[EL] ALEC Boycott
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Sat Apr 14 05:53:42 PDT 2012
Regarding this statement:
I am raising issue with how decisions that have nothing to do with the
purpose for which that fictitious entity was created are made, and how
largely unaccountable they are.
See First National Bank v. Bellotti that rejected the idea that the
government could decide whether speech is legitimately related to the purpose of
a corporation.
Anyway why isn't political speech related to the purpose of a corporation.
The government want to regulate them, tax them, and even destroy them.
The government also want to bail them out, subsidize them, and make people
buy their products. So why wouldn't a corporation want to speak out about
the politicians that want to do these things. Hardly unrelated. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 4/13/2012 2:12:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
KFeng at CommonCause.org writes:
Talk about red herrings. When a member of a family decides to give to a
political campaign, the donation is given from an individual. The donation
comes from and is reported as coming from Sheldon Adelson, not the Adelson
Family. When the Adelson unit decided they wanted to give more, they gave
through Miriam Adelson.
When McDonald’s spends money as a corporation, it’s legal fiction to
treat this entity made up of many individuals the same as an individual human
being for purposes of speech protections. I am raising issue with how
decisions that have nothing to do with the purpose for which that fictitious
entity was created are made, and how largely unaccountable they are.
From: JBoppjr at aol.com [mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:15 PM
To: Kathay Feng; schmitt.mark at gmail.com
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] ALEC Boycott
Any organization or association of people has to have some mechanism for
decision making. Hopefully you would agree that a family is made up of
people. The parents decide and if some of the children disagree, it does not
mean that they aren't people. It also does not make the decision illegitimate
since it is not unanimous, as you suggest. And whether it is the purchase
of hamburgers or the decision to put up a candidates yard sign in the front
yard, it remains that it is the family's decision.
So the bottom line is I think you are actually not making a point
regarding political speech or even corporations but are really challenging either
the legitimacy of delegating group decisionmaking to certain people in the
group or the legitimacy of group decisions that are not unanimous among the
group. It seems to me that it is impossible for a group to operate if they
could not function in the way you condemn. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 4/12/2012 3:57:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
KFeng at CommonCause.org writes:
This is where the “corporations = people” argument breaks down. The
decision to join ALEC is being made by “corporate owners and managers,”
maybe by the relevant government relations staff, but certainly not through
consultation with all employees or stakeholders. So the decision to join ALEC
is made by a few, but not all the people, who make up the corporation. You
can imagine the conversation in McDonald’s going something like this:
VP of Media and Communication: “Wow! We are getting a lot of flack for
being associated with ALEC and this “Stand your Ground” legislation. Who
made the decision to join ALEC?”
VP of Government Relations: “I did. It made sense at the time and CEO Bob
approved it.”
CEO Bob: “I did approve this, but we can’t be associated with this
shooting of Trayvon Martin. Whatever we were getting out of ALEC, this is too
hot to touch.” (no coffee pun intended).
VP of GR: “You’re right. I’ll start the work with Legal to pull out.”
VP of MC: “I’ll start the damage control.”
Even if the conversation involved two dozen more people at McD, it still
does not reflect all the people who work, invest, or eat there. So “
corporate speech,” whether to buy an ad, participate in ALEC, or pull out of ALEC,
involves a few decision-makers speaking without consultation or approval
of the entire entity. That kind of decision making structure works when
the for-profit corporation is engaged in economic activity for which is was
created – making hamburgers, say. It becomes much muddier when the
corporation is engaged in (or associated with) political speech that represents the
boss’s preference or a few people’s preferences but not the “corporation’
s.”
-Kathay
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of JBoppjr at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 12:10 PM
To: schmitt.mark at gmail.com
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] ALEC Boycott
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
_ at mschmitt9_ (https://twitter.com/#!/mschmitt9)
On 4/12/2012 9:23 AM, _JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto: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_ (mailto: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
_ at mschmitt9_ (https://twitter.com/#!/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)
[_mailto: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_
(mailto: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_ (mailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu)
_http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp_
(http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp)
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
_http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election_
(http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election)
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
_http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election_
(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/20120414/4219b322/attachment.html>
View list directory