[EL] "We the People" as "CEO"
Paul Lehto
lehto.paul at gmail.com
Fri May 11 14:03:33 PDT 2012
The CEO analogy is only brought out in case someone is unfamiliar with
sovereignty and the fact that there is always a sovereign power in any
political system. The sovereign makes the final decision from which there
is no recourse. I am happy to abandon the CEO analogy especially in
discussion with those familiar with political science concept of
sovereignty.
Having abandoned a helpful but admittedly imperfect CEO analogy, we're back
to the sovereignty of We the People in elections. "We" are subjects of the
law most of any given year, but in elections we are sovereign. See
Montesquieu. This is the fundamental reality of any republic, the citizens
have two hats, one sovereign (in connection with suffrages) and one as
subject. There is always a sovereign in any political system, sometimes a
split sovereignty, but within elections it is clear that the People have
sovereignty and there are no other legitimate claimants.
So, unless you contest that We the People are sovereign in elections, I
don't see any basis for insisting on *a right* to speak anonymously to the
sovereign. It's irrational for any sovereign not to care whether their
information comes from what they perceive to be a trusted source or from an
unreliable source.
Paul Lehto, J.D.
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu> wrote:
> I’m puzzled by the CEO analogy. If I want to send
> messages to a CEO, the CEO generally doesn’t have the right to use legal
> coercion to require that I sign my name to the messages, or otherwise
> disclose my identity. Under some circumstances, the CEO could subpoena
> such information, but he’d have to show (at least) that my identity is
> relevant to some legal claim he might have against someone, which would
> rarely be the case. It is indeed the case that “the CEO of a company has
> no right to know who is speaking to them,” if by “right” we mean the power
> to use legal coercion to demand that the speaker’s identity be revealed.**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> The same is true even if I were an employee sending
> messages to the CEO. The CEO might examine the company’s own property to
> try to identify me, but again he couldn’t use legal coercion to get such
> information. And beyond that, I’d like to think that American citizens are
> generally not “employees” of either the governmenr or of “We the People.”*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> Now this doesn’t resolve the question whether anonymous
> statements – whether about elections, or about other subjects that might
> well be highly relevant to elections – should or should not be prohibited
> in certain contexts, whether the speech is of “fat cats” or others who
> spend their money to express their views. I just don’t see how the CEO
> analogy is at all helpful here.****
>
> ** **
>
> Eugene****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Paul Lehto
> *Sent:* Friday, May 11, 2012 12:58 PM
> *To:* Steve Hoersting
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Informational benefit outweighed by cost?****
>
> ** **
>
> Arguing that the disclosure of speaker identities is "too high a cost on
> speech rights" is just like arguing that the CEO of a company has no right
> to know who is speaking to them because such knowledge might pose "too high
> a cost on speech rights for too little" information.
>
> "We the People" are the "CEO" of this country, specifically in connection
> with elections and voting. It's absurd to think that a sovereign king, CEO
> or electorate has no right to know who it is that is speaking to them. All
> sovereigns do (or else they are not really sovereigns). No one can claim a
> right to use the sovereign's own courts to compel some right to anonymously
> talk into the ear of the sovereign. (If they succeed, then the People are
> not really sovereign in connection with elections).
>
> The so-called right of anonymity is not so absurd, and becomes far more
> arguable, outside the context of elections where sovereignty isn't in
> play. The right of anonymity in elections is a *de facto coup d'etat*attempt against democracy because it defeats obvious rights of
> sovereignty.
>
> With anonymity, political-funding fat cats get to talk, but nobody can
> "talk back" to them, because We don't know who they are. One can infer the
> existence of strings, but isn't allowed to see the puppeteer. No CEO or
> king would stand for that, so why should We the People have to put up with
> it?
>
> Paul Lehto, J.D.****
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com>
> wrote:****
>
> Kim Strassel has another piece in today's *WSJ* intimating that
> the compelled disclosure of independent, non-corrupting speech poses too
> high a cost on speech rights for too little benefit in voter information --
> especially absent a meaningful exemption available not just to Vandersloot,
> for whom it is too late, but to other would-be funders noticing this
> treatment, and eager to seek an exemption as John Doe or Jane Doe.
> ****
>
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304070304577396412560038208.html
> ****
>
>
> --
> Stephen M. Hoersting****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election****
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> P.O. Box 1
> Ishpeming, MI 49849
> lehto.paul at gmail.com
> 906-204-4026 (cell)
>
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
--
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI 49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120511/2ceff5eb/attachment.html>
View list directory