have a greater ability to influence domestic and international politics using 
their financial resources so they should well understand individuals use of 
their resources to communicate their views. There are also instances of 
businesses attempting to cut funding to organizations whose work they 
do not support.  
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/story/google-executive-apologizes-over-email-consumer-watchdog-donor

This is also a form of boycott--however the power of this type of boycott can 
end the existence of an organization.  Media's role in spreading false information
that may lead to a boycott cannot be understated. The false attacks on ACORN is 
an example of what can happen when media gets it wrong.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201001280062

Lillie Coney
Associate Director
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) 
Defend Privacy. Support EPIC. 
http://epic.org/epic/support.html
1718 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 200
Washington, D.C.
http://epic.org/
202-483-1140 x 111

On Apr 12, 2012, at 9:21 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
> 202/246-2350
> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
> @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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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.”
>> 
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120413/5502a6b0/attachment.html>