[EL] Real Truth About Obama & Jim Bopp

Tue Jun 12 15:14:53 PDT 2012

The tripwire for committee status should be a bright line, not an *ad
hoc*balancing test on a rough and tumble of factors.

Steve

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  No disaster.  Because the consequence is disclosure, not a limit or ban
> on speech.
> And we've been around and around on how much of a burden disclosure is or
> isn't on this listserv--so I don't expect to engage on that point again.
>
>
> On 6/12/12 3:09 PM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
>
> A case-by-case determination of political committee status for an
> independent and non-corrupting organization like Crossroads C4 is a
> disaster -- even if the prospect of a retroactive determination of
> political committee status cannot, now, after *CU*, turn independently
> spent corporate dollars into crimes -- committee status or not.
>
>  Wish this issue were better focused upon, by the Court and everyone
> else, in *SpeechNow.org v. FEC.*  Go get 'em Free Speech,
>
>  Steve Hoersting
>
>  On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 6:03 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>
>
>
>  --
> Stephen M. Hoersting
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>

-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120612/25d2cb22/attachment.html>