[EL] When Capitalists Need Socialist Workers

Fri Jul 20 14:11:19 PDT 2012

 I see I left the word "don't" out of the second-to-last sentence.  You
won't understand my meaning without it.

 - S

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>
>

-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120720/a1b19095/attachment.html>