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

[Smith, Brad]

I think it far more likely that the confusion stems from a) ignorance of reporters; b) carelessness of reporters; c) inadvertent, honest slips by informed reporters and editors and expert commentators; and d) the casual alarmism of the reform community and various politicians. The idea that is because of Jim Bopp's litigation, which most people have never heard of, which is rarely reported on or discussed in the press, and which, to the extreme anyone knows about it, would seem to make clear the distinction (as Rick points out, the courts keep upholding the distinction) strikes me as implausible in the extreme.


Bradley A. Smith

Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault

   Professor of Law

Capital University Law School

303 E. Broad St.

Columbus, OH 43215

614.236.6317

http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx

________________________________

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<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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120725/b69bfd42/attachment.html>