[EL] Check out 'Citizen conventions' should respond to Citizens United, H...
Smith, Brad
BSmith at law.capital.edu
Wed Jul 25 10:00:00 PDT 2012
That's a darn good question Michael, but it doesn't change the fact that corporations may not make contributions directly to candidate campaigns, and many people - maybe most but certainly many - do believe that the distinction matters. They might allow both, or ban both, or allow one but not the other - but they do recognize a distinction.
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: Beckel, Michael [mbeckel at publicintegrity.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 12:35 PM
To: Smith, Brad; JBoppjr at aol.com; joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: RE: [EL] Check out 'Citizen conventions' should respond to Citizens United, H...
With super PACs behaving in some cases like outsourced political ad-producing operations (which candidates have no control over, but can be run by people who are good at creating messages that will benefit their preferred candidate), at what point does a contribution to a super PAC become about as good as a direct contribution to a candidate?
Regards,
Michael Beckel
Reporter
Center for Public Integrity
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Smith, Brad
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 12:19 PM
To: JBoppjr at aol.com; joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out 'Citizen conventions' should respond to Citizens United, H...
Or read the responses by liberal commentators at Politico's Arena today. Almost all exaggerate or misstate the law.
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: JBoppjr at aol.com [JBoppjr at aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 12:16 PM
To: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com; rhasen at law.uci.edu
Cc: law-election at uci.edu; Smith, Brad
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out 'Citizen conventions' should respond to Citizens United, H...
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<mailto: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
________________________________
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] 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
--
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://electionlawblog.org<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<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://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org/>
Pre-order The Voting Wars: 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
_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120725/a5f814a2/attachment.html>
View list directory