[EL] When Capitalists Need Socialist Workers

Fri Jul 20 14:26:48 PDT 2012

Elsewhere in today's WSJ, responding to U.S. politicians of both parties who have introduced the "Team USA Made in America Act" (what the heck? It's not called something like the "Time For Ensuring that Americans Make Uniforms for Stellar Athletes Act"  (that is, the "TEAM USA Act")? What's happening in Congress? Have they lost all imagination?), we have this:

"Says an executive with a U.S. manufacturer that has operations in China: 'The comments [of members of Congress] relect either a lack of understanding of how comparative advantage works ( the Chinese are really good at producing low-cost uniforms, the U.S. is really good at innovative technology- which would you rather be?), or cynical politics,. More likely both.' He doesn't want to be named and get his company in trouble with the politicians."

(emphasis added).

Look, we all know that harassment, and the potential for harassment, is there. That's at least in part why we have the secret ballot, do not prohibit news stories from using anonymous sources -often government officials exercising considerable power, and have decisions such as NAACP v. Alabama, Bates v. Little Rock, NAACP v. Button, Talley v. California, Buckley v. Valeo, Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee, Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society v. Village of Stratton, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, and Thomas v. Collins. We have documented instances of people losing their jobs after Prop 8, a documented instance of FEC records being used by an FBI-designated terrorist group, and other instances of harassment.

So the question is not whether harassment and potential for harassment is real, the question is merely the extent of such harassment, and more importantly, whether the government has an interest in disclosure laws that merits compelling citizens to report to the government, and then to have placed on the internet by that government, their political activity. The traditional mode of constitutional analysis requires government to make a case for infringing on liberty. What concerns many of us is that the government has never really been required to make that case - the Court in Doe v. Reed merely assumed it to be true (contrary to its approach in many of the cases cited above, and the normal mode for constitutional analysis).

The case for the new disclosure laws being proposed for any of the reasons the Court has recognized as legitimate state interests - to aid in enforcement, to help voters evaluate a message, or to deter corruption - is remarkably weak. It is commonly asserted rather than argued. And as Mark surely knows, the current push for more compelled disclosure, disclosure which would be unprecedented in U.S. history, is heavily laden with partisanship. Mark is smart enough and has been around the legislative process enough to understand what is going on and to see how DISCLOSE, even in its stripped down version, does and is intended to have a partisan impact.

And where does this come from: "Why is the proper response, let's make Mr. Vandersloot and other Republican donors, and only Republican donors, exempt from disclosure laws?" What? Who, pray tell, is proposing that?

Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
  Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 East Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 236-6317
bsmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu>
http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Schmitt
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 3:50 PM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] When Capitalists Need Socialist Workers

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 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/20120720/c783f184/attachment.html>