[EL] Real Truth About Obama & Jim Bopp

Tue Jun 12 15:17:22 PDT 2012

Interesting theory, Bill.  Have you heard of an out-of-the way case
called *McIntyre
v. Ohio Elections Commission.*  ;)

- S

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org> wrote:

>  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****
>
>
>
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120612/b3d49ced/attachment.html>