[EL] Check out TALLAHASSEE: Support mounts to allow unlimited political c...
Michael McDonald
mmcdon at gmu.edu
Sat Jan 19 10:45:51 PST 2013
So we’re back to this, after Jim and friends were offended when I painted
him with a broad brush that he opposed all disclosure:
“Reformers just dispute the premise that there is any harassment.”
No, “reformers” (a label that includes Jim since he wants to reform existing
laws, but I digress), say harassment is rare in the context of campaign
contributions, especially below Jim’s “bigger than a breadbox” disclosure
threshold of $200. And that such harassment, when it occurs, can be handled
through law enforcement.
============
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor
George Mason University
4400 University Drive - 3F4
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
703-993-4191 (office)
e-mail: mmcdon at gmu.edu
web: http://elections.gmu.edu
twitter: @ElectProject
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: Saturday, January 19, 2013 10:12 AM
To: lehto.paul at gmail.com; margaret.groarke at manhattan.edu
Cc: law-election at uci.edu; BSmith at law.capital.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out TALLAHASSEE: Support mounts to allow unlimited
political c...
Because public disclosure of a person's political activity and/or
political viewpoints can lead to harassment and that, as a result, lack of
anonymity chills speech, the government needs a compelling justification to
require disclosure. I agree that one of those instances where disclosure is
justified is contributions to candidates. Reformers just dispute the premise
that there is any harassment, despite enormous evidence to the contrary, and
that there is any value in anonymity. They hate what the Supreme Court let
Mrs. McIntyre do. But I commend Justice Brennan's opinion in McIntyre for
those who need a compelling explanation why anonymity promotes political
speech.
I agree also that it is true that anonymous speech prevents opponents
from engaging in ad hominim attacks on the speaker -- see below "without
knowing speaker identity, we can not evaluate if the true speaker
contradicts themselves in their anonymous postings, whether the speaker has
flip flopped recently, and so on." -- so that the opponents just have to
deal with the arguments themselves, but this is why the Federalist Papers
were published anonymously. And dealing with arguments without ad hominim
attacks on the speaker should be preferable to most.
But of course this thread is an example of just this kind of attack on
the speaker -- is Jim hypercritical for agreeing that disclosure of
candidate contributions is ok? -- rather then dealing with the point of the
original post that some reformers are finally understanding that raising or
eliminating contribution limits is the road to more accountability and
transparency.
And finally, I never post anonymously, so it is easy to determine that I
never said "that real rights are only exercisable anonymously." Nor would I
since I understand the distinctions that reformers don't seem to. Jim
Bopp
In a message dated 1/19/2013 9:38:13 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
lehto.paul at gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Margaret Groarke
<margaret.groarke at manhattan.edu> wrote:
If I am mistaken, I apologize. Who was the person that repeatedly made this
claim [that real rights are only exercisable anonymously], and referenced
the fact that the Federalists wrote their essays anonymously? Was it someone
else? Perhaps my memory is poor -- a search of the list archive would reveal
my error.
I recall who said these things and many broad statements in favor of speech
anonymity rights by Jim Bopp. I checked my archives and confirmed this. But
now I'm having a bit of a crisis of conscience in terms of whether I will
offend anyone on the list by stating more definitively, and "outing" via
quotation, who said what. There's a kind of murky anonymity of authorship
right now, and no speaker/author is choosing to come forward into this
quasi-public debate.
Of course, there's an easy argument for waiver of any such concern, given
that all past messages to this list are "signed" by email addresses and
names that are believed real. But then, a person signing a petition would
seem to waive, even more strongly, any reasonable expectation of privacy
under present law, but this has not stopped emergency cert petitions and
many strongly worded claims to the contrary, arguing that petitioner signers
should be secret or exempt from disclosure.
So, would it be right and OK for me to answer the questions above regarding
the identity of the speakers who have made the statements being discussed?
Isn't speaker identity irrelevant? ;)
Of course, I'm being half-facetious with my questions here, but they do seem
at least half-fair if not more. Speaker identity is very important for
various reasons. For starters, without knowing speaker identity, we can not
evaluate if the true speaker contradicts themselves in their anonymous
postings, whether the speaker has flip flopped recently, and so on.
Anonymous postings are more like drive by rhetorical shootings. Anonymous
people harass and flame other people more than people with real names, as
internet experience shows. Without knowing identity, no rules of civility
can be meaningfully enforced on this list or elsewhere, because repeat
offenders simply re-emerge under new anonymous guises. I guess I can safely
quote only myself (given my present considerations above) so I'll just say
that "Anonymity creates more harassment than it prevents."
Paul Lehto, J.D.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Joe La Rue <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>
wrote:
I'm really curious as to when Jim would have ever said that "the only rights
guaranteed were those one could exercise anonymously." That's a remarkable
quote, Ms. Groarke, and I'd be most interested in seeing. With all due
respect, I don't believe Jim ever said any such thing. And I challenge you
to produce it.
What I find amazing is that Jim Bopp, along with Brad Smith, has probably
been quoted publicly more than anybody else in the pro-freedom camp. He's
had exposes done on him. He's had friendly interviews and hostile
interviews. His views on disclosure, along with many other topics, are very
much public knowledge. In spite of all that, his opponents take delight in
misconstruing his views in order to set up straw man arguments to attack.
The strange views ascribed to Jim today bear no resemblance to what the man
has actually said. But I forgot: that's one of the rules for radicals, isn't
it? Demonize your opponents?
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
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
and destroy all copies of the original message.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Margaret Groarke
<margaret.groarke at manhattan.edu> wrote:
When I joined this list, Mr. Bopp, the thing I found most odd was your
extremely frequent statement that the only rights guaranteed were those one
could exercise anonymously -- and thus the necessity of secrecy for
political contributions.
Perhaps Professor McDonald, like me, gained our understanding of your views
from your frequent statement of them on this list.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 17, 2013, at 5:44 PM, "JBoppjr at aol.com" <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
I have never talked to Prof McDonald so it is surprising that he is so
certain about what I think.
For those interested in my views, I have been quoted repeatedly in the
press that I agree with disclosure for political actors, candidate, pacs and
political parties (in the case of political parties when they engage in
election related speech) at a level where the disclosure provides meaningful
information to voters, including their donors.
Further, I am in favor of disclosure of speech that is unambiguously
campaign related, such as express advocacy, again at a level where the
disclosure provides meaningful information to voters. This includes
contributors where they give money to a multipurpose group for that purpose.
I have not seen any studies that demonstrate at what level of
contribution or spending triggers public interest but I am certain it is
more than $200.
Finally, there are two disclosure regimes, a one-time event driven
report and comprehensive reporting of all a groups contributions and
expenditures. Comprehensive disclosure is only warranted for political
actors and groups whose major purpose is the election or nomination of
candidates. Otherwise, for multipurpose groups, a one-time event driven
report, like the one the Court in Citizens United upheld, suffices.
And while I was Co-Chairman of the Subcommittee on Restoring
Constitutional Government of the RNC Platform Committee, I did not write the
whole paragraph on campaign finance. I did write this:
> "As a result, we support
> repeal of the remaining sections of McCain-
> Feingold, support either raising or repealing contribution
> limits, and oppose passage of the DISCLOSE Act
> or any similar legislation designed to vitiate the
> Supreme Court's recent decisions protecting political
> speech in Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election
> Commission and Citizens United v. Federal Election
> Commission."
Thanks for your interest in my views, Prof McDonald. I hope this
clarifies them for you. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 1/17/2013 5:10:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
BSmith at law.capital.edu writes:
Whatever.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 17, 2013, at 2:23 PM, "Michael McDonald" <mmcdon at gmu.edu> wrote:
> Here is the plank of the 2012 Republican Party platform authored by Jim:
>
> The rights of citizenship do not stop at the ballot
> box. They include the free speech right to devote one's
> resources to whatever cause or candidate one supports.
> We oppose any restrictions or conditions that
> would discourage Americans from exercising their
> constitutional right to enter the political fray or limit
> their commitment to their ideals. As a result, we support
> repeal of the remaining sections of McCain-
> Feingold, support either raising or repealing contribution
> limits, and oppose passage of the DISCLOSE Act
> or any similar legislation designed to vitiate the
> Supreme Court's recent decisions protecting political
> speech in Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election
> Commission and Citizens United v. Federal Election
> Commission. (p.12)
>
> http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf
>
> The phrase "any restrictions or conditions" would clearly preclude
> disclosure, since disclosure is a condition.
>
> I am not calling out Jim as a hypocrite. I do not believe that Jim
supports
> disclosure. While Joe and Brad say that Jim believes disclosure is
> acceptable at some level, his stance against any disclosure is there in
the
> Republican Party platform. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is my prior
belief,
> so I can't be calling Jim a hypocrite as Brad claims. What I am calling
Jim
> out for is providing only half the story. It would be significant if Jim
> publicly states he is willing to accept disclosure in exchange for
unlimited
> contribution limits, particularly whatever limits are to be found in this
> Florida proposal or disclosure at a general threshold level.
>
> ============
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
> Associate Professor
> George Mason University
> 4400 University Drive - 3F4
> Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
>
> 703-993-4191 (office)
> e-mail: mmcdon at gmu.edu
> web: http://elections.gmu.edu
> twitter: @ElectProject
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Smith,
> Brad
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:10 PM
> To: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Check out TALLAHASSEE: Support mounts to allow unlimited
> political contributi
>
> Michael here seems to be conflating two issues. One is disclosure of
> contributions to candidates and parties. Jim's post, apparently endorsing
> the initiative in Florida, suggests that he is open to that, and indeed
that
> is the position of Senator McConnell and pretty much all people in the
> pro-freedom camp. There is nothing new here except the willingness of
> reformers to actually consider that possibility.
>
> The issue here has indeed been, if anything, one of the level for
reporting.
> What I personally would agree to would depend on the nature of the full
> compromise. At a minimum, I tend to think that reporting shouldn't be
> required for anything under $750, which is roughly the current $200
federal
> limit adjusted for inflation. I'd like it to be higher, but I could
> compromise on a lower number if the deal was worth it. There. Now,
Michael,
> what's your threshold? $1? $25? What's your bottom line negotiating
> position? Does $750 work for you? It might, by the way, be noted that the
> pro-freedom side has offered some exchange here for literally decades, but
> has always been rebuffed, both rhetorically and in votes in Congress. So
> this is real progress in Florida.
>
> Meanwhile, the issue in recent years has not been disclosure and
> contributions to campaigns so much as the compelled disclosure of
membership
> in or support for organizations that do not have political activity as a
> primary purpose. Here, the pro-regulatory camp offers no compromise. They
> simply want more disclosure. They offer nothing in return, except that
> which, through their own intransigence, they already lost in court. No
> disclosure laws have been weakened since Citizen United and SpeechNow.org.
> Reformers could probably have had a reasonable legislative compromise but
> they rejected any talk of it - even $1 in corporate or union independent
> expenditures was illegal, and had to stay that way. Note that Michael has
> confused this issue with the issue above in some of the quotes he has
pulled
> from past posts. Furthermore, it is not illogical to raise examples of
> harassment even if one would be willing to accept such risks - the point
may
> simply be to point out to the harassme nt-deniers that it does take
place,
> is a real costs, and should lead us to undertake a serious cost/benefit
> analysis.
>
> We have, at least at the Center for Competitive Politics, offered some
ideas
> for addressing the concerns of the pro-regulation lobby in a reasonable
> fashion, but I've seen no interest in discussing any of them from the
> regulators.
>
> In any case, there is no reason for Michael's sarcasm and thinly veiled
> accusations of hypocrisy.
>
> 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 Michael
> McDonald [mmcdon at gmu.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:38 PM
> To: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Check out TALLAHASSEE: Support mounts to allow unlimited
> political contributi
>
> Please, no $25 hypothetical argument against small donations since
whatever
> threshold is actually proposed can be attacked for being too low by
raising
> the hypothetical bar. State the acceptable threshold. Is it $200? Is it $5
> million? $1 trillion? Would you like to index it to inflation? Specifics,
> please.
>
> ============
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
> Associate Professor
> George Mason University
> 4400 University Drive - 3F4
> Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
>
> 703-993-4191 (office)
> e-mail: mmcdon at gmu.edu
> web: http://elections.gmu.edu
> twitter: @ElectProject
>
> From: Joe La Rue [mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:25 PM
> To: mmcdon at gmu.edu
> Cc: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Check out TALLAHASSEE: Support mounts to allow unlimited
> political contributi
>
> Jim can (and I presume will) speak for himself. But I can tell you as
> someone who once worked for him that I never heard Jim say he opposed all
> disclosure. My perception of Jim is that he opposes disclosure at levels
> that make no sense and do not actually further the informational interest.
> That was the type of disclosure we attacked when I worked for him. The
> question for Jim (as it should be for everyone) is what level of
> contribution makes sense to be disclosed. Does anybody really have the
time
> (or care!) to review disclosures of $25 to a campaign? Does the fact that
my
> neighbor, who I don't like, gave $25 to a campaign really make me want to
> vote for the other guy? Or, does the huge volume of small disclosures make
> it more difficult for me to figure out who the big-money funders of
> campaigns (or independent expenditures) are?
>
>
> 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
> are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
> and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Michael McDonald <mmcdon at gmu.edu> wrote:
> No, I was not implying that Jim is hypocritical since I thought it was
> common knowledge that Jim believes disclosure leads to harassment and
worse.
> Through the power of e-mail archives, we have such gems from Jim in the
last
> election as:
>
> 7/27/12 "Another Romney supporter harassed after Obama campaign posts a
> negative story about him on their campaign web site."
>
> And
>
> 7/25/12 "Romney donor bashed by Obama campaign now target of two federal
> audits | Fox News"
>
> After debating disclosure over the past year, I am truly surprised that I
> completely misunderstood Jim's position on disclosure. Disclosure is
> okay(!); the issue is just setting the right contribution amount for
> disclosure. But, I'm struggling to understand what level is the right
amount
> since the second story that Jim graced us with is about Frank Vandersloot,
> whose company gave $1 million to a Romney SuperPAC and claimed to have
> raised between $2 to $5 million for the Romney campaign as a national
> finance co-chair.
>
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76899.html
>
> What I was thought I was doing was poking Jim for approving only half of
the
> reform package and conveniently ignoring the part he doesn't agree with. A
> reform trajectory on campaign finance has been for reformers to be willing
> to give in on contribution limits if there would be disclosure, a deal
that
> many conservatives agreed to at the time. Once the contribution limits
were
> gone, the attack on disclosure commenced. But I'll play Brad's game: The
> Tallahassee newspaper story does not say what contribution limit would be
> subjected to disclosure...perhaps Brad and Jim would be willing to state
for
> posterity what disclosure threshold they would be willing to accept in
> exchange for unlimited contribution limits.
>
> ============
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
> Associate Professor
> George Mason University
> 4400 University Drive - 3F4
> Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
>
> 703-993-4191 (office)
> e-mail: mmcdon at gmu.edu
> web: http://elections.gmu.edu
> twitter: @ElectProject
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Smith, Brad [mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:03 AM
> To: mmcdon at gmu.edu; law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: RE: [EL] Check out TALLAHASSEE: Support mounts to allow unlimited
> political contributi
>
> This is a point, not a question. Michael seems to imply, rather unsubtly,
> that Jim is being hypocritical here. Probably I should let Jim speak for
> himself, but I have never understood Jim to oppose the disclosure of
> campaign contributions to candidates and parties.
>
> I think there is a growing majority of those who seriously study the issue
> (i.e. academics, not the activists) that disclosure thresholds should be
set
> higher than they have been, but that's another issue. I've not known Jim
to
> oppose disclosure of contributions to candidates, as Michael suggests he
> does.
>
> 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 Michael
> McDonald [mmcdon at gmu.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 9:23 AM
> To: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Check out TALLAHASSEE: Support mounts to allow
> unlimited political contributi
>
> Jim, I take it your positive comment means you also approve of their call
> unlimited contribution limits if there is within 24-hour on-line public
> disclosure.
>
> ============
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
> Associate Professor
> George Mason University
> 4400 University Drive - 3F4
> Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
>
> 703-993-4191 (office)
> e-mail: mmcdon at gmu.edu
> web: http://elections.gmu.edu
> twitter: @ElectProject
>
> 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: Thursday, January 17, 2013 7:08 AM
> To: rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: [EL] Check out TALLAHASSEE: Support mounts to allow unlimited
> political contributi
>
> Another state facing the reality that only by eliminating candidate
> contribution limits can there be real accountability and transparency.
> Interestingly, this time proposed by campaign finance reformers. Jim Bopp
>
> Click here: TALLAHASSEE: Support mounts to allow unlimited political
> contributions in Florida - Florida - MiamiHerald.com#stor
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--
Margaret Groarke
Director, Core Curriculum
Associate Professor, Government
Riverdale, NY 10471
Phone: 718-862-7943
Fax: 718-862-8044
margaret.groarke at manhattan.edu
www.manhattan.edu
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI 49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4965 (cell)
View list directory