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

[Joe La Rue]

I don't think that's the cause of it (and, I doubt that you do, either). I
think we both know what the cause is: those who misstate it find it
convenient to do so. It's far more frightening to the average citizen to
think that some corporation (or Sheldon Adelson) is giving a million
dollars to a candidate than to a PAC spending independently of the
candidate. What's interesting is that they couldn't give that much money to
a candidate anyway, even if they could make candidate-contributions,
because of the limit on contributions to candidates. But we can't let facts
like that get in the way of a good piece of propoganda.

As for Jim's and my push for the courts to recognize the First Amendment
right of corporations to make direct candidate-contributions from their
general treasuries, I remain confident that the courts will someday
recognize that right. And here's the amazing thing: the sun will come up
the next day, just as it has for years in Indiana where corporate
contributions to candidates are legal.
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 7:41 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  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 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.htmlhttp://electionlawblog.org
> Pre-order The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTvwww.thevotingwars.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120725/22cb2fb8/attachment.html>