[EL] When Capitalists Need Socialist Workers

[Mark Schmitt]

Here's what I know about the legislative process:

If you, or Senator McConnell or Senator McCain don't like the way a bill 
is written -- for example, you think it has a partisan impact -- you 
offer amendments. In the case of the DISCLOSE Act, where I presume some 
amendments would involve treatment of unions and union members, there 
are several Democrats who have little loyalty to organized labor (I can 
name them for you) who might well support the amendments. You could even 
offer your "Socialist Workers" amendment, although you probably wouldn't 
want to call it that.

If the amendments fail, you still have the option to filibuster. Or, you 
can wait to see if the Republican-controlled House passes a version of 
the DISCLOSE Act. Then go to conference. Since each party will have a 
majority on one side of the conference, the result will almost by 
definition have to be generally acceptable to both parties.

/That's/ how the legislative process works. Filibustering a motion to 
proceed, and then giving sanctimonious speeches about how you support 
the basic principle of the legislation, but there's just this one aspect 
you don't like, is not. (And I don't mean McConnell here, who is now 
quite unabashed about how disclosure is awful in all its forms, but the 
likes of McCain, Murkowski, etc.)

Finally, in saying that your Socialist Workers exemption would affect 
only Republican donors, I'm referring to the fact that Steve has said it 
should apply to anyone who has reason to believe that a government 
agency has the motive or means to retaliate against the donor. (Not 
really sure how motive would be defined.) I've assumed that that agency 
referred only to the executive branch, so for the moment, only donors 
supporting the party out of control of the executive branch would be 
eligible. Until Republicans are in power, it would exempt only 
Republicans. And if/when Republicans control the executive branch, I 
doubt will hear another word about this.

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 5:26 PM, Smith, Brad wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> 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/20120721/eb718b66/attachment.html>