[EL] Check out Unions ready to send volunteers out for Obama | Fox News

[Joe La Rue]

But that isn't really what's happening here, is it? Isn't it rather that a union boss has organized it? He's at least issued the call for it, and pledged that his union will do it. So this is not truly the same as if a bunch of people, on their own, decided to walk for Obama. That is not what happened here. The union is providing a valuable service to the campaign, without being compensated fair market value. But because it is a union doing it, the reform community does not object.

On Aug 12, 2012, at 7:35 AM, demesqnyc at aol.com wrote:

> Haven't we overlooked the fact that the "donation" in this case is not by the  union, but by each individual voter going out and volunteering their time?  It  is the classic example of the small donation by a large mass of people that we all profess to want to encourage in our elections. 
> 
> Howard Leib
> Candidate for New York State Senate, 51st Senatorial District
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
> To: mmcdon <mmcdon at gmu.edu>; law-election <law-election at uci.edu>
> Sent: Sat, Aug 11, 2012 5:39 pm
> Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Unions ready to send volunteers out for Obama |	Fox News
> 
> Michael has made an assertion several times that I think is incorrect and I guess I'll address it. Michael says that the harassment argument "treats money differently than other forms of speech."
> 
> This, I think, is wrong. Anonymous speech is protected in a host of ways. For example, many states journalism shield laws that protect journalists from revealing their sources; in other words, sources can remain anonymous. Even where such laws do not exist, I am not aware of any state that requires public revelation of sources other than in the context of legitimate criminal investigations and the the like. Magazines and newspapers will even occasionally publish op-eds by persons under pseudonyms or anonymously. Persons can place comments all over the internet anonymously, and a great many bloggers, some of reasonable prominence, have blogged under pseudonyms. Callers to C-Span and other radio and television shows remain anonymous. Harry Reid has no requirement to reveal the name of the mysterious "Bain investor" who apparently has had access to Mitt Romney's tax returns but, for whatever reasons, chooses not to come forward beyond his conversation with Harry. Let us admit, that if Reid's not just making it up, this guy is pretty influential.
> 
> Persons can anonymously post notices, including political notices, in public places. Those union member or Planned Parenthood volunteers who canvass neighborhoods are protected by the Constitution from having to reveal their names, let alone their addresses and employers. See Thomas v. Collins; Watchtower Bible & Tract Society v. Village of Stratton. 
> 
> "Anonymity," as it is used in this discussion, doesn't mean that nobody knows who the speaker is. Obviously, somebody does - somebody collects and cashes the check of the billionaires and trillionaires, and the citizens of much more average means, who write checks big and small. 
> 
> Obviously, some forms of political speech and involvement require a general public revelation. But only in the case of financial participation does the law require one to publicly disclose one's name, address, and employment. As Michael notes himself, most volunteer activity is not subject to compulsory disclosure. This doesn't mean that no one will know about, but it does make it much less likely that persons will learn about the participation. Some types of speech allow a greater degree of privacy than others. For example, if one agrees to film an endorsement for a candidate, there won't be much anonymity. If, on the other hand, one marches in a protest, some might see that person, and the person might be caught on film; but generally, the participant is "anonymous," one of a crowd - not forced to broadcast his or her participation to the world unless desired. And if the person wishes to make GOTV calls or stuff envelopes from HQ, he or she will remain anonymous to the world outside the campaign - just like a financial donor would but for compulsory disclosure laws.
> 
> Political and policy consultants can communicate anonymously with candidates in ways that might help them win, and they can do so even if they are CEOs of Fortune 500 companies.  
> 
> The vast majority of political activity in the country goes on "anonymously," in the sense that there is no government law requiring its disclosure, and the actor or speaker is able to hide his identity to the extent practical and desired.
> 
> It is interesting to me that Mike would require public disclosure of certain volunteer activity. I'm pretty sure I would take the other side in that debate, although never say never, not knowing what hypos Mike might create, or what real world scenarios may appear. But Mike's starting premise strikes me as wrong. Critics of excessive disclosure generally want the government to bear the burden of demonstrating the necessity of compulsory disclosuree, and would otherwise treat it as other political speech is treated - as anonymous as the speakers cares to, and can, make it.
> 
> Bradley A. Smith
> Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
>    Professor of Law
> Capital University Law School
> 303 E. Broad St.
> Columbus, OH 43215
> 614.236.6317
> http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Michael McDonald [mmcdon at gmu.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 4:38 PM
> To: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Unions ready to send volunteers out for Obama | Fox News
> 
> In numerous past exchanges, we have heard from Jim Bopp and others that
> anonymity is the overriding factor for opposing campaign finance regulation,
> so that a person could not be subject to harassment. Yet, in this example a
> union volunteer’s speech has no anonymity. I am heartened that we may
> finally have gotten past the harassment argument that treats money
> differently than other forms of speech.
> 
> A concern for the supporters of campaign finance regulation is corrupting
> influence of money. I think Jim makes a valid point that we should have a
> discussion if in-kind donations should be considered similar to monetary
> donations for their corrupting influence and subject to disclosure.
> Certainly, I believe that the money that the unions have contributed to
> organizing the canvassing effort should be disclosed (has it not?) if
> supporting the campaign and not, say, targeted at issues to increase union
> membership. But the organizing is not an in-kind contribution from a
> volunteer, although it seems like it is being conflated with it.
> 
> If we are to say that an in-kind contribution originating from canvassing
> should be disclosed, then that raises some interesting questions. First, I
> am not convinced that door-to-door canvassing by a volunteer should be given
> a monetary value equal to a paid staffer since in the latter instance
> someone has to be induced to do something that they would not otherwise do,
> but I am willing to stipulate it has value to a campaign. If as a volunteer
> I knock on a door but no one is home, does that count as an in-kind
> contribution to the campaign? Does the time walking from door to door count?
> I.e., is it the act of speaking that counts or should all activities that
> lead to the speech count? If I speak to my neighbor over the fence or
> discuss politics at a poker game, should that trigger disclosure? Should we
> limit the speech to canvassing, or should it include activities like writing
> an e-mail or a blog comment? How are we to monitor such activities for
> compliance with disclosure, especially in light of the Obama campaign
> releasing their canvassing app that requires minimal contact between the
> campaign and volunteer? And what specific speech should be disclosed, should
> it be only those that invoke the magic words asking for a vote? It strikes
> me that the minimal monetary value of volunteering balanced against these
> questions should weigh in favor of not disclosing volunteer canvassing.
> However, I do think there should be a threshold of volunteer activity that
> should lead to disclosure, such as an expert volunteering their specialized
> skills to aid a campaign.
> 
> ============
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
> Associate Professor, George Mason University
> Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
> 
> Mailing address:
> (o) 703-993-4191 George Mason University
> (f) 703-993-1399 Dept. of Public and International Affairs
> mmcdon at gmu.edu 4400 University Drive - 3F4
> http://elections.gmu.edu Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
> 
> 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: Saturday, August 11, 2012 3:31 PM
> To: Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu; joseph.e.larue at gmail.com;
> jerald.lentini at gmail.com
> Cc: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Unions ready to send volunteers out for Obama |
> Fox News
> 
> Even at $10 an hour, we are talking about one days value at
> $36,000,000. If they spend 3 Saturdays doing this, we are up to almost $100
> million. "Reformers" were apoplectic when one casino owner gave $10 million
> to a Super PAC, not $100 million to a candidate. No press releases from
> "watch dog" Fred. No editorials in the NYTimes. Interesting.
> 
> Even if the union members do it for free, the union leadership has
> organized this and it would not happen if they had not. Furthermore, as I
> understand the articles, the union used union employees to do the
> organizing. Obama will certainly give the union leadership credit for this
> -- which "reformers" would call "corruption" if done by a corporatio -- and
> they would be calling the people involved criminals. But nothing but
> silence. Jim
> 
> In a message dated 8/11/2012 1:01:35 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu writes:
> Is the union paying the workers for their canvassing work?
> 
> Mark S. Scarberry
> Professor of Law
> Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
> 
> 
> 
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Joe La
> Rue
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 9:29 AM
> To: Jerald Lentini
> Cc: JBoppjr at aol.com; law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Unions ready to send volunteers out for Obama |
> Fox News
> 
> I find it funny that Jerald, in arguing about the value of the contribution,
> has proved Jim's point. A union sending its members to campaign for a
> candidate is a valuable in-kind contribution. But most reformers won't see
> that as a problem, as Jerald just demonstrated. But let a corporation make a
> contribution up to the regular, noncorrupting contribution limits, and the
> sky will fall.
> 
> On Aug 11, 2012, at 7:38 AM, Jerald Lentini <jerald.lentini at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Believe it or not, Jim, my intent in criticizing your comment was to point
> out its lack of foundation and merit, not to "chill your speech." Or is
> criticism from private parties inherently chilling now, too?
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 10:03 AM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
> One of my assumptions was that this was just for one day's work. I now see
> from this
> Click here: Labor chief Trumka vows stronger ground game for elections -
> Washington Times that it is much more than that.
> 
> No, I don't know what the going rate for canvassers is. Maybe someone on
> the list serve can provide that info. In any event, we are talking about
> 100s of millions of dollars for this effort.
> 
> And, JR, I know that your name calling is intended to chill my speech (boy,
> we have seen a lot of that coming from the left these days) but, sorry, it
> just won't work. Jim Bopp
> 
> In a message dated 8/11/2012 9:29:00 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> jerald.lentini at gmail.com writes:
> Jim, all else aside, do you really think the value of an in-kind
> contribution is what the person's normal hourly rate doing something
> completely different would be, and not the value of the service actually
> rendered?
> 
> Unless you think a canvassing program that happens outside business hours
> should be valued as an in-kind contribution of what the volunteers would
> make doing their regular jobs (which are most likely a little more taxing
> than knocking on doors), then your snark makes no sense.
> 
> -JR
> 
> 
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 9:09 AM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
> AFL-CIO to send out 3 or 400,000 volunteers to help Obama. See
> 
> Click here: Unions ready to send volunteers out for Obama | Fox News
> 
> I have always been curious why the "reformers" only focus only on
> money. This sure seems like a very valuable contribution to the Obama
> campaign to me (if this is coordinated, but I cannot figure that out. Anyway
> the "reformers" say it doesn't matter -- corruption either way). Many of
> these volunteers make 30, 40 or 50 dollars an hour, so this is a 144 million
> dollar contribution to the Obama campaign. 400,000 x 8 x 40 = $144,000,000.
> 
> And the "reformer" scream bloody murder over contributions from
> corporations of a few thousand. Jim Bopp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120812/12efc464/attachment.html>