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

[Adam Bonin]

For what it's worth, Sunday's episode of Aaron Sorkin's "The Newsroom" (HBO)
also got it wrong. It's at the end of this clip, which reviews
well-discussed ground regarding the Koch Brothers, Supreme Court ethics, and
the like:  http://youtu.be/jMvExt1rUY8

 

--Adam

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick
Hasen
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 10:41 AM
To: Joe La Rue
Cc: JBoppjr at aol.com; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out 'Citizen conventions' should respond to Citizens
United, Harvard la

 

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



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

 





-- 
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/aae28fd5/attachment.html>