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

[Allen Dickerson]

I doubt many journalists have been following Jim's litigation strategy as closely as Rick and other opposing counsel. It's far more likely that the general public simply doesn't understand the distinction between contributions and expenditures. Which is understandable given the poor quality of reporting on the distinction.

My favorite example of this was a call I had with a reporter for a moderately-sized regional publication. He asked if I could comment on a race where the incumbent had raised most of his contributions from within the district, while his challenger "had received most of his contributions from outside Super PACs."

Of course, that's legal nonsense. But there's no reason a young reporter would know that.

I know we all have our own views on the value of independent speech, the dangers posed by particular disclosure regimes, what precisely constitutes "corruption," and a host of other issues. But the national debate is going to remain inane and uninformed unless we all make a real priority of correcting misstatements of fact instead of blaming each other. 

Maybe Mr. Ruger (the author) didn't contact anyone on this list before publishing his piece. But if he did, and we didn't correct and educate him, then the election-law bar failed. Collectively.

________________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen [rhasen at law.uci.edu]
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<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<mailto: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<http://www.thevotingwars.com>