[EL] Too Brave for the "Home of the Brave" and the Death of PACs, Free Speech AOR

[Benjamin Barr]

As Jim rightfully points out, PACs are cumbersome entities that impose
burdensome registration and reporting requirements for no justifiable
reason as recognized in MCFL, WRTL, and CU.  Register and report with those
in power just to criticize those in power?  You've got to be kidding me.

Fortunately, that's the precise issue put before the FEC in the Free Speech
AOR - available
here<http://wyliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Free-Speech-AOR-2-29-12-BW.pdf>.
 Oddly enough, when presented with the question defining just who is a
"political committee" and what constitutes "express advocacy" (thus
triggering said panoply of cumbersome regulations), the Commission
deadlocked on the issue.  Half the Commission embraced the notion that it
could divine the intent of my clients - three retired men from Wyoming -
and just exactly what their message meant, while the other three abided by
the wisdom of the judiciary as articulated in the most recent string of
losses suffered by the FEC.  The Commission's clumsy practice of finding
the "electoral portion" (Rorshach) of speech while investigating the "true
meaning" (Psychic Friends) of advertisements is worse than Justice
Stewart's "know it when I see it" standardless standard.

This all illustrates one truth.  The nation's prime agency for the
interpretation and enforcement of federal election law itself does not
understand even the most basic elements of the law and regulations it
oversees.  That might just be because the underlying regulatory structure
is incoherent, unconstitutional, and ultimately unworkable.  This illusion
can't last for long.

Forward,

First Amendment Ben

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 15:25:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: JBoppjr at aol.com
Subject: Re: [EL] Too Brave for the "Home of the Brave"?
To: wmaurer at ij.org, tpotter at capdale.com, hoersting at gmail.com,
       rhasen at law.uci.edu
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Message-ID: <25c9d.de59013.3cd192b3 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

But this is why Trevor like the PAC requirement.  Having lost the  outright
ban on corporate speech, requiring it to be done through a PAC is the  next
best thing.  It prevents 99.97% from speaking.  Jim Bopp


In a message dated 5/1/2012 2:53:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
wmaurer at ij.org writes:

And it's  a lousy alternative, as Justice Kennedy pointed out in Citizens
United.   Of the 5.8 million for-profit corporations in America, less than
2000 formed  PACs.  That's like the government banning purchasing cars, but
saying  it's not a ban on owning an automobile because you can always build
your own  car from scratch.

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120502/baa94d10/attachment.html>