[EL] A nation of sissies!/ Re: The enemies list, then and now

[David A. Schultz]

Justice Scalia is often fond of declaring that the purpose of the First Amendment is to promote robust debate.  I agree with him.  But at the same time that the First Amendment gives individuals a right to say whatever they want, it also means others have a right to respond, hold you accountable, and even say you are crazy for your position.  Maybe you get mocked, teased, or satirized, but all that is part of what robust debate in a free society is about.

I say this because I fear that the debate about disclosure is exposing us to be a nation of wimps!  The arguments being presented here seem to suggest that I should be protected from any type of criticism or controversy surrounding my political contributions.  I am sorry but the First Amendment does not insulate that.  Yes real harassment--such as lynchings or cross burnings in front yards as was feared in the NAACP v. Alabama case--are something we should worry about, but teasing, taunting, publishing a list of names, boycotts, all of that is part of the robust debate surrounding the First Amendment that we should expect.  I hate to steal Truman's line "But if you can't stand the heat. . ."  If you cannot take the legitimate public scrutiny or criticism surrounding your political contribution then stay out of politics.  As Scalia once said about administrative law one can also say about politics--it ain't for sissies!

On another note:  Please remember that NAACP v. Alabama ruled in that case that case that membership lists of non-profit organizations were protected by the First Amendment against government exposure because of the unique aspects of the organization and the facts of the cases demonstrating real possibility of reprisal.  The case did not rule that donor lists were protected by the First Amendment, unless I missed something.



David Schultz, Professor
Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
Hamline University
School of Business
570 Asbury Street
Suite 308
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
651.523.2858 (voice)
651.523.3098 (fax)
http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
Twitter:  @ProfDSchultz
Named one of the inaugural 2012 FacultyRow SuperProfessors
>>> David Epstein  07/23/12 8:10 AM >>>
This is it? Seriously? After reading the column, I see that someone
(presumably wealthy) who donated money to Romney has been audited. I
also see that an Obama "campaign website" listed some donors along
with aspersions on their characters, but (tellingly), there is no link
provided to this website. If someone has the link, I'd be happy to
follow that too, but my guess is that it wasn't published by the
actual Obama campaign.

Pretty thin gruel, definitely on the level of internet urban legends
rather than actual news.

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 8:59 AM,   wrote:
> Click here: The enemies list, then and now | Power Line
>
>     Interesting story about harassment of contributors triggered by the
> Obama campaign.
>
>     Opps, on second thought, don't read, we have been authoritatively told
> that this does not happen. Jim Bopp
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election



-- 
**************************************
David Epstein
Paradox Consulting
250 West 89th Street
Suite 12-J
New York, NY 10024
646-391-7733
**************************************
_______________________________________________
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/20120723/6895eb96/attachment.html>