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

Jonathan Singer jonathanhsinger at gmail.com
Tue Aug 6 05:11:35 PDT 2013 

In its majestic equality, the law permits rich and poor alike to spend
unlimited, unregulated and undisclosed millions on elections...


On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 7:47 AM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:

> **
> 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
> 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 <%28202%29%20862-7836>
>>> >>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
Jonathan Singer
(503) 705-2952
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130806/10150034/attachment.html>

View list directory