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

Mark Schmitt schmitt.mark at gmail.com
Mon Aug 5 15:38:50 PDT 2013 

Without compromising your privacy, I'd be curious if you (or Mr. Bopp)
could illustrate what it is you wanted to do, that you would not have been
able do through existing channels, either hard money or PAC channels for
express advocacy, or c4 or c3 channels for issue advocacy.



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


On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Joe La Rue <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com> wrote:

> I was speaking to the goal of supporting or opposing a candidate for
> office by using express words of advocacy but without coordination with the
> candidate. This is what is known as an independent expenditure. And this is
> what the Court said in Citizens United did not have to be done through a
> PAC. My understanding was that some on this thread were suggesting that
> Citizens was a bad decision and I was trying to explain, from a very
> personal point of view, how Citizens made it easier for a person like me to
> engage in political speech that I otherwise would not be able to engage in.
>
>
> 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 12:42 PM, Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>  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>
>> 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>
>> 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> 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> 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]
>> >>>> Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 1:27 PM
>> >>>> To: Joseph Birkenstock
>> >>>> Cc: Brad Smith; Jim Bopp; Salvador Peralta; law-election at uci.edu;
>> joseph.e.larue at gmail.com; 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> 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
>> >>>> *also admitted to practice in CA
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: 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; adam at boninlaw.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"
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 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] 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] 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
>> >>>>
>> >>>> =
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> Law-election mailing list
>> >>>> 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
>> >>>> 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
>> >>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Law-election mailing list
>> > 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130805/8490823d/attachment.html>

View list directory