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

[Marty Lederman]

Damn!  You've smoked out that Joe Ruger, reporter for the National Law
Journal (it's his awkward and confused sentence that is at issue --
"corporations and unions cannot be banned from making independent
expenditures to political action committees or candidates") -- is part of
the vast conspiracy to mischaracterize Citizens United!  And here we try so
hard to protect the covert nature of our agents, all to no avail . . .

Larry Lessig's testimony, for what it's worth -- see
judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/12-7-24LessigTestimony.pdf -- does not
mischaracterize *CU*, and emphasizes that most of the problem stems from
decisions both before and after (e.g., SpeechNow) *CU*.

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Joe La Rue <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>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
>
>
> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120725/52fb2a90/attachment.html>