[EL] Vengeful politicians

Thu Jul 26 08:16:09 PDT 2012

Michael - you are badly misunderstanding my position, again.

We are not talking here about boycotts. If this were a simple boycott
because people didn't like what he said - well, fine. That doesn't mean his
speech doesn't have First Amendment protection - it does, and I'm going to
assume it's just sloppy writing on your part for the way you quite badly
paraphrased what you believe I said.

My earlier point, which appears to have eluded you, is that it's not the
government's business to be requiring people to "out" themselves, or
organizations to "out" their members, absent a compelling government
interest. I do not regard the three rationales that have been given for
requiring independent organizations to "out" their members/donors (voting
cues, anti-corruption, and accountability) to be sufficiently compelling,
and in fact I find the last of the three to be wholly illegitimate. I
realize the 'reform' community seems to hold that if someone spends money
supporting or opposing a candidate or issue that it's the government's
prerogative to strip them of any privacy protections, but suffice it to say
that is not my view. 

But this is old ground, and as Rick has pointed out, it has been hashed over
at length before. What I (and Steve Hoersting as well) have brought for
discussion today is the fact that an elected official, and no obscure one at
that, seems to think it appropriate to use the government's authority to
deny a businessman the opportunity to do business solely and explicitly
because that businessman doesn't hold the same views on an important
social/political issue. 

Judging by the crickets that Steve and I are hearing, should I assume that
the pro-disclosure 'reform' community doesn't see anything wrong with the
actions of Mayor Emanuel? Or since it doesn't involve
contributions/donations there's no conceivable connection to the
disclosure/enemies list issue? If it's the latter, I suggest you read this
(featuring Mayor Emanuel again):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/rahm-emanuel-not-returning-
calls-from-ricketts-family/2012/05/17/gIQAb8WcWU_blog.html

Sean Parnell
President
Impact Policy Management, LLC
6411 Caleb Court
Alexandria, VA  22315
571-289-1374 (c)
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com

-----Original Message-----
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Michael
McDonald
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:18 AM
To: 'law-election at UCI.EDU'
Subject: Re: [EL] Vengeful politicians

Sean,

We had this discussion a couple of days ago. The type of speech that the CEO
of Chick-fil-A engaged in is, according to you, not speech that should be
protected. The boycotts and other protest activities are not triggered by a
campaign donation. They are triggered by words that were said on tape. It is
curious that the examples in opposition to disclosure involve money: not
only in the giving of money, but now in protests involving money that are
triggered by any speech. I suppose the new standard to be applied is that
money equals speech, but speech absent money does not equal speech.

-Mike

============
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor, George Mason University Non-Resident Senior Fellow,
Brookings Institution

                             Mailing address:
(o) 703-993-4191             George Mason University
(f) 703-993-1399             Dept. of Public and International Affairs
mmcdon at gmu.edu               4400 University Drive - 3F4
http://elections.gmu.edu     Fairfax, VA 22030-4444

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Sean
Parnell
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:31 AM
To: law-election at UCI.EDU
Subject: [EL] Vengeful politicians

I wonder if anybody who has claimed that an ‘Enemies List’ or retaliation
against businesses for supporting the ‘wrong’ candidates/causes/views would
care to comment on this?

http://www.suntimes.com/news/13988905-418/emanuel-goes-after-chick-fil-a-for
-boss-anti-gay-views.html

The article starts:

The anti-gay views openly espoused by the president of a fast food chain
specializing in chicken sandwiches have run afoul of Mayor Rahm Emanuel and
a local alderman, who are determined to block Chick-fil-A from expanding in
Chicago.

I’d welcome any feedback on what, if anything, this suggests about the
concerns expressed by some of us here about disclosure of donations to
independent organizations that speak out on political or social causes and
the likelihood of politicians seeking retribution. Particularly given that
one of the two politicians leading this charge happens to be a former White
House Chief of Staff.

Best,

Sean Parnell
President
Impact Policy Management, LLC
6411 Caleb Court
Alexandria, VA  22315
571-289-1374 (c)
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election