[EL] Check out 'Citizen conventions' should respond to Citizens United, Harvard la

[Joe La Rue]

You don't think there's a deliberate effort to misstate the holding, do
you, Jim? Surely not!

Joe
___________________
*Joseph E. La Rue*
cell: 480.272.2715
email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
and destroy all copies of the original message.



On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:13 AM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:

> **
> Click here: 'Citizen conventions' should respond to Citizens United,
> Harvard law professor suggests<http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202564277666>
>
> This is a classic example of the frequently distorted description of what
> *Citizens United* did:
>
> *In Citizens United, the Court found that corporations and unions cannot
> be banned from making independent expenditures to political action
> committees or candidates.
>
> The subcommittee hearing examined the possibility of a constitutional
> amendment that would give Congress the authority to regulate campaign
> contributions by businesses*.
>
> One reading this would conclude appropriately that *CU* made contribution
> to candidates by businesses legal.  Of course, the ruling itself did not.
>
> And what is so puzzling is why this happens when it is so easy to get it
> right. Jim Bopp
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120725/9060b66e/attachment.html>