[EL] Informational benefit outweighed by cost?

[Steve Hoersting]

Salvador,

Find a way into the *Montana* case and you'll get your chance to advocate
that "closer examination."  For now it's *res judicata.*  Or do I mean
collateral estoppel? ;)

Best and good weekend all,

Steve

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Salvador Peralta <
oregon.properties at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I think the term "non-corrupting" speech needs closer examination.  When
> individual donors are spending more on "speech" than the candidates
> themselves in particular races, as apparently happened in Republican
> primary states such as South Carolina, there is every reason to believe
> that the potential for corruption exists.
>
> I see no good reason to pretend that a $2 million ad buy is not a $2
> million ad buy regardless of whether it goes directly into a candidate's
> campaign coffers or whether it goes into the coffers of a pac that is
> controlled by subordinates or allies of the candidate.
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com>
> *To:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Sent:* Friday, May 11, 2012 11:45 AM
> *Subject:* [EL] Informational benefit outweighed by cost?
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120511/a0693fec/attachment.html>