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

[Rick Hasen]

I agree with you that the holding is misstated.  I wonder if part of the 
confusion stems from the claims you and Jim have been making around the 
country (including in the San Diego case I litigated against you) in 
which you claimed that Citizens United compelled lower courts to strike 
down bans on direct corporate contributions to candidates.  So far,  
your argument has been rejected by at least the 2nd, 4th, and 9th 
circuits, and is pending en banc in the 8th circuit in the Swanson 
case.  Yet I believe Jim is still making the argument.





On 7/25/2012 7:11 AM, Joe La Rue wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>     http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>

-- 
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
Pre-order The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
www.thevotingwars.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120725/2613dc27/attachment.html>