[EL] Prop 8 harassment

[Mark Schmitt]

"What to make of this story?" Well, first note that there's no actual
retribution or intimidation even alleged. According to the Post, a couple
of political entrepreneurs set up a committee to tap the Wall Street
Spitzer-haters (a well-known group, several of whom appeared on camera in
the fascinating film about Spitzer, *Client 9*), then failed to raise any
money at all. They now claim that it's only because potential donors were
fearful of retribution by Spitzer. No intimidated donor is quoted, even
anonymously -- just two schmoes who couldn't raise enough to pay a month's
rent.

As the story acknowledges, other anti-Spitzer committees have had no
trouble raising money, and Spitzer's main opponent, Scott Stringer, has
raised more than $4 million in fully disclosed contributions. For context,
Stringer has raised almost as much as the $4.5 million raised by the
current front-runner for *mayor*, Bill deBlasio. So people don't seem
intimidated about contributing to Spitzer's opponent. And if your concern
is that "a vendetta-driven megalomaniac etc etc" might win, you should be
thankful for New York City's public-financing system, which boosts the
value of Stringer's small donations and puts his total at close to $6
million, vs Spitzer's $8 million. As a result, it's likely to be a very
competitive race, in which name-recognition and other factors will matter
more than the difference in spending.

Current NY fundraising totals here:
http://www.nyccfb.info/VSApps/WebForm_Finance_Summary.aspx?as_election_cycle=2013





On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org> wrote:

>  Professor,****
>
>
> I appreciate your take on private citizen harassment, even though I
> ultimately disagree.  But what to make of this story, then?  ****
>
> ** **
>
>
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/steamroller_spitz_cows_kittish_stringer_25l25EqIpGaq2WtotahHiO
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> It would seem that harassment from elected officials is also legitimate
> concern, perhaps one so significant that it will lead to the election of a
> vendetta-driven megalomaniac who could qualify for a frequent customer card
> from a brothel to run New York City’s finances.  In a similar situation
> (thankfully prostitute-free), I would note that threats from the Nixon
> Administration against the airlines led to the “brown paper bag filled with
> cash” campaign scandals around the time of Watergate.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Does the possibility of government harassment in an age of growing
> government activity raise enough flags to warrant reconsidering
> disclosure?  How do those in favor of disclosure deal with these
> situations, which may be even harder to detect than private citizen
> harassment?  I can’t recall much discussion of this type of harassment here
> or elsewhere.****
>
> ** **
>
> Bill****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Rick Hasen
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 31, 2013 10:20 AM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] Prop 8 harassment****
>
> ** **
>
> Jim Bopp wrote a message which I inadvertently deleted but was able to
> find in this archived post<http://department-lists.uci.edu/pipermail/law-election/2013-August/007755.html>and this
> one<http://department-lists.uci.edu/pipermail/law-election/2013-August/007756.html>.
> In the posts, Jim claimed there were lots of instances of Prop. 8
> supporters be harassed (thanks to mapquesting by the "homosexual lobby" of
> campaign donors).
>
> Jim and I debated this point on the listserv last year.  In that series of
> posts, I pointed out that the courts in the Protectmarriage.com and Doe v.
> Reed cases rejected Jim's claims that there was much unconstitutional
> harassment of people simply for making donations.  (There were some
> instances of harassment of leaders of the group---but not of simple
> campaign donors).  If I remember Jim's response the last time we debated
> this, he rejected the court's findings on the extent of the harassment as
> well as the question of what should count as unconstitutional harassment.
> (The debate has some interesting parallels to the points Sam Bagenstos was
> making about private retaliation.)
>
> I cover the evidence of the extent of the harassment in Chill Out: A
> Qualified Defense of Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws in the Internet Age<http://ssrn.com/abstract=1948313>,
> 27 *Journal of Law and Politics* 557 (2012). I'd also recommend my former
> student's note, Elian Dashev Economic Boycotts as Harassment: The Threat
> to
> First Amendment Protected Speech in the Aftermath of Doe v. Reed<http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2776&context=llr>.
> In my article, while I reject the claims of harassment as exaggerated, I do
> believe that as a matter of policy, jurisdictions should greatly increase
> the threshold for disclosure of campaign contributions and spending,
> because there is a value in donor privacy and releasing the names of those
> who are very small financial players in elections does not serve an
> important governmental purpose.
>
> I don't plan to engage in a debate about this with Jim again---but I did
> not want to leave his points unanswered for those new to the listserv (or
> with memory loss).
>
>
> ****
>
> -- ****
>
> Rick Hasen****
>
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science****
>
> UC Irvine School of Law****
>
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000****
>
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000****
>
> 949.824.3072 - office****
>
> 949.824.0495 - fax****
>
> rhasen at law.uci.edu****
>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/****
>
> http://electionlawblog.org****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130901/12bc946e/attachment.html>