[EL] When Capitalists Need Socialist Workers

Fri Jul 20 14:09:15 PDT 2012

Regarding your cards:  I think that if a would-be speaker has to prove the
West Wing called the IRS -- when there is already undisputed proof the
President called-out a similarly situated donor in public -- then:

1) the *Socialist Workers* exemption is a hollow remedy that provides no
safety valve to the chill of disclosure;
2) a reviewing Court will have to recalibrate the costs and benefits of the
"informational interest" that today supports compelled disclosure of
non-corrupting (independent) speech;
3) and that the *Carolene Products* compromise of 1938 -- that economic
predations will not be handled in court because our political processes are
robust -- is dead.

I think it is *district courts* that need to decide whether proof of
intimidation in a core First-Amendment context -- not in the context of
proving malfeasance or liability of a government official -- requires a
would-be speaker to prove the West Wing called the IRS to get a disclosure
exemption when the would-be speaker can easily prove the President
called-out other businessmen for supporting his political opponent.

I just think all of this nation's district courts are going to make
would-be speakers burden of proof so insurmountable where political speech
is concerned.  And if the district courts differ, let us have the appeals.

Steve

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com>wrote:

>  I think when Issa admitted that he didn't really have any reason think
> that Holder or anyone in the White House knew anything about it, he was
> basically calling an end to it. He pushed the contempt vote through, just
> so it didn't look like a failure, but I haven't heard a word about it
> sense. The Fortune magazine article on it has made a lot of people conclude
> that it didn't amount to anything.
>
> In any event, my point is, Issa seems to be finished with it. And if you
> or Senator McConnell actually believe that the White House directed the IRS
> to target Mr. VanderSloot, you should ask Issa to get on it.
>
> (Just to show my cards, I don't think you really believe that.)
>
>
> Mark Schmitt
> Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute <http://www.newdeal20.org>
> 202/246-2350
> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
> @mschmitt9 <https://twitter.com/#%21/mschmitt9>
> On 7/20/2012 4:29 PM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> So that I can be sure we have common ground over which to discuss these
> novel and difficult issues, is it truly your position that Fast and Furious
> "didn't amount to anything?"  As in, proved to be baseless rather than hit
> a stone wall?
>
> Steve
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>  Really? Again?
>>
>> Mr. Vandersloot has been the principal shareholder of a large, privately
>> held, financially complex corporation for a long time. If he's never been
>> audited in all that time, then it makes plenty of sense that his number
>> would come up. He's also been a major Republican donor for a very long time.
>>
>> Strassel is making a very major allegation. Why is the proper response,
>> let's make Mr. Vandersloot and other *Republican* donors, and only
>> Republican donors, exempt from disclosure laws? If President Obama's
>> political team in the White House actually contacted anyone in the IRS and
>> directed them to audit Mr. VanderSloot, the proper response is to file an
>> article of impeachment against President Obama. I'd support the impeachment
>> of a president who did that, just as five or six Republicans supported the
>> impeachment of Nixon on a similar charge.
>>
>> You say there is no one to whom Mr. VanderSloot can appeal, but of course
>> there is. There's a fellow named Darryl Issa, who has full subpoena power
>> and no hesitation to use it. There's the inspector general of the IRS. Mr.
>> Issa seems to have gotten bored of Solyndra and Fast and Furious, which
>> didn't amount to anything, so lets turn him loose on VanderSlootGate.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/20/2012 9:39 AM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
>>
>> Kim Strassel's latest:
>>
>>
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577537233908744496.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
>>
>> And it's applicability to election law:
>>
>> http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/266623
>>
>> Kim asks this question at the end: "As for Mr. VanderSloot, to what
>> authority should he appeal if he believes this to be politically
>> motivated—given the Justice Department on down is also controlled by the
>> man who targeted him?"
>>
>> The answer, for Mr. VanderSloot, is, realistically and unfortunately, "to
>> no authority; none."
>>
>> But for those businessmen who are yet safely anonymous, and understand
>> speaking in the political process is their only remedy against economic
>> deprivations from an unchecked IPAB or Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
>> sure to come, the authority to which they should appeal is the district
>> court.
>>
>> Businessmen who don't want to be the "next" Frank VanderSloot should file
>> in district court as John Does to seek the *Socialist Workers* exemption
>> to compelled disclosure of their partial funding of independent political
>> speech.
>>
>> --
>> Stephen M. Hoersting
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Stephen M. Hoersting
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120720/ef2dfd37/attachment.html>