[EL] Citizens United Pushback

[BZall at aol.com]

In a message dated 2/24/2012 9:33:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
jeffhauser at gmail.com writes:

Brad,  doesn't the pervasive unpopularity of the decision cause tension
with your  point of view about the marketplace of ideas?

Excellent question! No need to invoke the British bulldog in response,  as 
did Brad's counter. In fact, the question itself offers its own refutation:  
even assuming "pervasive unpopularity", is it of the decision or how the  
decision is being portrayed (in Brad's telling, inaccurately and with  
distortions)? Simple answer: every political operative knows that earned media  is 
vastly more effective than paid media, and there is no paid media in favor 
of  the decision but . . .
 
If you assume that the dangers of the decision are that massive spending  
will result in more communications from untrustworthy sources (the rationale 
for  the anti-distortion doctrine struck down in the decision), how can you 
not also  assume that media coverage that is inaccurate or untrustworthy 
(Brad's point) is  not similarly distorting? After all, it is not the spending 
that matters, but  the belief that the resulting distorted communications 
will be effective in  swaying public opinion.  
 
Or, to invoke the Volokh exception, is it only that there is a statutory  
media exception to the anti-distortion doctrine (and related speech  
restrictions) that makes the difference? After all, isn't it CBS that runs the  
slogan "The more you know"?
 
Return to first principles: the counter to "bad speech" is more speech. The 
 anti-distortion rationale limits speech (for a purpose, right or wrong).  
Citizens United rejects the limit on speech in the anti-distortion 
rationale,  and further says that more speech is better unless it can be shown to 
corrupt. 
 
 
 
Barnaby Zall
Of Counsel
Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani,  LLP
Please note our new address:
10411  Motor City Dr., Suite 500
Bethesda, MD 20817
301-231-6943 (direct dial)
_www.wjlaw.com_ (http://www.wj/) 
bzall at aol.com



_____________________________________________________________
U.S.  Treasury Circular 230 Notice

Any U.S. federal tax advice included in this  communication (including
any attachments) was not intended or written to be  used, and cannot be
used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding U.S. federal  tax-related penalties
or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another  party any
tax-related matter addressed  herein.
_____________________________________________________________
Confidentiality

The  information contained in this communication may be confidential, is 
intended  only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally 
 
privileged. It is not intended as legal advice, and may not be relied upon  
or used as legal advice. Nor does this communication establish an attorney  
client relationship between us. If the reader of this message is not the  
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,  
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is  
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,  
please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original  
message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank  you.
______________________________________________________________   

 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120225/1e314ec6/attachment.html>