[EL] Disclose Act Pro-Union?

[Smith, Brad]

No. State and local chambers generally are not affiliates,'but themselves members of the national ('or for locals, the state) chamber.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 16, 2012, at 11:31 AM, "Justin Levitt" <levittj at lls.edu<mailto:levittj at lls.edu>> wrote:

Doesn't the provision in question cover several different types of affiliated groups?

It's my understanding that if [insert vilified bugaboo] gave $49,000 to 10 local Chambers of Commerce, each of which then gave $49,000 to the national Chamber of Commerce ... or if [insert vilified bugaboo] gave $49,000 to 10 local wholly-owned subsidiaries of ExampleCorp, each of which then gave $49,000 to the ExampleCorp treasury, they'd be treated exactly the same as Jim's hypothetical union -- which is to say that the body that conducts the ad buy would disclose its own information, but not the contributors to the subsidiary affiliate, as long as the affiliate wasn't created for the purpose of making campaign disbursements.

The bill text is here<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/%7Ec112X9jHp4:e4971:>, and I think the provision that Jim's mentioning is (f)(3), and particularly (f)(3)(C):

"(C) DETERMINATION OF AFFILIATE STATUS- For purposes of this paragraph, the following organizations shall be considered to be affiliated with each other:
                `(i) A membership organization, including a trade or professional association, and the related State and local entities of that organization.
                `(ii) A national or international labor organization and its State or local unions, or an organization of national or international unions and its State and local entities.
                `(iii) A corporation and its wholly owned subsidiaries..

Justin

On 7/16/2012 8:05 AM, <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
Click here: Not-So-Full Disclosure | Washington Free Beacon<http://freebeacon.com/not-so-full-disclosure/>

I am wondering about this provision:

The remaining provisions leave unions and other labor groups largely unaffected, since union member dues don’t trigger the disclosure threshold. Furthermore, affiliate groups, such as local union chapters, are exempted from disclosure when transferring below $50,000 dollars to parent groups.

So George Soros gives $49,000 to 10 locals unions who then give $49,000 to their national union to do an ad buy for $490,000 -- all Soros money.  How is this lack of disclosure justified by the supporters of DISCLOSURE?  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


--
Justin Levitt
Associate Professor of Law
Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
919 Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA  90015
213-736-7417
<mailto:justin.levitt at lls.edu>justin.levitt at lls.edu<mailto:justin.levitt at lls.edu>
<http://ssrn.com/author=698321>ssrn.com/author=698321<http://ssrn.com/author=698321>


_______________________________________________
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/20120716/84f5c76d/attachment.html>