[EL] A nation of sissies!/ Re: The enemies list, then and now
Sean Parnell
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
Mon Jul 23 09:25:20 PDT 2012
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has a recognizable figure standing behind their
message - the CEO, a Mr. Donohue if memory serves correct.
And I've never heard that the reason to strip anonymity from, say, big
donors to the NRA is to vouch for the "legitimacy" of their speech. As I
understand it, the purpose of disclosure is to provide an 'information cue'
to voters, diminish corruption, and allow speakers (donors) to be held
accountable. It would certainly provide me an information cue if I knew the
identity of certain anonymous quotes, diminish corruption (leaking
classified information is corruption, after all) and allow for them to be
held accountable as well. Tell me again what's the difference between an
anonymous quote in a news article on a matter of vital public policy or
politics, and someone giving $15,000 to CrossroadsGPS?
I should have said that there's no carping amongst those who consider
anonymous speech a grave threat to the republic, and are proposing laws to
strip anonymity from those who manage to preserve some of it under the
current system.
Sean Parnell
President
Impact Policy Management, LLC
6411 Caleb Court
Alexandria, VA 22315
571-289-1374 (c)
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
From: Jeff Hauser [mailto:jeffhauser at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 12:02 PM
To: Sean Parnell
Cc: Jon Henke; david.l.epstein at gmail.com; JBoppjr at aol.com;
law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] A nation of sissies!/ Re: The enemies list, then and now
Because the article is bylined and the reporter is vouching for the
leigitmacy of the quote... and actually there is a TON of carping.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Sean Parnell
<sean at impactpolicymanagement.com> wrote:
And of course we are constantly being exposed in news articles to anonymous
speech from "senior administration sources" and "Senate Republican insiders"
and "a person not authorized to speak for the campaign" and "someone
speaking on background" and countless variations on the theme. I don't hear
much carping about this, though.
Sean Parnell
President
Impact Policy Management, LLC
6411 Caleb Court
Alexandria, VA 22315
571-289-1374 (c)
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Jon
Henke
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 11:18 AM
To: david.l.epstein at gmail.com
Cc: JBoppjr at aol.com; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] A nation of sissies!/ Re: The enemies list, then and now
While the retaliation question is important, I think we're overlooking the
fact that anonymity has speech value of its own. Anonymity can help to
ensure that an argument is debated on its merits, rather than on an ad
hominem basis. Anonymity can allow more free speech -- and, in many cases,
better free speech. The Federalist Papers, whistleblowers, bloggers, The
Economist and many others withhold identities, not just because of potential
retaliation, but because they don't want their identity taking attention
away from their idea.
Obviously, many people would rather discuss the person than the content of
the speech, sometimes for ad hominem purposes and sometimes for substantive
purposes. But the choice of anonymity is itself a form of expression that
is protected under the first amendment.
_______
Jon Henke
202-595-4323
Twitter: @jonhenke
On Jul 23, 2012, at 10:27 AM, David Epstein wrote:
I don't know about the anti-Federalist authors, but Madison, Hamilton
and Jay were all well-known supporters of the new Constitution. So
just because they wrote the Federalist Papers anonymously doesn't mean
that they weren't subject to any reprisals or counter-arguments,
hiding behind the cloak of anonymity.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:40 AM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
The Founders of our country who wrote the Federalist and Anti-Federalist
Papers were hardly winps. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 7/23/2012 9:25:08 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
dschultz at gw.hamline.edu writes:
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 <david.l.epstein at gmail.com> 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, <JBoppjr at aol.com> 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
_______________________________________________
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/20120723/6ddb800a/attachment.html>
View list directory