[EL] The Federalist Papers and Anonymity
Richard Winger
richardwinger at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 4 10:38:59 PDT 2012
Other parties who showed this, besides the Socialist Workers Party, have been the Communist Party, the Socialist Action Party, and the Freedom Socialist Party.
Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
--- On Mon, 6/4/12, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] The Federalist Papers and Anonymity
To: "Bill Maurer" <wmaurer at ij.org>
Cc: "JBoppjr at aol.com" <JBoppjr at aol.com>, "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>
Date: Monday, June 4, 2012, 10:33 AM
The Socialist Workers were able to show it. Given how rare
harassment is for people who do more than make campaign
contributions the proof issue is not a big problem.
In any case, I'd stress that I favor raising disclosure thresholds
dramatically (for informational privacy reasons, not out of fear of
harassment). And the universe of people making $10K plus
contributions who would face harassment in our current society is
mercifully very small.
On 6/4/12 10:28 AM, Bill Maurer wrote:
Sorry
I’m late to the game on this, but doesn’t Rick’s position
create a significant proof problem? How does a speaker know
that their speech will create severe retaliation? I’ve
asked this before, but how does one show that there’s a
reasonable probability that someone will burn your house
down if you take a public stand on an issue until your house
gets burned down? Then the judge could say, “you know, you
were right—your information should have been kept private.
By the way, you’re getting soot all over the courtroom.”
Thus,
in reality, this standard is unworkable—you’re either too
early to get protection and so you don’t speak or you’re too
late and the harm is done. Welcome aboard the “Kobayashi
Maru.” The only logical choice is to not play the game as
it is currently constituted, thus creating a significant
harm to the speaker, political discourse, and leaving the
political playing field to only those who are rich enough or
powerful enough to not care about potential blowback. I
think a better standard would be that a speaker’s anonymity
should be the default position and that the government
should have to burden to prove (i) why the speaker’s
information should be released to the public, and (ii) that
the release of the information is unlikely to cause
harassment and coercion.
Bill
From:
law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu]
On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 8:52 AM
To: JBoppjr at aol.com
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] The Federalist Papers and
Anonymity
If you think that I want people to suffer
severe retaliation for their political beliefs you have not
read my work closely.
I have said repeatedly that when there is credible evidence
people will face severe retaliation, then they should be
exempt from disclosure. In recent cases involving gay
marriage ballot measures in which you have been involved, two
federal district courts evaluated these claims in detail and
found no credible evidence of harassment of people who merely
gave campaign contributions or collected signatures for a
ballot measure. Doe v. Reed, 823 F.Supp.2d 1195 (W.D.Wash.
Oct. 17, 2011); ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen, No.
2:09-CV-00058-MCE-DA, ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2011 WL 5507204 (E.D.
Cal. Nov. 4, 2011). See Richard L. Hasen, Chill Out: A
Qualified Defense of Campaign Finance Disclosure in the
Internet Era, Journal of Law and Politics (forthcoming 2012),
draft available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=1948313.
On 6/1/12 8:44 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
Regarding:
"The Federalist Papers were written in 1788, well after
the American Revolution victory over King George III’s
government." Yes, I knew that, but I liked the rhetorical
flourish!
In
any event, my point was that Rick might want them strung
up for speaking out against the Articles of Confederation,
since his point is that anonymous speech is wrong since
people don't get to punish them for it.
And
I believe that nearly all of the signers of the
Declaration of Independence did indeed suffer severe
retaliation for doing so, which seems to be a result
that might please Rick.
Jim
Bopp
In
a message dated 6/1/2012 10:58:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight
Time,
mmcdon at gmu.edu
writes:
The
Federalist Papers were written in 1788, well after the
American Revolution victory over King George III’s
government. The phrase “sign your John Hancock” is
associated with the non-anonymous speech of signing the
Declaration of Independence, which was more likely to
result in retaliation by King George III.
The Federalists were arguing for a stronger government
than what existed under the failed Articles of
Confederation, America’s first constitutional
government, a weak government incapable of performing
its necessary functions. So, the Federalists were in
some measure proponents of greater federal government
power, hence their name, Federalists. It was the
Anti-Federalists who were those that were more
distrustful of federal power and favored more power in
the hands of the states and the people. Our original
constitution did not have a First Amendment protecting
free speech. The Bill of Rights was adopted in
conciliation to the Anti-Federalists. The authors of the
Federalists Papers did not believe that the provisions
in what would become the Bill of Rights were necessary,
including the First Amendment Freedom of Speech.
The authors of the Federalists Papers were not in fear
of reprisal for authoring the essays. The three were
well known for their support of the proposed
constitution; Madison was its author. The authors of the
Federalist Papers used anonymity so that
Anti-Federalists could not make a connection to the
personal interests of the authors when rebutting the
essays. Still, at the time, many people correctly
guessed who the authors were. Ironically, in light of
Jim's impassioned defense of anonymity, we might have
had a federal government with weaker powers if the
authors had not written anonymously under Publius.
There is a cogent argument that one can draw from the
Federalist Papers example about the value of anonymous
speech to protect against ad hominem arguments, but
there is no basis to argue that the three authors feared
retribution from King George III.
============
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
JBoppjr at aol.com
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 9:38 AM
To: rhasen at law.uci.edu;
law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 6/1/12
Things have certainly changed. The First Amendment
contemplates that the citizens are free to participate
in their government and that the government is thereby
to be held accountable to the citizens.
Now, it is the government holding the citizens
accountable for participating in their government, as
Rick says: "Those with power want to wield it without
being accountable for their actions." He wants speech
only if there are consequences to the speaker. I guess
he wants the Founders strung up for publishing the
Federalist and Anti-Federalist anonymously. Well at
least King George III certainly did. And how about Mrs
McIntyre, who not even Justice Stevens wanted to be
punished by the school board.
As this debate goes on, at least we now know plainly
what the "reformers" have in mind for those who dare to
speak. Nothing about voter information. No bogus claim
that there will be no retaliation. But a celebration of
retaliation. And then what a great democracy we would
have!
Only the rich and powerful, whose allies hold the
levers of government power, would dare speak. It would
be helpful too if your allies control the media. Humm,
am I describing current America where liberals hold
sway? Is that why some liberals are all fired up to
bring it on! Is this their last desperate attempt to
hold power -- threaten punishment of their "enemies" for
daring to speak out?
At least now, all the false facade has been stripped
away and the brave new world they contemplate has been
revealed to all.
Actually, it is a brave old world -- see Gangs of
New York if you want to see a window to our future
democracy. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 6/1/2012 2:21:47 A.M. Eastern
Daylight Time,
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
“Citizens: Speech, no consequences”
Posted on May 31, 2012 11:20 pm by Rick Hasen
I have just written this oped for Politico. It begins:
You’ve got to feel bad for the rich and powerful in
America. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a variety of
big business groups say if Congress goes back to letting
the American people know who is behind campaign attack
ads, businesses will face the “palpable” threat of
“retaliation” and “reprisals.”
Former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley
Smith warns in The Wall Street Journal that boycotts
based on political beliefs — made possible by the public
disclosure of campaign finance data — “endanger the very
commerce that enriches us all.” Even the chief justice
of the United States, John Roberts, apparently is being
“intimidated” (Kathleen Parker), “pressured” (George
Will) and “threatened” (Rick Garnett) by that most
powerful force in America (law professor and New
Republic legal editor) Jeffrey Rosen.
On the right these days, the rhetoric is all about a
liberal siege. Despite Republicans’ majority in the
House, its filibuster power in the Senate, a sympathetic
Supreme Court and the great power of business groups —
the language of threats is pervasive. But look beyond
the rhetoric and you can see what’s really going on:
Those with power want to wield it without being
accountable for their actions.
Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court | Comments Off
“FEC Deadlocks on Candidate’s Request To Rule on His
Plumbing Company’s Ads”
Posted on May 31, 2012 11:16 pm by Rick Hasen
Bloomberg BNA: “The Federal Election Commission
deadlocked late May 30 on an advisory opinion request
asking whether FEC reporting and disclaimer rules
regarding “electioneering communications” apply to ads
for a congressional candidate’s plumbing company….The
deadlock over the Mullin AO indicated that the FEC may
have trouble providing guidance to the regulated
political community following the recent court actions
that beefed up reporting requirements for electioneering
communications.”
Posted in campaign finance | Comments Off
“The Corporate Disclosure Ruse”
Posted on May 31, 2012 11:14 pm by Rick Hasen
Kimberly Strassel takes on Bruce Free’s Center for
Political Accountability. This is apparently the second
attack in two days and the fifth in five months.
Sensing a pattern here?
Posted in campaign finance | Comments Off
Will Tuesday’s Recall Results in Wisconsin Be an “Omen”
for President Obama in November?
Posted on May 31, 2012 11:12 pm by Rick Hasen
NYT explores.
Posted in campaigns, recall elections | Comments Off
“Runoff Draws Big Money and Heated Words”
Posted on May 31, 2012 11:08 pm by Rick Hasen
NYT reports on Dewhurst-Cruz in Texas.
Posted in campaign finance, campaigns | Comments Off
“U.S. judge blocks key parts of Fla. law regulating
voter registration”
Posted on May 31, 2012 11:05 pm by Rick Hasen
WaPo reports. MORE from NYT.
Posted in NVRA (motor voter), The Voting Wars, voter
registration | Comments Off
“DOJ eyes Florida voter roll purge of non-U.S. citizens”
Posted on May 31, 2012 11:02 pm by Rick Hasen
Politico reports.
Posted in Department of Justice, voter registration,
voting, Voting Rights Act | Comments Off
“Candidates use lawyers for early battles’
Posted on May 31, 2012 11:00 pm by Rick Hasen
TribLive: “Pennsylvania candidates are increasingly
turning to the courts to settle election disputes — and
vanquish opponents. State court administrators reported
on Thursday that Commonwealth Court, which deals with
election disputes involving candidates for a state
office or higher, has handled a record 131 election
cases this year.”
Posted in campaigns | Comments Off
“Coalition challenges voter ID amendment”
Posted on May 31, 2012 10:58 pm by Rick Hasen
AP: “Four groups petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court
on Wednesday to remove from the November ballot a
proposed constitutional amendment requiring voters to
present photo IDs at the polls, saying the language that
voters will see doesn’t accurately describe the
amendment.”
Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars,
voter id | Comments Off
“Holder’s Chutzpah; Voter-ID laws are not about denying
access to blacks.”
Posted on May 31, 2012 10:57 pm by Rick Hasen
Thomas Sowell has written this article for National
Review Online.
Posted in election administration, fraudulent fraud
squad, The Voting Wars, voter id | Comments Off
WaPo on Edwards
Posted on May 31, 2012 7:45 pm by Rick Hasen
Here.
Posted in campaign finance, chicanery, John Edwards |
Comments Off
NYT on Edwards Verdict
Posted on May 31, 2012 6:16 pm by Rick Hasen
Here.
MORE: Another High-Profile Failure for a Justice Dept.
Watchdog
Posted in campaign finance, chicanery, John Edwards |
Comments Off
“Edwards case may have little effect on campaign
finance”
Posted on May 31, 2012 6:14 pm by Rick Hasen
The News and Observer reports.
Posted in campaign finance, chicanery, John Edwards |
Comments Off
“Justice Department Demands Florida Stop Purging Voter
Rolls”
Posted on May 31, 2012 6:10 pm by Rick Hasen
TPM: “The Justice Department sent a letter to Florida
Secretary of State Ken Detzner Thursday evening
demanding the state cease purging its voting rolls
because the process it is using has not been cleared
under the Voting Rights Act, TPM has learned.”
Posted in Department of Justice, election
administration, The Voting Wars, voting, Voting Rights
Act | Comments Off
“Is John Edwards verdict the last straw for campaign
finance?”
Posted on May 31, 2012 4:45 pm by Rick Hasen
The CS Monitor reports.
Posted in campaign finance, chicanery, John Edwards |
Comments Off
Both Sides Seem to Claim Victory in Florida Voter
Registration Case
Posted on May 31, 2012 4:40 pm by Rick Hasen
See this AP report. But the fact that the state may
appeal is a good sign that this was more of a win for
plaintiffs.
Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars |
Comments Off
Gerstein on the Edwards Case
Posted on May 31, 2012 4:38 pm by Rick Hasen
Here.
Posted in campaign finance, chicanery, John Edwards |
Comments Off
WSJ on Edwards Case
Posted on May 31, 2012 4:35 pm by Rick Hasen
Here.
Posted in campaign finance, chicanery, John Edwards |
Comments Off
“John Edwards’ Might’ve Walked But Trial Still A Warning
For Politicians”
Posted on May 31, 2012 4:33 pm by Rick Hasen
NPR reports.
Posted in campaign finance, chicanery, John Edwards |
Comments Off
“A Cad Gets His Due; The world knows that John Edwards
is loathsome. That’s enough.”
Posted on May 31, 2012 3:34 pm by Rick Hasen
Must-read Emily Bazelon on John Edwards.
Posted in campaign finance, chicanery, John Edwards |
Comments Off
“‘Bad Kemo’ riles the Sunshine State: Pre-emptive vote
tampering threatens majority rule”
Posted on May 31, 2012 3:17 pm by Rick Hasen
Hugh Carter Donohue has written this oped for the
Tallahassee News.
Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars |
Comments Off
“Buddy Roemer quits 2012 race”
Posted on May 31, 2012 3:16 pm by Rick Hasen
Politico reports.
The underreported story so far of the presidential
campaign: (Where) might Gary Johnson make a difference?
Posted in ballot access, campaigns, third parties |
Comments Off
--
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
--
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
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
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/20120604/99f0e9f0/attachment.html>
View list directory