[EL] non-disclosure: logical ending?

[Steve Hoersting]

Here is more on the topic, on a related matter, from an op-ed I wrote in
2007:

Grassroots-lobbying disclosure appears to put two canons of political law
on an apparent collision course: that government corruption is cured by
disclosure; and that the right of individuals to speak and associate freely
depends upon their ability to do so anonymously. But the conflict is a
false one because both canons achieve the same purpose when each is applied
to its proper context; both protect citizens from abusive officeholders.
Disclosure regimes for campaign
contributions<http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219715/mlk-grassroots-lobbyist/stephen-m-hoersting#>and
direct lobbying protect citizens from officeholders who can confer
benefits on large contributors (and pain on opponents) by passing future
legislation. Regimes that protect the right to speak anonymously with
fellow citizens about issues, even issues of official action or pending
legislation, also protect citizens from abusive officeholders by reducing
an officeholder’s ability to visit retribution on those who would oppose
his policy preferences.

You can read the op-ed here.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219715/mlk-grassroots-lobbyist/stephen-m-hoersting

It happens to apply strictly to non-corrupting issue ads.  But the
jurisprudence behind non-corrupting independent expenditure ads is closely
related.  Fact is, the more opponents use disclosure to hold people
"accountable" the more it appears that laws designed to further an
"informational interest" -- the interest courts have approved to permit
compelled disclosure of the funding of non-corrupting IEs -- are themselves
becoming a restraint on speech.

Steve Hoersting

On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Jonathan Adler <jha5 at case.edu> wrote:

> No more than the logical evolution of the contrary position would require
> disclosure and publication of reading habits and internet use.
>
> Neither is a serious extension of the actual position articulated by its
> proponents.
>
> Jonathan H. Adler
> Jha5 at case.edu
>
> Sent via Droid
> On Jun 3, 2012 12:00 PM, "Howard Brown" <hbrown at jamestownr.com> wrote:
>
>> >From a layman:
>> Would not the logical evolution of the views of Brad Smith et. al. be the
>> repeal of FOIA and shutting down Congressional Record -- in order to
>> protect our brave representative citizens from SWATing and other acts of
>> revenge for unpopular speeches, votes and other actions?
>> H Brown
>> North Kingstown, RI
>>
>> --
>> <gam zu l'tovah> It's all good
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>



-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120603/92dd85d1/attachment.html>