[EL] Another great day for disclosure.

[Mark Schmitt]

Could one of you please provide a link to something that explains this, and
why it is a civil-rights claim. I've clicked on all the links in Steve
Klein's post and find nothing.

And a little googling has convinced me that Dale Warsham is a very bad guy
and should be recalled, but I'm no closer to understanding the dispute as
described here, or why an ordinary legal case constitutes "harassment" or
"intimidation."

Mark Schmitt
Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute <http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/>
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: mschmitt9


On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org> wrote:

>  Adam, I don’t understand your point.  The campaign did not receive
> in-kind legal services as a political contribution.  They received legal
> services to which they are entitled under the federal civil rights laws.
> One of those laws, 42 U.S.C. sec. 1988, manifests Congress’s desire to have
> people and associations restore their federal civil rights *at no cost to
> themselves—*that is, put them (and their attorneys) back in the same
> position as they would have been had a state or local government not
> interfered with their federal civil rights in the first place.  They would
> not have needed to have any legal representation on the issue except a
> state government was depriving them of rights guaranteed to them under
> federal law.  I don’t see how vindicating a federal right under the
> procedure that Congress created to vindicate federal rights to restore them
> to the position they were in prior to the violation of those rights can
> constitute an in-kind contribution to a political campaign.****
>
> ** **
>
> In other words, it doesn’t complicate the story.  It makes it simpler—it
> is exactly what the federal civil rights laws were designed to do.
> Treating them otherwise complicates things because it creates a serious
> barrier to free legal representation to those whose federal civil rights
> have been violated just because they were exercising their fundamental
> First Amendment rights by participating in an election.****
>
> ** **
>
> Bill****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Adam Bonin
> *Sent:* Friday, April 12, 2013 6:20 AM
> *To:* 'Steve Hoersting'; 'Steve Klein'
>
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Another great day for disclosure.****
>
>  ** **
>
> I want to make sure I understand the claim here, because I guess in this
> case the (c)(3) is serving as counsel to a political entity, and not merely
> as an independent amicus?  ****
>
> ** **
>
> It also seems, based on the complaint (
> http://www.pdc.wa.gov/Home/enforcement/status/pdfs/2013/13028.CUI.pdf),
> that the gravamen of the complaint is that the recall committee was seeking
> reimbursement for the in-kind legal services it had received, but hadn’t
> previously disclosed those services as contributions. So that complicates
> the story you’re trying to tell, at a minimum. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Adam C. Bonin
> The Law Office of Adam C. Bonin
> 1900 Market Street, 4th Floor
> Philadelphia, PA 19103
> (215) 864-8002 (w)
> (215) 701-2321 (f)
> (267) 242-5014 (c)****
>
> adam at boninlaw.com****
>
> http://www.boninlaw.com****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Steve
> Hoersting
> *Sent:* Friday, April 12, 2013 8:30 AM
> *To:* Steve Klein
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Another great day for disclosure.****
>
> ** **
>
> Shocking. Wish I could say the tactic is surprising.****
>
> ** **
>
> Well, if this policy sticks and proliferates, I can think of nothing that
> will better bolster the *Socialist Workers* exemption in administrative
> agencies and district courts across America. Green Party candidates pushing
> constitutional questions will qualify, of course; Tea Party candidates will
> not...****
>
> ** **
>
> And we will all profess to be shocked again.****
>
> ** **
>
> Steve****
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Steve Klein <stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com>
> wrote:****
>
> “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
> to say it.”****
>
> ** **
>
> Apparently the Washington Public Disclosure Commission<http://wyliberty.org/feature/another-chilling-step-in-campaign-finance-disclosure/>never heard that one before<http://wyliberty.org/feature/another-chilling-step-in-campaign-finance-disclosure/>
> . ****
>
> ** **
>
> I heard about this yesterday, but I remain shocked. If you can't shut up
> the grassroots, shut down their lawyers. It's somewhat brilliant, but don't
> call it "reform."
>
> -- ****
>
> Steve Klein****
>
> Staff Attorney & Research Counsel*****
>
> Wyoming Liberty Group****
>
> www.wyliberty.org****
>
>
> **Licensed to practice law in Illinois. Counsel to the Wyoming Liberty
> Group pursuant to Rule 5.5(d) of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct.
> * ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Stephen M. Hoersting****
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130412/b331ff29/attachment.html>