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

Sun Aug 4 05:41:05 PDT 2013

Requiring political speech to be done through a PAC creates, as the Court  
in Citizens United explained, a substantial burden on speech.  As  a result, 
there are only a few thousand corporate PACs but millions of  corporations. 
 Only the most wealthy and sophisticated corporations have  the 
wherewithall to and interest in negotiating these burdens, so again the PAC  
requirement favors the wealthy and disenfranchises the rest of us.  Jim  Bopp 

In a message dated 8/4/2013 8:24:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
adam at boninlaw.com writes:

Fine,  I’ll bite: what about PACs?  If we’re only talking about people of  
average means, and not the 0.26% of citizens who’ve given more than $200 to 
a  congressional candidate (or 0.05% who’ve given a maximum contribution), 
why  weren’t PACs already a sufficient answer to the problem you claim 
existed?   

From:  law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu  
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of  JBoppjr at aol.com
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 7:41  AM
To: oregon.properties at yahoo.com;  joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
Cc: law-election at uci.edu;  BSmith at law.capital.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] "Citizens United poised to  destroy judicial impartiality"

Mr.  Oregon.Properties, rather than accuse Joe of being disingenuous, try 
for a  second to substantively address his point.  

I  summarize: Rich people can spend their own money but people of average 
means  need to pool their resources to compete.  They do so in labor unions 
and  corporations.  So when you limit labor unions and corporations, you are  
targeting the only vehicle that people of average means have, and not the  
wealthy, who can always spend their own money without limitation.   

No  wonder George Soros and the wealthiest foundations fund the "reform"  
industry.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated  8/4/2013 3:08:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
_oregon.properties at yahoo.com_ (mailto:oregon.properties at yahoo.com)   writes:

Joe  - Do you have to practice in front of a mirror to keep a straight face 
when  you say things like that?  

http://www.demos.org/publication/election-spending-2012-post-election-analys
is-federal-election-commission-data?key=0

Sent  from my iPhone

On  Aug 3, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Joe La Rue <_joseph.e.larue at gmail.com_ 
(mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com) >  wrote:

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_ 
(mailto: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_ 
(mailto: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_ 
(mailto: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_ (mailto:tpotter at capdale.com) ]
Sent:  Saturday, August 03, 2013 3:10 PM
To: Adam  Bonin
Cc: Smith, Brad; _law-election at UCI.edu_ (mailto: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_ 
(mailto: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-kevi
n-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_ (mailto:adam at boninlaw.com)  
_http://www.boninlaw.com_ (http://www.boninlaw.com/)  

From:  _law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_ 
(mailto: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_ (mailto: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_ 
(mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu)   
[_law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_ (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu) ]  on 
behalf of Rick Hasen [_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) ]
Sent: Saturday,  August 03, 2013 1:56 PM
To: _law-election at UCI.edu_ (mailto:law-election at UCI.edu) 
Subject: [EL] ELB  News and Commentary 8/3/13

_“Citizens  United poised to destroy judicial impartiality”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53956)   

Posted on _August 3, 2013 10:50 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53956)  
by _Rick  Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)  

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 f_ 
(http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/citizens-united-poised-to-destroy-judicial-impartiality/article_2
d25e012-fab8-11e2-833b-001a4bcf887a.html) or 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>_ 
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53956&title=“
Citizens%20United%20poised%20to%20destroy%20judicial%20impartiality”&description=) 

Posted in _campaign  finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) , 
_judicial  elections_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19)  |  Comments Off  

_“D.C.  group not happy with how Indiana handling complaint”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53953)   

_______________________________________________
Law-election  mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_ 
(mailto: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_ 
(mailto: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_ 
(mailto: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_ 
(mailto: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/20130804/ea45b83e/attachment.html>