[EL] Anonymous candidates
Sean Parnell
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
Mon Jul 23 08:17:12 PDT 2012
Some forms of speech tend to naturally deny one anonymity (writing a letter
to the newspaper, which rarely publish anonymous letters), while others lend
themselves to allowing anonymity (blogging, or commenting on a blog). Giving
money to the National Rifle Association happens to be a form that tends to
naturally allow anonymity, although one is certainly free to tell people
they give to the NRA. No "line crossing" in terms of types of speech at all,
at least not government-imposed lines.
As for "why not let policy makers decide where to draw it," are you
suggesting that mere citizens like myself shouldn't offer their input and
insight on where that line should be drawn? That seems to be the inference,
but I'm sure that's not what you mean. Anyways, I'm obviously not content to
simply let "policy makers" do what they wish without offering my two cents,
largely out of concern that I think they're likely to get it wrong - perhaps
only badly wrong, perhaps catastrophically wrong (I hope we can all agree
that had NAACP v. Alabama gone the other way, that would qualify as
"catastrophically wrong").
FWIW, I think there's a real anti-corruption rationale for disclosure of
LARGE donations to candidates, parties, and PACs that give to candidates.
The definition of large is going to vary by office, of course - it might be
$250 in a race for State Representative in Maine and $2,000 for State Rep in
California, for example. Beyond that, though, no I don't think there's much
cause for disclosure of independent speech, any more than I think there's
cause to disclose the internal deliberations of the editorial boards of the
New York Times or to hook the producers/writers of the new Batman movie up
to lie detectors to find out and then disclose whether they made 'Bane' the
bad-guy in an attempt to hurt Romney.
Sean Parnell
President
Impact Policy Management, LLC
6411 Caleb Court
Alexandria, VA 22315
571-289-1374 (c)
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
-----Original Message-----
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Michael
McDonald
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 10:51 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Anonymous candidates
You response doesn't address the question of why speech with money should be
treated differently than other speech. Is it that you believe that the act
of donating does not cross the line, but engaging in other forms of speech
does? Where does one draw the line? And once you've accepted that there is a
line to be drawn, why not let policy makers decide where to draw it, say at
federal contributions greater than $200 instead of no disclosure at all?
============
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor, George Mason University Non-Resident Senior Fellow,
Brookings Institution
Mailing address:
(o) 703-993-4191 George Mason University
(f) 703-993-1399 Dept. of Public and International Affairs
mmcdon at gmu.edu 4400 University Drive - 3F4
http://elections.gmu.edu Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
From: Sean Parnell [mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com]
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 10:40 AM
To: mmcdon at gmu.edu; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: RE: [EL] Anonymous candidates
I think you misunderstand what is being proposed. Nobody is suggesting that
donors should be " granted mechanisms to protect their anonymity." What is
being proposed is that the natural anonymity and privacy that citizens are
generally entitled to should not be lightly stripped away simply because
some people want to organize boycotts against people who hold, and support,
the "wrong" views. For example, I'd guess that almost nobody who purchased
lumber or building materials from my parents over the years had any clue
that they were (and remain) full-on libertarians (my mother of the
intellectual Ayn Rand variety, my father of the Western
stay-the-hell-out-of-my-home-and-business variety). Did they have a right to
keep their political views private from their customers? Should the
publishers of National Review, Liberty, and Reason have to turn over their
subscription lists to the public, maybe post my parents address on the local
Post Office wall with a note that "these people subscribe to the following
publications" (presumably subscribers to the Nation would receive similar
treatment)?
Nobody is proposing that donors be "granted" anonymity, any more than the
government "granted" my parents the right to not share, for example, their
generally pro-gay views in a state where the two largest religious
denominations are Catholic and Mormon (Hawaii), or their pro-capitalism
views in a state where capitalism is not held in high regard. What's being
proposed is that there's a line, somewhere, where government can't force
citizens to reveal to the public what their political beliefs and
preferences are, and that line should be drawn somewhere well before we get
to the point where every donor has to be concerned that they are going to
face retaliation of some sort because the government has chosen to 'out'
them for their political beliefs.
Sean Parnell
President
Impact Policy Management, LLC
6411 Caleb Court
Alexandria, VA 22315
571-289-1374 (c)
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
-----Original Message-----
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Michael
McDonald
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 10:10 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: [EL] Anonymous candidates
In 2002, a candidate for Pulaski County Kentucky Sheriff was murdered by his
opponent at a campaign rally.
http://new.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=202457&c=7
Murder goes well beyond the alleged harassment of campaign donors that we've
heard so frequently on this list about. I am sure that with a little effort,
we can compile more examples of candidates being harassed with physical
violence, starting with Gabriel Giffords or any elected official who has
received death threats. If we are going to insist that people who attempt to
influence the political process must be protected by anonymity, then why
stop at donors? Why not protect candidates and elected officials? As has
been frequently stated by those who support anonymity, only the message
matters, the identity of the messenger does not. So, why do we need to know
the identity of candidates? If we are going to protect donors with
anonymity, I say let's protect anyone who wishes to affect public policy,
from people who wish to speak about politics to friends and neighbors, to
campaign volunteers and staff, to candidates. (It is not too difficult to
find examples of volunteers being physically assaulted.) We can make
available special political speech burqas equipped with Darth Vader voice
modulators that people can wear if they wish to state political beliefs
publicly.
Some may counter that people who wish to engage in political speech have the
right to create a free speech burqa of their own, even though my proposal
was meant to reveal the absurdity of the idea. (Isn't that what lawyers do?
Generalize from extreme examples?) So, here is my real question for the
legal minds on the list, which I hope will spark thoughtful discussion: Why
should those who wish to use their money in political speech be granted
mechanisms to protect their anonymity while others who wish to use their
voice in political speech do not have comparable protections?
============
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor, George Mason University Non-Resident Senior Fellow,
Brookings Institution
Mailing address:
(o) 703-993-4191 George Mason University
(f) 703-993-1399 Dept. of Public and International Affairs
mmcdon at gmu.edu 4400 University Drive - 3F4
http://elections.gmu.edu Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
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/20120723/9aa6ad81/attachment.html>
View list directory