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

[Joe La Rue]

Laying aside the question regarding why an association of
like-minded people should have to register with the government before they
engage in political speech, setting up a PAC may or may not be
difficult, depending on one's viewpoint. But maintaining the PAC is quite
difficult. If you haven't had to jump through the PAC maintanence
hoops, you should read pages 897 and 898 of the Citizens United opinion.
There, Justice Kennedy explained some of what's involved, and why it is
fairly called "burdensome and onerous."

This leads me to what I think is an important question: why should two
people of average means who want to pool their money have to jump through
those types of "burdesome and onerous" hoops just to be able to pay for a
political advertisement, if they are not coordinating with a candidate? The
net effect of those laws is to make it so that people like me cannot easily
participate in the process. It may be that, as Sal claims, there aren't
many people like me taking advantage of the freedom of speech the Citizens
United Court recognized. I don't know; I haven't looked at the research.
But at least now we can if we want to, and the ability to speak to large
audiences about elections is no longer limited to the super wealthy. And
that, in my mind, is a good thing.


Joe
___________________
*Joseph E. La Rue*
cell: 480.272.2715
email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender
and permanently delete the message.

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION/ATTORNEY WORK
PRODUCT.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Any tax advice contained in this communication
was not written and is not intended to be used for the purpose of (i)
avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
marketing, or recommending any transaction or matter addressed herein.



On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Salvador Peralta <
oregon.properties at yahoo.com> wrote:

> As Adam points out, Jim's argument about the "difficulties in setting up a
> pac" relative to a corporation is questionable at best.  In practical
> terms, the main reason to use a corporation rather than a pac is to avoid
> disclosure of the actual funding sources, not because PAC's are
> particularly difficult to set up.
>
> Regarding Jim's false assertion that most reformers want people of
> "average means" to spend zero on Independent Expenditures..."  It's a
> strange argument, given the fact that Jim has the distinction of doing more
> than just about anyone in our nation's history to ensure that, as a
> percentage of total spending, people of average means have much less of an
> ability to influence elections through financial contributions (through
> IE's or anything else).
>
> In 2012, as a percentage of total super pac spending, the amount spent by
> people of limited means (read:  Anyone who can't afford to spend at least
> $1,000) is well nigh to zero.
>
> The data may not track exactly to "people of ordinary means", but as the
> link I sent earlier in the week shows, 98% of the money spent on Super Pac
> IE's in 2012 came from the approximately 2,800 donors who spent more than
> $10,000 and 60% came from donors who spent at least $1,000,000.
>
>
> http://www.demos.org/publication/election-spending-2012-post-election-analysis-federal-election-commission-data?key=0
>
> Out to protect the "little guy" indeed.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sal Peralta
>
>
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>  *From:* "JBoppjr at aol.com" <JBoppjr at aol.com>
>
> *To:* adam at boninlaw.com; oregon.properties at yahoo.com;
> joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu; BSmith at law.capital.edu
> *Sent:* Monday, August 5, 2013 4:30 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] "Citizens United poised to destroy judicial
> impartiality"
>
>  If the reformers had their way, it would be zero.  Jim Bopp
>
>  In a message dated 8/4/2013 8:50:20 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> adam at boninlaw.com writes:
>
>  Which is all interesting analysis if the corporation already exists, but
> not if it doesn’t – a PAC doesn’t require by-laws or articles of
> incorporation; it doesn’t have to publish its existence in classified ads
> in newspapers of sufficient circulation; its tax obligations are much
> easier to deal with; it does not have to have a board of directors required
> to meet regularly and take minutes; etc.
>
> Exactly what percentage of independent expenditures during the 2012
> election were funded by “people of average means”?
>
>  *From:* JBoppjr at aol.com [mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 04, 2013 8:41 AM
> *To:* adam at boninlaw.com; 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"
>
>  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<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 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-analysis-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> 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>
> 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<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”<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_2d25e012-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%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D53956&title=%E2%80%9CCitizens%20United%20poised%20to%20destroy%20judicial%20impartiality%E2%80%9D&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
> 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
>
> =
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130805/789abf8a/attachment.html>