[EL] Vengeful politicians

Thu Jul 26 11:10:29 PDT 2012

On your crickets comment, remember Sean, don't interpret my silence as 
agreeing with you on anything you say related to disclosure/harassment.  
I've just tired of going round and round with the same group of people 
whose views on disclosure seem to me to be extreme.  And judging from 
the private emails I've been receiving, I would not interpret many 
others' silence as assent to your views either.

But I will provide links to the writings of a few people who, like me, 
may in some circumstances approve of private boycotts  but disagree 
strongly with politicians who seeking to deny the right of a business to 
open in a city:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/07/chik-fil-a-homophobes-have-rights-too
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/26/rahm_emanuels_free_speech_attack/
http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/25/no-building-permits-for-opponent-of-same-sex-marriage/

Rick

On 7/26/2012 8:16 AM, Sean Parnell wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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