[EL] Real Truth About Obama & Jim Bopp

[Bill Maurer]

I think that there is a disclosure case out there that will make a court stop and wonder whether there is a limiting principle to disclosure.  It cannot be that the Constitution permits that all political activity, no matter how insignificant and divorced from any concept of corruption, must be reported to the government.  Certainly, no Supreme Court case holds that the government may collect information on all political activity for any purpose at any time, yet many disclosure laws are inching close to that level of picayune reporting.  Like Randall, there will be a case that will eventually make a judge or judges say to the government, "you've gone too far."

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: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 3:03 PM
To: Joe La Rue
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Real Truth About Obama & Jim Bopp

I meant no disrespect to Jim at all.  As I wrote last week on the listserv, he's an excellent lawyer, and the reason he is losing all these cases is because of the strength of the arguments on the other side.

Randall itself is kind of interesting----as you know, when you and I litigated on both sides of the San Diego Thalheimer litigation, it does not appear that there is a single case since Randall in which a court has struck down a campaign contribution limit as too low.  Or at least I could not find or recall one.  Are there any? Many?

But there is no question Jim has had a profound impact on campaign finance law in this country.

On 6/12/12 2:59 PM, Joe La Rue wrote:
Rick,

You wrote, "The courts, especially since Citizens United blew away campaign finance limits, seem much more apt to uphold broad disclosure rules." You're right that courts are upholding "broad disclosure rules," including some instances where unconstitutional PAC-style registration and reporting burdens have simply been re-branded "disclosure" by Government and then upheld by the courts. But Citizens did not "blow away campaign finance limits." Individuals were always free to spend as much as they wanted independently of candidates. All Citizens did was recognize that prior precedent required that right be extended to all who want to speak independently of candidates, including labor unions (and you thought I was going to say "corporations").

As for Jim Bopp, I've worked with him and know him as an attorney pretty well. He's got the tenacity of a bulldog and the patience of Job. Remember, as various progressives warned us, he's got a TEN!!! YEAR!!! PLAN!!! (Horror of Horrors!), and we're barely two years into it. http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/Boppreport.pdf ; http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives/doe_v._reed_bopp_v._scalia . Once upon a time, everyone thought no contribution limit could be too low, and then came Randall v. Sorrell. And of course, once upon a time everyone thought Government could ban every communication that mentioned a candidate during the electioneering communication blackout period, and then came Wisconsin Right to Life. I won't be at all surprised when the Court grants cert to one of Jim's cases and clarifies it meant what it said about the Major Purpose Test.

Joe
___________________
Joseph E. La Rue
cell: 480.272.2715
email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto: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.



--
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<mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120612/54d43c25/attachment.html>