[EL] "Exhibit A"

Fri Apr 13 15:48:21 PDT 2012

C4 spending will not likely be electioneering communications or express
advocacy.  Even if it is, we can agree it will not be coordinated, or, if
coordinated, covered by law.  Despite theories to the contrary -- some of
them yours -- that eliminates the anti-corruption concern.  Gratitude for
uncoordinated speech is not enough to constitute corruption... And were it
enough it would surely prove too much: Bye, bye Oprah endorsements.

The informational interest, too, is supposed to limit disclosure to
electoral speech, which, again, may not be present in the Crossroads C4
ads.  In any event, the informational interest is justified despite its
burden on speech to place candidates in the political spectrum on bases
over and above party labels and platform positions.  The more the internet
grows the more this benefit wanes.

Disclosure is a public good, while speaking and associating through c4s are
fundamental rights -- growing more important to popular sovereignty all the
time, as allies of yours cite the political process as the *only* and best
constitutional check against excessive economic restrictions.

As to policing of the contribution limits, this speech will not be an
in-kind contribution.  There will be no coordination here, as I mention
above.  If to the contrary, the law covers it.  As to foreign funds...
you've made my point.

Let us be clear: As we move from phone mobs to flashmobs, and from
capitalism to crony capitalism, the costs of increased disclosure for
independent, non-corrupting speech are increasing exponentially.  The
benefits of such disclosure -- on the terms the Court has approved -- are
flat to fading.

All the best, guys,

Steve

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  Justin may have his own answer.  Here's mine<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2010/10/show_me_the_donors.html>:
> " First, disclosure laws *can prevent corruption* and the appearance of
> corruption. Having no more paper bags of cash makes it harder to bribe a
> member of Congress. Second, disclosure laws provide *valuable information*to voters.  A busy public relies on disclosure information more than ever.
> This was apparent when California voters recently turned down a ballot
> proposition which would have benefited Pacific Gas and Electric. PG&E
> provided almost all of the $46 million<http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-06-09/news/21902416_1_choice-aggregation-pg-e-public-power>to the "Yes on 16" campaign, compared with very little spent opposing the
> measure. Thanks to California's disclosure laws<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/016482.html>,
> PG&E's name appeared<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyEKT0ehcTE&feature=player_embedded>on every "Yes on 16" ad and the measure narrowly went down to defeat.
> Third, disclosure laws *help**enforce other campaign finance laws*.
> Worried about foreign money in elections? Disclosure tells you how much is
> coming in."
>
> So if we are worried about possible foreign money coming into the system,
> or worried that someone is seeking to curry favor with a politician by
> making a large contribution to a sympathetic c4 which will benefit him, or
> we want to give voters MORE information to know how they should judge an ad
> from a group they perhaps never heard of (not everyone will know what "GPS"
> is), then disclosure makes a lot of sense.
>
>
> On 4/13/12 3:05 PM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
>
> Yes, it is too bad, Justin.  For I presume you won't know what to make or
> think of Crossroads' ads without this crucial information.
>
> Or, is the purpose of disclosure something else entirely?
>
> Steve Hoersting
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Justin Levitt <levittj at lls.edu> wrote:
>
>>  I look forward to James O'Keefe's new hidden-camera video, showing his
>> shell corporation receiving its $10 million check from the North Korean
>> government, and writing its $10 million check to Crossroads GPS.  He could
>> even show a sinister hand walking just up to the brink of depositing the
>> envelope in the mail to Crossroads.
>>
>> What was the phrase<http://department-lists.uci.edu/pipermail/law-election/2012-April/003087.html>?
>> "How simple, how hard to catch and how easy to prevent<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/017415.html>
>> ."
>>
>> Justin
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/13/2012 2:05 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>>
>>  Exhibit A on Why We Need to Fix Campaign Finance Disclosure Law<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32965>
>> Posted on April 13, 2012 2:04 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32965> by Rick
>> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Crossroads GPS gets an anonymous $10 million donation<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mystery-donor-gives-10-million-to-crossroads-gps-group-to-run-anti-obama-ads/2012/04/13/gIQAzdtdFT_story.html>(possibly from a corporation) to run political ads.  Thanks to holes
>> in our disclosure laws <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32374>the identity
>> may never be revealed to the public.
>>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D32965&title=Exhibit%20A%20on%20Why%20We%20Need%20to%20Fix%20Campaign%20Finance%20Disclosure%20Law&description=>
>>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | Comments
>> Off
>>
>>
>> --
>> Justin Levitt
>> Associate Professor of Law
>> Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
>> 919 Albany St.
>> Los Angeles, CA  90015213-736-7417justin.levitt at lls.edussrn.com/author=698321
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Stephen M. Hoersting
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 - office
> 949.824.0495 - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> http://electionlawblog.org
>

-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120413/108414e8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120413/108414e8/attachment.png>