[EL] “The Anti-ALEC alliance: Group at heart of anti-conservative crusade is shadowy organization funded by leftwing millionaires and ``billionaires”

Thu Jun 14 09:28:16 PDT 2012

Yeah, when someone or group is demanding that you disclose all your donors, and is then boycotting or threatening to boycott them to get them to stop supporting you, and that someone or group doesn't disclose it's donors, it's a pretty normal debating tactic to point that out. It's a sort of "mutual assured destruction" approach. I don't think it suggest any hypocrisy on the part of those being attacked by the anonymously funded group.

It's also, of course, a means to try to discredit the attack in the first place. Sometimes, just the knowledge that a group doesn't disclose donors can damage its credibility. But some people aren't content with that and seek to use the force of government to compel disclosure of political activity.

Bradley A. Smith

Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault

   Professor of Law

Capital University Law School

303 E. Broad St.

Columbus, OH 43215

614.236.6317

http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx

________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Joe La Rue [joseph.e.larue at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 12:21 PM
To: Rick Hasen
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] “The Anti-ALEC alliance: Group at heart of anti-conservative crusade is shadowy organization funded by leftwing millionaires and ``billionaires”

Everything you quoted is a report; so, yes, I stand by "just reporting." It's true: the money is secret, as the Free Beacon reported. But, in my view, that does not make it wrong, and neither the Free Beacon nor anyone quoted in the article claims it is.

It is, however, frustrating to not know who supports and funds these efforts. I get that. I would like to know who is funding the attack on ALEC. But my curiousity and desire to know should not trump the donors' First Amendment right to privacy in their association.  Because none of the interests in compelled disclosure identified by the Supreme Court in Buckley and its progeny is implicated, issue advocacy disclosure should not be compelled.

If any of the donors are part of the reform community, though, one would think they would self-report. After all, it would be hypocritical to demand that others disclose their donations while keeping their own secret. I trust, therefore, that no reformers are donating to these groups.

Joe
___________________
Joseph E. La Rue
cell: 480.272.2715<tel: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.

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
Just reporting Joe?  You don't think that the implication of the article is that the funders should be disclosed?  Here's a piece of it:

Matthew Vadum, who investigates foundations for the Capital Research Center, said the Democracy Alliance is “very secret.”

“They’re not required to file a 990 IRS form because they’re not a tax-exempt non-profit,” Vadum said. “And the money doesn’t pass through their hands anyway. It’s what some people call a ‘donors’ collaborative’ for wealthy left-wingers.”

I believe the same rules for disclosure should apply to the left and right.  I want to see disclosure of election-related funding, as well as disclosure of funding for lobbying activities---regardless of the ideological position of those buying the ads.

On 6/14/2012 8:53 AM, Joe La Rue wrote:
Referring to the Washington Free Beacon article about the alliance trying to dismantle ALEC, Rick wrote that "the right wants disclosure of funding for issue advocacy." As you might imagine, I support ALEC and hate what's happening to them. But I'm also opposed to disclosure for issue advocacy. So I quickly clicked the link to find out which conservatives are pushing for disclosure of issue advocacy donors. And, unless I'm missing it, the article doesn't say that any are. Rather, the Free Beacon has reported that secret money is funding the effort, with no call that it be disclosed. It's simply reporting, which I think is fair for conservatives to do.

It's surprising, though, that reformers haven't demanded that the money being given to ProgressNow and Democracy Alliance be disclosed. I would expect reformers to make that demand, if they really are concerned about disclosure, and not just disclosure of the funding of GOP and conservative-leaning advocacy. But unless I've missed it, the usual reformer groups are completely silent on this one.

Joe
___________________
Joseph E. La Rue
cell: 480.272.2715<tel: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<tel:949.824.3072> - office
949.824.0495<tel: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
www.thevotingwars.com<http://www.thevotingwars.com>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120614/1b78f6b2/attachment.html>