[EL] "Citizens United poised to destroy judicial impartiality"
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Tue Aug 6 04:47:22 PDT 2013
In 1964, I was a sophomore in high school and this was the first election I
was active in -- supporting Barry Goldwater. In Vigo County (a
Democrat-leaning southern Indiana county of about 110,000) there were two
independent groups of local citizens who spontaneously sprang up to support
Goldwater. They opened a bank account, passed the hat, someone offered them a store
front for a few months and they bought literature or got it from the
Goldwater campaign to distribute (now illegal if more than the contribution
limit).
Of course, now, they would be a PAC, have to register and report with the
FEC. They would have to consult with an attorney that knew something about
this to make sure they didn't do anything illegal.
This sort of grassroots activity is now unheard of because people know that
they can get in trouble without the required expertise which is not
available in the vast majority of cities and towns. Only wealthy, sophisticated
groups can do this and they are rare.
This is what we have lost by the 500 pages of statutes and thousands of
pages of regulations. JIm Bopp
In a message dated 8/5/2013 6:40:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
schmitt.mark at gmail.com writes:
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_ (tel: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_
(mailto: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_ (tel:480.272.2715)
email: _joseph.e.larue at gmail.com_ (mailto: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_
(mailto: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_
(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_ (tel: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_ (tel:(202)%20862-7836)
>>>> _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_ (tel: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-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_ (tel:(215)%20864-8002) (w)
>>>> _(215) 701-2321_ (tel:(215)%20701-2321) (f)
>>>> _(267) 242-5014_ (tel:(267)%20242-5014) (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_ (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_ (tel: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”
>>>>
>>>> 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_ (tel:202/246-2350)
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark twitter: mschmitt9
_______________________________________________
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
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/20130806/a3b6fe31/attachment.html>
View list directory