[EL] Check out F.D.A. Surveillance of Scientists Spread to Outside Critic...

[Smith, Brad]

Nor right now would I want to be an FDA employee who contributed to van Hollen, or whose spouse did, nor an FDA consultant or contractor who contributed to van Hollen.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 16, 2012, at 9:35 AM, "JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>" <JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>> wrote:

Of course not, this involved scientific critics of the FDA.  The point is that government officials will go after critics however they find out about them and using the methods they have available.

Regarding campaign contribution, in Doe v. Reed and the Prop 8 case, we document over 250 incidents of harassment of supporters of Prop 8, many of which were only contributors who were map quested on the Internet. A campaign of harassment that occurred against them is unusual.  Public officials that retaliate against critics are usually very careful to make sure that no one knows they are doing it.  The FDA did not send out a press release on their actions against their scientific critics either.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 7/15/2012 11:03:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> writes:
I didn't see any evidence in this article that anyone was being harassed for making campaign contributions, and as we've discussed on this list ad nauseum (and as spelled out in more detail here<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1948313>), my view of the evidence from two recent cases involving allegations of harassment of campaign contributors is that there is no systemic evidence that harassment of campaign contributors is a problem.  Rare instances of genuine threats of harassment may be dealt with through an "as applied" exemption to disclosure laws.



On 7/15/12 8:06 AM, Joe La Rue wrote:
It is interesting that Van Hollen is upset about THIS disclosure. Of course, he was number 14 on the list. I guess disclosure is only good when it's somebody else's speech that is being disclosed.

On Jul 15, 2012, at 6:28 AM, <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:

Click here: F.D.A. Surveillance of Scientists Spread to Outside Critics - <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/fda-surveillance-of-scientists-spread-to-outside-critics.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all> NYTimes.com<http://NYTimes.com>

Government going after critics, exactly the type of activity that can chill political speech and that makes disclosure a burden.  Jim Bopp
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>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

--
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
<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
<http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html>http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
<http://electionlawblog.org/>http://electionlawblog.org
Pre-order The Voting Wars: <http://amzn.to/y22ZTv> http://amzn.to/y22ZTv


_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120716/e1c34bca/attachment.html>