[EL] Real Truth About Obama & Jim Bopp

[Joe La Rue]

Rick,

You are right: there have been no decisions since *Randall *striking limits
as "too low," though a couple have struck contribution bans (the Second
Circuit *Green Party* decision and the Colorado Supreme Court *Dallman
*decision
come to mind, and there may be others). However, Jim and I have put to the
Supreme Court* *the question whether NYC's special, low contribution limits
for those with "business-dealings" with the City are unconstitutional where
(1) they are below the level at issue in *Randall*; (2) the City has
manifested its judgment that contributions up to much higher, Regular
Limits are not corrupting; and (3) there has not been any record evidence
of quid-pro-quo corruption in NYC since the Regular Limits were instituted
in 1988. The case is set for conference on June 21 and I'm hopeful the
Court will take it.

But, as of right now, to my knowledge you're right: *Randall *is in a class
by itself.


Joe
___________________
*Joseph E. La Rue*
cell: 480.272.2715
email: 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.



On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  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
>
>
> 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
> 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/ff4ef412/attachment.html>