[EL] Check out 'Citizen conventions' should respond to Citizens United, H...
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Wed Jul 25 09:16:49 PDT 2012
All you have to do is listen to the Senate hearing testimony, which I did,
particularly the statements by the various Democrat Senators, and they too
blur or outright misrepresent the issue and often talk about corporate
"contributions."
For instance, see Senator Leahy's written testimony, _Click here:
Testimony_
(http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=2b53f9fbe82f752c41d78bced0513f11&wit_id=2b53f9fbe82f752c41d78bced0513f11-0-5) , where he
said: "Last month, those same five justices doubled down on Citizens United
when they summarily struck down a 100-year-old Montana state law barring
corporate contributions." This is such a blatant and obvious big lie,
deliberately made in written testimony, not through some slip of the tongue, that
one can only conclude that there is a deliberate effort to misrepresent
the CU holding. Of course, that CU allows corporate contributions fits much
better into the "corruption" narrative that the reformers are pushing.
Furthermore, this reporter attended the hearing and, if he knew nothing
else about CU and naively thought that these Democrat Senator might actually
tell the truth about such a simple thing, it is quite understandable that
he would think that corporate contributions are legalized by CU. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 7/25/2012 11:57:34 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
joseph.e.larue at gmail.com writes:
Rick, I don't have the time right now to find them, but I know I've seen
numerous press statements from Left-leaning organizations that have implied
if not out-right stated that corporations are giving millions to
candidates. Some of these organizations are regular participants in the campaign
finance law wars, so I assume that they know the difference between IEs and
contributions. The only reason I can suppose for their misstatements is that
it's deliberate on their parts.
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 8:47 AM, Rick Hasen <_rhasen at law.uci.edu_
(mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) > wrote:
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_ (tel:614.236.6317)
_http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx_
(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)
[_mailto: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_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) ; _law-election at uci.edu_
(mailto: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_ (tel: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_
(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_ (tel:949.824.3072) - office
_949.824.0495_ (tel: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://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html)
_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/)
Pre-order The Voting Wars: _http://amzn.to/y22ZTv_ (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_ (tel:949.824.3072) - office
_949.824.0495_ (tel: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://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html)
_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/)
Pre-order The Voting Wars: _http://amzn.to/y22ZTv_ (http://amzn.to/y22ZTv)
_www.thevotingwars.com_ (http://www.thevotingwars.com/)
_______________________________________________
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_
(http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election)
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120725/856dacae/attachment.html>
View list directory