[EL] ALEC Boycott

[Joe La Rue]

"False attacks on ACORN"?  This statement proves the old adage that there
is no one so blind as he (or she) who will not see. ACORN staff members
were caught on video doing wrong things. Yet some refuse to believe it,
even after watching the video. As the kids say, LOL and SMH (laughing out
loud and shaking my head).

Joe
___________________
*Joseph E. La Rue*
cell: 513.509.6494
email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
and destroy all copies of the original message.



On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Lillie Coney <coney at epic.org> wrote:

> 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 <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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120413/20491679/attachment.html>