[EL] "Citizens United poised to destroy judicial impartiality"

Sat Aug 3 19:47:54 PDT 2013

The point of CU was to give people of modest means like me the opportunity to join with other people of modest means and compete with the George Soroses of the world. I can't compete with him otherwise. Remember he can spend as much of his own money as he wants. The only chance a little guy like me has is to associate with other people and pool our money. CU was not about benefiting the powerful. It was about the right to freely associate and do as an association what rich people like George Soros can do by themselves.

On Aug 3, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Sal Peralta <oregon.properties at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I have not seen anyone suggest that legislating the content or number of add is appropriate -- though many swing state voters might appreciate it.  It seems to me that the nut of the judge's argument takes aim at the legal fiction that IE's supporting a candidate or tearing down their opponent cannot lead to undue influence.  But I guess giving more influence to the powerful was also "sort of the point" of CU.
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Aug 3, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Sal Peralta <oregon.properties at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/2012/05/02/jump-in-negativity/
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Aug 3, 2013, at 9:46 AM, "Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> Isn't the better comparison a negative "issue ad" to a negative "express advocacy" ad, and a positive to a positive?
>>> 
>>> Is there any evidence that a higher percentage of ads post-CU are negative, or if so, that this is because of CU?
>>> 
>>> To the extent we simply see more ads, well, that was sort of the point of CU and SpeechNow. If one is arguing that we should try to legislate fewer ads, doesn't that reveal that the real purpose is directly to limit the quantity of speech?
>>> 
>>> And again, none of this accounts for the fact that in a majority of states, pre-CU, corporations could pay for express ads, so to bring it back to my original post, I remain baffled why so many predictions of CU are made with no recognition for what the law, and was the results were, pre-CU.
>>> 
>>> Bradley A. Smith
>>> 
>>> Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
>>> 
>>>    Professor of Law
>>> 
>>> Capital University Law School
>>> 
>>> 303 E. Broad St.
>>> 
>>> Columbus, OH 43215
>>> 
>>> 614.236.6317
>>> 
>>> http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
>>> 
>>> From: Trevor Potter [tpotter at capdale.com]
>>> Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 3:10 PM
>>> To: Adam Bonin
>>> Cc: Smith, Brad; law-election at UCI.edu
>>> Subject: Re: [EL] "Citizens United poised to destroy judicial impartiality"
>>> 
>>> Of course, political consultants will tell us that a "thank you" "issue ad" is not as effective as a full- throated negative express advocacy commercial-- which is no doubt why we see more of the latter post- Citizens United in states that prohibited corporate funded IEs-- like Montana.
>>> 
>>> Trevor Potter
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On Aug 3, 2013, at 12:38 PM, "Adam Bonin" <adam at boninlaw.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Perhaps my favorite such example: $1.2M in corporate-funded ads aired in the final week of Pennsylvania’s 2007 election cycle encouraging voters to “thank” Judge Maureen Lally-Green, who happened to be on the ballot for the Supreme Court. (Pre-CU, and PA did not allow corporate contributions or independent expenditures at the time.)  Not only did efforts to enjoin the ads fail (because the ads contained no express advocacy), but the Commonwealth was ordered to reimburse the sponsor for its legal fees, and the sponsor was not required to register as a political committee.
>>>>  
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnifj2A7Has
>>>> http://articles.philly.com/2008-05-07/news/24989915_1_corbett-spokesman-kevin-harley-ads-political-expenditures
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> 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 Smith, Brad
>>>> Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 2:19 PM
>>>> To: law-election at UCI.edu
>>>> Subject: Re: [EL] “Citizens United poised to destroy judicial impartiality”
>>>>  
>>>> What I always find odd when I read such commentary as that of Justice Nelson (1st item below) is the sense that this is somehow new. Is Justice Nelson unaware that prior to 2010 a majority of states, many of which have an elected judiciary, allowed unlimited corporate expenditures? That even in other states and federally, corporations could fund "issue ads," in some states right up until the election, in a few only more than some days out? 
>>>>  
>>>> I can understand arguments against Citizens United, and why people disagree with the decision, but I am constantly baffled by what seems to be the sheer unwillingness to consider the probable consequences of Citizens United in light of the law prior to 2010.
>>>>  
>>>> Bradley A. Smith
>>>> 
>>>> Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
>>>> 
>>>>    Professor of Law
>>>> 
>>>> Capital University Law School
>>>> 
>>>> 303 E. Broad St.
>>>> 
>>>> Columbus, OH 43215
>>>> 
>>>> 614.236.6317
>>>> 
>>>> http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
>>>> 
>>>> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Rick Hasen [rhasen at law.uci.edu]
>>>> Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 1:56 PM
>>>> To: law-election at UCI.edu
>>>> Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 8/3/13
>>>> 
>>>> “Citizens United poised to destroy judicial impartiality”
>>>> 
>>>> Posted on August 3, 2013 10:50 am by Rick Hasen
>>>> Former Montana Supreme Court Justice James C. Nelson, Supreme  who dissented (and was ultimately vindicated) by the United States Supreme Court in ATP v. Bullock, has written this oped for the Missoulian.
>>>> 
>>>> [A}ccording to the Supreme Court, while contributions directly to a candidate breed corruption, corporate expenditures on behalf of a candidate do not have any such corruptive effect.
>>>> 
>>>> For those living in a parallel universe that nuance may make sense, but, in reality it is a dichotomy grounded in utter fiction. Worse, this canard presents a clear and present danger for the majority of states, like Montana, where voters elect their judges and justices. Citizens United applies to judicial elections, too. Make no mistake; its effects will dominate judicial elections.
>>>> 
>>>> <image001.png>
>>>> Posted in campaign finance, judicial elections | Comments Off
>>>> “D.C. group not happy with how Indiana handling complaint”
>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130803/e05517e0/attachment.html>