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

[Steve Hoersting]

Yes, the line between fully in FEC land and entirely out
does need brightening.  (We all agree there is some speech the FEC does not
regulate, I hope).  The stakes are just too high and speakers are not
feeling reassured, despite the First Amendment ... as the latest Advisory
Opinion Request from HoltzmanVogelJosefiak makes clear.

Steve

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Benjamin Barr <benjamin.barr at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120502/4d003b90/attachment.html>