[EL] An attempt to rigorously define the disclosure debate

[Michael McDonald]

Brad,

Thanks. You’ve helped me clarify my thinking on this issue in a way that I
hope productively contributes to this debate. Let me try to rigorously
sketch out the process of speech and money. I welcome others who may wish to
clarify.

Speech occurs between a speaker and receiver. (There is no speech without a
receiver unless one is schizophrenic.) For example, a volunteer canvasser
can speak to another person or the CEO of Chic-fil-A can make statements on
video. The receiver can assess the speaker and decide to take action
accordingly. When money is added to the dynamic, speech occurs between a
speaker, a paid intermediary (e.g., a paid staffer or a commercial created
by a media firm), and a receiver. With no regulation, the paid intermediary
can chose to reveal the identity of the speaker to the receiver, not to
disclose, or send a false message. When the government requires disclosure,
the receiver can be informed of the identity of the speaker. (Someone has to
have written out this formal description of speech in the context of
disclosure somewhere!)

Those who support disclosure take the perspective of the receiver. They
believe that the receiver has a right to know the identity of the speaker
and that political markets function best when there is complete information
among all participants. 

Those who oppose disclosure take the perspective of the speaker. They
believe that the speaker has a right to make anonymous speech and should not
be coerced by the government to reveal their identity to receivers. (Putting
aside that the government maintains an environment that enables anonymity
between the speaker, a paid intermediary, and receiver: a currency,
regulated financial institutions, and government-owned airwaves.)

The debate on the list serve is so frustrating to me because there is no
real discussion of balance. I will grant that there may be isolated
instances of illegal harassment from required disclosure, any speech (not
just political) can result in harassment or worse when the receiver
disagrees with it; but as many have pointed out these cases can be properly
dealt with by law enforcement. Those who have studied or read political
communication know that information plays an important role in elections.
This is why I believe that political markets function best with disclosure.
A well-functioning democracy weighs heavily in my calculations in favor of
disclosure.

As asides in response to Brad, journalism exceptions appear to me to be
covered under the separate First Amendment freedom of the press. And I do
not believe that Sen. Reid’s accusations are a good example of anonymity –
people make claims all the time with contestable factual basis. You might
include as another example Romney’s characterizations of various authors
that they have disavowed as false. To take the example further, to assess
Ryan’s philosophy not only would be need to know Ayn Rand is Ryan’s
inspiration, we would have to know everything that has informed his beliefs.
This is, of course, preposterous. We know who Sen. Reid is, which allows
receivers to judge the merits of the information, which the Romney campaign
has done by pointing out the messenger’s obvious conflict of interest.
Indeed, I don’t think the example would have been raised if we did not know
Sen. Reid’s identity.

-Mike

============
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: Smith, Brad [mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu] 
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 5:38 PM
To: mmcdon at gmu.edu; law-election at uci.edu
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