[EL] Check out 'Citizen conventions' should respond to Citizens United, Harvard la
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Jul 25 08:47:53 PDT 2012
I think that's right. But my theory is no more unlikely that Joe's
suggestion of a "deliberate effort to misstate the holding" of Citizens
United.
On 7/25/2012 8:22 AM, Smith, Brad wrote:
> 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>
--
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/b38ddc1d/attachment.html>
View list directory