[EL] "Citizens United poised to destroy judicial impartiality"
Mark Schmitt
schmitt.mark at gmail.com
Mon Aug 5 12:42:42 PDT 2013
I don't know who the "they" is here, but both Mr. LaRue and Mr. Bopp
referred to the goal of supporting candidates. Not speaking about issues.
On 8/5/2013 3:33 PM, Benjamin Barr wrote:
> You're missing the point, Mark.
>
> They don't want to support candidates. They'd like to speak about
> issues closely tied to candidates. Government and bureaucratic
> overseers believe they can divine the intent of these groups and the
> "true purpose" of their advocacy. The groups don't think they need to
> register with the government or hire scores of expensive cartel
> members to exercise First Amendment freedoms.
>
> The burden created is ambiguous standards to determine who's in and
> who's out of the regulatory bucket and overbroad application of PAC
> rules to groups that don't intend to oppose or support candidates.
> Those burdens come from government, as do the ensuing financial
> costs. Even those of modest means have full First Amendment rights.
>
> The question is not "are there other less attractive means to speak,"
> but "is the manner in which they'd like to speak freely open to them
> without undue government interference?" That government "leaves open
> 'more burdensome' avenues of communication, does not relieve its
> burden on First Amendment expression." Meyer v. Grant (citing, yes,
> MCFL). That's settled law, too.
>
> Then there's a question of group autonomy and self-direction. Why
> should I be forced to join the NRA if I don't like it? Why can't I
> make my own group, absent piles of government burdens, to express my
> distinct views with my friends? Why are people of modest means
> limited to only joining and supporting the tired parade of the status
> quo? Why should my coffee clutch have to register with the federal
> government and declare its "major purpose" is the nomination or defeat
> of candidates when it is not? The ACLU has made this argument before,
> as has the Chamber, and numerous other groups.
>
> Burdens come from government schemes to filter, purify, and cleanse
> the political process. That these misguided efforts hit those of
> modest means most severely should suggest their swift eradication.
> Here's hoping so!
>
> Forward,
>
> Ben
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com
> <mailto:schmitt.mark at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > If the principle is that people of ordinary means should be able to,
> as Joe LaRue put it, "pool my money with others to support a candidate
> whose ideas I like", then why is the appropriate measure of a burden
> on that expression the difficulty of creating a new PAC or new
> corporation? Shouldn't the question be, whether for an individual,
> there exists a reasonable mechanism to join with others to support
> such a candidate? In my experience, there are usually quite a few
> ways to do that. There is, of course, the $5200 (primary and general)
> that you can pool in hard money, which as I learned when a close
> relative ran for Congress last year and I actually felt obliged to max
> out, is really quite a bit of money for an ordinary household. (It was
> my family's largest single expenditure of the year, on anything.) In
> addition, there are generally numerous other established PACs or other
> committees through which one can support one or more candidates, as
> well as countless opportunities to support candidates that emphasize
> particular issues, e.g. Club for Growth or League of Conservation
> Voters. That was the case both before and after CU and SpeechNow.
> "People of modest means" have no shortage of channels through which
> they can join to support candidates.
> >
> > The burden on the political speech of "people of modest means" is
> their modest means, not the paperwork hurdles of starting their own PAC.
> >
> >
> > Mark Schmitt
> > Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute
> > 202/246-2350
> > gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
> > twitter: mschmitt9
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Benjamin Barr
> <benjamin.barr at gmail.com <mailto:benjamin.barr at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> What's more, last I checked the electric company didn't:
> >>
> >> Examine whether your little greenhouse might constitute the
> "functional equivalent" of electricity and turn your "major purpose"
> into electricity production;
> >> Change its billing practices on a month-to-month or
> customer-to-customer basis based on factors like "proximity of
> customer to the electron's nexus";
> >> Demand that you hire scores of attorneys and accountants to figure
> out obscure electricity pricing practices known only by a few dozen
> members of a select cartel;
> >> Use the coercive power of the state to launch civil or criminal
> investigations;
> >> Haul you before it for investigatory purposes with few basic
> constitutional rights recognized;
> >> Or otherwise set up convoluted barriers to exercising a fundamental
> liberty.
> >>
> >>
> >> Forward,
> >>
> >> Ben
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Steve Klein
> <stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com <mailto:stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Joe,
> >>>
> >>> I think it's worth considering that it's not just each step of PAC
> (etc.) compliance that burdens political speech, but the fact that one
> wrong move can result in civil penalties. The alternative between
> paying attorney and/or accountant fees for compliance versus risking
> penalties when one tries it with no expertise does not strike me as
> friendly toward grassroots participation.
> >>>
> >>> Unlike paying the power bill, this is political speech we're
> talking about. It should be just as easy to engage than to actually
> vote in a federal election.
> >>>
> >>> Steve
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Joseph Birkenstock
> <jbirkenstock at capdale.com <mailto:jbirkenstock at capdale.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> True story: I had a law school roommate (great guy, this was our
> third year of law school and we’re all still close friends to this
> day) who came to me and our other roommate one time to complain that
> we had unfairly divided up the household chores. Roommate A felt
> overburdened, he explained, because in addition to doing a full share
> of kitchen-cleaning and trash-taking-out and so forth, he was also
> responsible for “paying the power bill.”
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Roommate C & I looked at each other kind of quizzically at this
> point, since we divided up all the utilities three ways and we each
> paid a third. So Roommate A went on to explain that while we did all
> in fact pay the same share in dollars, only he was responsible for
> (and I’m pretty sure I can recall this quote verbatim): “Picking up
> the checks, stuffing the envelope, putting a stamp on the envelope,
> putting it in the mail, etc.”
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> We all had a lot of fun with that “etc.” in particular over the
> years, since regardless of the serious threats Roommate A faced from
> paper cuts and the like in steps one through three, we’re all pretty
> sure that there’s actually nothing else involved in paying the power
> bill once you’ve put it in the mail. And in sum, no matter how you
> count the steps, physically paying the power bill is in fact pretty
> trivially easy.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Even easier than running a PAC.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>>
> >>>> Joe
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Benjamin Barr [mailto:benjamin.barr at gmail.com
> <mailto:benjamin.barr at gmail.com>]
> >>>> Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 1:27 PM
> >>>> To: Joseph Birkenstock
> >>>> Cc: Brad Smith; Jim Bopp; Salvador Peralta; law-election at uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>; joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
> <mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>; adam at boninlaw.com
> <mailto:adam at boninlaw.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [EL] "Citizens United poised to destroy judicial
> impartiality"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On that point, MCFL lists some 23 burdens related to PAC status.
> CU eliminates two (corporate prohibition and solicitation). Speechnow
> removes one more ($5000 limit). I still count twenty burdens
> (perpetual reporting, accounting and banking methods, detailed
> disbursements in 12 categories, and so on). Seems like an effective
> speech gag for most Americans of moderate means.
> >>>>
> >>>> And then again , CU actually says that even if PACs somehow
> resolved the corporate ban issue , they're still burdensome as a
> matter of law because they're so difficult to set up and administer.
> Doesn't seem like there's much wiggle room around that.
> >>>>
> >>>> Forward,
> >>>>
> >>>> Ben
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent by my Android device. Please excuse any typographical errors.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Aug 5, 2013 1:13 PM, "Joseph Birkenstock"
> <jbirkenstock at capdale.com <mailto:jbirkenstock at capdale.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On the point about the ease of pursing the PAC option: I think
> it’s worth bearing in mind how much those burdens have changed in
> recent years. Before Speechnow v. FEC (i.e., under the law at the
> time Citizens United was litigated), becoming a federal PAC meant
> complying with a $5,000 per calendar year limit on each individual’s
> contributions, and sharing that side of each donor’s biennial
> aggregate limit with every other federal PAC & party committee. In
> many states and localities, even IE-only PACs still face at least
> stated interpretations from regulators that their donors are still
> subject to respective state or local PAC contribution limits.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I don’t disagree that opponents of campaign finance regulation
> continue to greatly overstate the burdens of creating a PAC
> (especially, as Adam also points out, compared to the burdens of
> creating a corporation), but too many proponents of campaign finance
> regulation greatly understated those burdens for a long time too.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>>
> >>>> Joe
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>> Joseph M. Birkenstock, Esq.
> >>>> Caplin & Drysdale, Chtd.
> >>>> One Thomas Circle, NW
> >>>> Washington, DC 20005
> >>>> (202) 862-7836
> >>>> www.capdale.com/jbirkenstock <http://www.capdale.com/jbirkenstock>
> >>>> *also admitted to practice in CA
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf Of
> Salvador Peralta
> >>>> Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 1:01 PM
> >>>> To: JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>; adam at boninlaw.com
> <mailto:adam at boninlaw.com>; joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
> <mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>
> >>>> Cc: law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>;
> BSmith at law.capital.edu <mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [EL] "Citizens United poised to destroy judicial
> impartiality"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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 <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>" <JBoppjr at aol.com
> <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>>
> >>>> To: adam at boninlaw.com <mailto:adam at boninlaw.com>;
> oregon.properties at yahoo.com <mailto:oregon.properties at yahoo.com>;
> joseph.e.larue at gmail.com <mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>
> >>>> Cc: law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>;
> BSmith at law.capital.edu <mailto: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 <mailto: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>
> [mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>]
> >>>> Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 8:41 AM
> >>>> To: adam at boninlaw.com <mailto:adam at boninlaw.com>;
> oregon.properties at yahoo.com <mailto:oregon.properties at yahoo.com>;
> joseph.e.larue at gmail.com <mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>
> >>>> Cc: law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>;
> BSmith at law.capital.edu <mailto: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 <mailto: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>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf Of
> JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
> >>>> Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 7:41 AM
> >>>> To: oregon.properties at yahoo.com
> <mailto:oregon.properties at yahoo.com>; joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
> <mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>
> >>>> Cc: law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>;
> BSmith at law.capital.edu <mailto: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-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
> <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
> >>>> 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-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 <mailto: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>
> [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
> >>>> 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
> >>>> 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
> <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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -> To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we
> inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax
> advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was
> not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
> purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal
> Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another
> party any tax-related matter addressed herein. This message is for the
> use of the intended recipient only. It is from a law firm and may
> contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are
> not the intended recipient any disclosure, copying, future
> distribution, or use of this communication is prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please advise us by return
> e-mail, or if you have received this communication by fax advise us by
> telephone and delete/destroy the document. <-->
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -> To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we
> inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax
> advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was
> not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the
> purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal
> Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another
> party any tax-related matter addressed herein. This message is for the
> use of the intended recipient only. It is from a law firm and may
> contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are
> not the intended recipient any disclosure, copying, future
> distribution, or use of this communication is prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please advise us by return
> e-mail, or if you have received this communication by fax advise us by
> telephone and delete/destroy the document. <-->
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Steve Klein
> >>> Staff Attorney & Research Counsel*
> >>> Wyoming Liberty Group
> >>> www.wyliberty.org <http://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
> <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
--
Mark Schmitt
Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute <http://www.nextnewdeal.net/>
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark twitter: mschmitt9
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130805/5701816b/attachment.html>
View list directory