[EL] A nation of sissies!/ Re: The enemies list, then and now
Mark Schmitt
schmitt.mark at gmail.com
Mon Jul 23 15:14:22 PDT 2012
Jeff and I aren't a candidate and a Super PAC. We don't coordinate on
message.
The confusion is just because the parallel you've created is so off.
They're just totally different activities, in different realms.
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 7/23/2012 3:00 PM, Sean Parnell wrote:
>
> As I said earlier, I didn't mean to say that anonymous quotes in news
> stories weren't controversial, just that nobody's proposing
> legislation to correct this "problem." My bad for the poor wording.
>
> And I think that now you and Jeff might want to have a chat, because
> one of you seems to be saying the donor isn't speaking but the
> anonymous source is, while the other seems to be taking the opposite
> perspective.
>
> 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
> *Mark Schmitt
> *Sent:* Monday, July 23, 2012 2:14 PM
> *To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] A nation of sissies!/ Re: The enemies list, then
> and now
>
> Just to emphasize a point Jeff made in passing -- unnamed sources in
> journalism are a subject of huge controversy and there are lots of
> complaints about their overuse. The Times and the Post have both
> started requiring stories to explain more clearly why the source was
> granted anonymity (although often it's that stupid phrase, "because he
> is not authorized to speak to the press," for a person who plainly is
> authorized to speak to the press), and to give enough information that
> the reader can judge the speaker's perspective (economic claims by a
> "senior administration official" are judged differently from "a
> high-ranking Republican aide" or "a Nobel-prize winning economist.")
> And an editor will always insist on knowing who the source is, in part
> to judge whether the identification is sufficient for the reader.
>
> I'm not really seeing the parallel to donor disclosure, since the
> donor is not actually doing the speaking, but in any event, I don't
> want the idea that anonymous sourcing is uncontroversial to stand
> unchallenged. It's very controversial and there should be a lot less
> of it.
>
> 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 7/23/2012 12:39 PM, Sean Parnell wrote:
>
> And the speaker in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's ads is, well,
> the Chamber as an institution, not the donors/members. Thanks for
> clearing up that we don't really need the DISCLOSE Act, since we
> don't need to know the donors any more than we need to know the
> anonymous people quoted in news articles. Or at least, we don't
> need to know to a degree sufficient to overcome the presumption of
> privacy and anonymity that attach to both situations.
>
> Best,
>
> Sean Parnell
>
> President
>
> Impact Policy Management, LLC
>
> 6411 Caleb Court
>
> Alexandria, VA 22315
>
> 571-289-1374 (c)
>
> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
> <mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>
>
> *From:*Jeff Hauser [mailto:jeffhauser at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 23, 2012 12:28 PM
> *To:* Sean Parnell
> *Cc:* Jon Henke; david.l.epstein at gmail.com
> <mailto:david.l.epstein at gmail.com>; JBoppjr at aol.com
> <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>; law-election at uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] A nation of sissies!/ Re: The enemies list,
> then and now
>
> The speaker with first amendment rights in an article isn't the
> person being quoted by the reporter--otherwise, all flacks would
> have a right to get their quotes into pieces. The reason we don't
> trust anonymous articles--the reason why places like Bloomberg now
> even identify editors as well as reporters--is because people
> distrust anonymous speech.
>
> Your example undermines your position.
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Sean Parnell
> <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
> <mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>> wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>
>
> *From:*Jeff Hauser [mailto:jeffhauser at gmail.com
> <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
> <mailto:david.l.epstein at gmail.com>; JBoppjr at aol.com
> <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>; law-election at uci.edu
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> [mailto: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 <mailto:david.l.epstein at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>;
> law-election at uci.edu <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <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
> <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
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
> This body part will be downloaded on demand.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120723/c6eb8df0/attachment.html>
View list directory