[EL] "Citizens United poised to destroy judicial impartiality"
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Tue Aug 6 05:09:56 PDT 2013
Regarding this post:
Regarding Jim's false assertion that most reformers want people of
"average means" to spend zero on Independent Expenditures..."
The first version of McCain-Feingold abolished all PACs. The "reform"
industry supported this for years, ginning out studies showing a correlation
between votes of members of Congress and contributions they received from
PACs. After a decade or so of pushing this idea that went no where (PACs are
the most likely actor in the political system to support incumbents), they
suddenly switched to the idea that all political activity has to be done by
PACs. This is the debate we are now having.
So I assume that the "reformers" were being honest when they pushed banning
PACs, that this is a goal of theirs as they said it was for years. So,
putting two and two together, if the "reformers" had their way, they would
force all political activity into PACs and then abolish them. Presto, zero
political activity by people of average means and only the wealthy who fund
the "reform" industry get to speak. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 8/5/2013 1:01:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
oregon.properties at yahoo.com writes:
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-analys
is-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_ (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] 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-analys
is-federal-election-commission-data?key=0
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 3, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Joe La Rue <_joseph.e.larue at gmail.com_
(mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com) > wrote:
The point of CU was to give people of modest means like me the opportunity
to join with other people of modest means and compete with the George
Soroses of the world. I can't compete with him otherwise. Remember he can
spend as much of his own money as he wants. The only chance a little guy like
me has is to associate with other people and pool our money. CU was not
about benefiting the powerful. It was about the right to freely associate and
do as an association what rich people like George Soros can do by themselves.
On Aug 3, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Sal Peralta <_oregon.properties at yahoo.com_
(mailto:oregon.properties at yahoo.com) > wrote:
I have not seen anyone suggest that legislating the content or number of
add is appropriate -- though many swing state voters might appreciate it.
It seems to me that the nut of the judge's argument takes aim at the legal
fiction that IE's supporting a candidate or tearing down their opponent
cannot lead to undue influence. But I guess giving more influence to the
powerful was also "sort of the point" of CU.
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 3, 2013, at 9:56 AM, Sal Peralta <_oregon.properties at yahoo.com_
(mailto:oregon.properties at yahoo.com) > wrote:
http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/2012/05/02/jump-in-negativity/
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 3, 2013, at 9:46 AM, "Smith, Brad" <_BSmith at law.capital.edu_
(mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu) > wrote:
Isn't the better comparison a negative "issue ad" to a negative "express
advocacy" ad, and a positive to a positive?
Is there any evidence that a higher percentage of ads post-CU are
negative, or if so, that this is because of CU?
To the extent we simply see more ads, well, that was sort of the point of
CU and SpeechNow. If one is arguing that we should try to legislate fewer
ads, doesn't that reveal that the real purpose is directly to limit the
quantity of speech?
And again, none of this accounts for the fact that in a majority of
states, pre-CU, corporations could pay for express ads, so to bring it back to
my original post, I remain baffled why so many predictions of CU are made
with no recognition for what the law, and was the results were, pre-CU.
Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
614.236.6317
http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
____________________________________
From: Trevor Potter [_tpotter at capdale.com_ (mailto:tpotter at capdale.com) ]
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 3:10 PM
To: Adam Bonin
Cc: Smith, Brad; _law-election at UCI.edu_ (mailto:law-election at UCI.edu)
Subject: Re: [EL] "Citizens United poised to destroy judicial
impartiality"
Of course, political consultants will tell us that a "thank you" "issue
ad" is not as effective as a full- throated negative express advocacy
commercial-- which is no doubt why we see more of the latter post- Citizens
United in states that prohibited corporate funded IEs-- like Montana.
Trevor Potter
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 3, 2013, at 12:38 PM, "Adam Bonin" <_adam at boninlaw.com_
(mailto:adam at boninlaw.com) > wrote:
Perhaps my favorite such example: $1.2M in corporate-funded ads aired in
the final week of Pennsylvania’s 2007 election cycle encouraging voters to “
thank” Judge Maureen Lally-Green, who happened to be on the ballot for the
Supreme Court. (Pre-CU, and PA did not allow corporate contributions or
independent expenditures at the time.) Not only did efforts to enjoin the
ads fail (because the ads contained no express advocacy), but the
Commonwealth was ordered to reimburse the sponsor for its legal fees, and the sponsor
was not required to register as a political committee.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnifj2A7Has
http://articles.philly.com/2008-05-07/news/24989915_1_corbett-spokesman-kevi
n-harley-ads-political-expenditures
Adam C. Bonin
The Law Office of Adam C. Bonin
1900 Market Street, 4th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 864-8002 (w)
(215) 701-2321 (f)
(267) 242-5014 (c)
_adam at boninlaw.com_ (mailto:adam at boninlaw.com)
_http://www.boninlaw.com_ (http://www.boninlaw.com/)
From: _law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu)
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Smith, Brad
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 2:19 PM
To: _law-election at UCI.edu_ (mailto:law-election at UCI.edu)
Subject: Re: [EL] “Citizens United poised to destroy judicial impartiality
”
What I always find odd when I read such commentary as that of Justice
Nelson (1st item below) is the sense that this is somehow new. Is Justice
Nelson unaware that prior to 2010 a majority of states, many of which have an
elected judiciary, allowed unlimited corporate expenditures? That even in
other states and federally, corporations could fund "issue ads," in some
states right up until the election, in a few only more than some days out?
I can understand arguments against Citizens United, and why people
disagree with the decision, but I am constantly baffled by what seems to be the
sheer unwillingness to consider the probable consequences of Citizens United
in light of the law prior to 2010.
Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
614.236.6317
http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
____________________________________
From: _law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu)
[_law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_ (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu) ] on
behalf of Rick Hasen [_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) ]
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 1:56 PM
To: _law-election at UCI.edu_ (mailto:law-election at UCI.edu)
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 8/3/13
_“Citizens United poised to destroy judicial impartiality”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53956)
Posted on _August 3, 2013 10:50 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53956)
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)
Former Montana Supreme Court Justice James C. Nelson, Supreme who
dissented (and was ultimately vindicated) by the United States Supreme Court in
ATP v. Bullock, has written _this oped f_
(http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/citizens-united-poised-to-destroy-judicial-impartiality/article_2
d25e012-fab8-11e2-833b-001a4bcf887a.html) or the Missoulian.
[A}ccording to the Supreme Court, while contributions directly to a
candidate breed corruption, corporate expenditures on behalf of a candidate do
not have any such corruptive effect.
For those living in a parallel universe that nuance may make sense, but,
in reality it is a dichotomy grounded in utter fiction. Worse, this canard
presents a clear and present danger for the majority of states, like
Montana, where voters elect their judges and justices. Citizens United applies
to judicial elections, too. Make no mistake; its effects will dominate
judicial elections.
_<image001.png>_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53956&title=“
Citizens%20United%20poised%20to%20destroy%20judicial%20impartiality”&description=)
Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,
_judicial elections_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=19) | Comments Off
_“D.C. group not happy with how Indiana handling complaint”_
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=53953)
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
=
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu)
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130806/c949424d/attachment.html>
View list directory