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

Wed Jul 25 10:49:32 PDT 2012

Sorry, was in a meeting. No, I'm not accusing this particular reporter of
deliberate misstatement. I'm simply saying that there are those who
deliberately misstate things (just as there are those on "my side" who
deliberately misstate the number of fraudulent voters).

Joe
___________________
*Joseph E. La Rue*
cell: 480.272.2715
email: 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 8:58 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  That may be so (and would not surprise me).  But this was a statement of
> a journalist in the National Journal.  Are you saying he was deliberately
> misleading?
>
>
> On 7/25/2012 8:56 AM, Joe La Rue wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> 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> 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*
>>
>> *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<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
>>
>>
>>
>> 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> 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
>> 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
>>
>> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
>>
>> http://electionlawblog.org
>>
>> Pre-order The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
>>
>> 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 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.htmlhttp://electionlawblog.org
>> Pre-order The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTvwww.thevotingwars.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> 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 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.htmlhttp://electionlawblog.org
> Pre-order The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTvwww.thevotingwars.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120725/03c05718/attachment.html>