[EL] Robert's Court treatment of Union and corp speech

Tue Mar 5 08:40:04 PST 2013

Regarding this statement by Ciara Torres-Spelliscy below:

The Roberts Supreme Court’s asymmetrical treatment of corporations and  
unions was on full display in the 2011–2012 term. American Tradition  
Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock coupled with Knox v. Service Employees  International 
Union, Local 1000 demonstrates that a double standard persists  between 
corporations, who are now privileged speakers in the Court’s eyes, and  unions, 
who are currently disfavored speakers. The Supreme Court imposes  different 
degrees of consent from corporations’ and unions’ constituent parts  before 
they electioneer. Under U.S. law, corporations are not required to get  
consent from their shareholders before the corporate entity speaks politically  
using corporate funds. By contrast, public-sector unions must receive  
nonmembers’ consent before political spending in certain  circumstances.

I have long argued that corporation and unions have the same First  
Amendment rights but I am just perplexed and dumbfounded by this statement.  There 
is a critical difference. Unions benefit from government compulsion where  
non-members are required to pay an agency fee to a union and this is where 
the  worker's First Amendment rights become implicated if the money is used  
for political purposes.  Government does not require anyone to buy shares  in 
a corporation (except for Government Motors, but this is another story), so 
 there are no shareholder First Amendment rights involved. So the 
"disparate"  treatment is simply based on the blindingly obvious fact that  
shareholders  are not similarly situated to government compelled workers.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 3/5/2013 11:08:11 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:

_“Colorado gun lobbyist  faces ethics probe by lawmakers”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48046)  
Posted  on _March 5, 2013 8:06 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48046)  
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

Free speech or an inappropriate threat from a lobbyist?  _This  is one_ 
(http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22697222/colorado-gun-lobbyist-faces-
ethics-probe-by-lawmakers)  to watch (via _Steve  Klein_ 
(https://twitter.com/SteveRKlein/status/308946572291485696) ). 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48046&title=“Colorado%20gun%20lobbyist%20faces%20ethics%20probe%20by%20lawmakers”
&description=) 

Posted in _campaigns_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59) , _ethics  
investigations_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=42) , _lobbying_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=28)   | Comments Off 

_“Taking Opt-In Rights  Seriously: What Knox v. SEIU Could Mean for 
Post-Citizens United Shareholder  Rights”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48043)  
Posted  on _March 5, 2013 8:01 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48043)  
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy has posted _this  draft_ 
(http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2225851)  on SSRN (Montana Law Review).  Here is 
the  abstract: 
This article will explore the implications of the Supreme Court’s  
disparate treatment of similarly-situated, politically active corporations  and 
unions. Two paths lead to more equitable treatment of these two groups:  either 
(1) corporate political speech should be regulated more or (2) union  
political speech should be regulated less. This piece argues in favor of the  
former. In particular, corporate political spending lacks the transparency  and 
consent mechanisms present in union political spending. Policymakers  should 
address both of these failings in the corporate context. 
The Roberts Supreme Court’s asymmetrical treatment of corporations and  
unions was on full display in the 2011–2012 term. American Tradition  
Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock coupled with Knox v. Service Employees  International 
Union, Local 1000 demonstrates that a double standard persists  between 
corporations, who are now privileged speakers in the Court’s eyes,  and unions, 
who are currently disfavored speakers. The Supreme Court imposes  different 
degrees of consent from corporations’ and unions’ constituent  parts before 
they electioneer. Under U.S. law, corporations are not required  to get 
consent from their shareholders before the corporate entity speaks  politically 
using corporate funds. By contrast, public-sector unions must  receive 
nonmembers’ consent before political spending in certain  circumstances. 
With the Supreme Court unlikely to change legal positions on this issue  
until the Court’s composition itself changes, the responsibility to foster  
more equitable regulations for corporations is left to the American  
electorate, Congress, the States, and executive agencies, such as the  Securities and 
Exchange Commission (“SEC”), which must work within the  boundaries of 
current precedent. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Knox  requiring opt-ins for 
union political expenditures provides an additional  basis for arguing that 
publicly traded American corporations should likewise  marshal shareholder 
consent before corporate political expenditures are  made.

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48043&title=“
Taking%20Opt-In%20Rights%20Seriously:%20What%20Knox%20v.%20SEIU%20Could%20Mean%20for%20Post-Citizens%20United%20Shareholder%20Rights”
&description=) 

Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10)   | 
Comments Off 

_Justice O’Connor talks  Bush v. Gore, Public Opinion, Ethics, Etc. with 
Rachel Maddow_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48039)  
Posted  on _March 5, 2013 7:54 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48039)  
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

_Watch_ 
(http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/vp/51044439#51044439) . 
The Bush v. Gore decision gets mentioned around the 9 minute mark and again 
 around the 15 minute mark. 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48039&title=Justice%20O’
Connor%20talks%20Bush%20v.%20Gore,%20Public%20Opinion,%20Ethics,%20Etc.%20with%20Rachel%20Maddow&description=) 

Posted in _Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29)   | Comments 
Off 

_“Democrats poised to  suggest big changes in election system”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48036)  
Posted  on _March 5, 2013 7:43 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48036)  
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

_The  latest _ 
(http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2013/03/05/politics/democrats-suggest-big-changes-election-system) from Minnesota. 
Kiffmeyer said she didn’t want to question the motives of Democrats, but  
she finds their approach curious. 
“They won the election last year on current election law, and they also  
said ‘it’s great, everything’s wonderful,’ ” she said. “Now we’ve got this  
big mama of an omnibus election bill, and I’m like, wow, what changed  
there?”

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48036&title=“
Democrats%20poised%20to%20suggest%20big%20changes%20in%20election%20system”&description=) 

Posted in _election  administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18) , 
_The Voting Wars_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60)   | Comments Off 

_“Constitution Check:  Is the right to vote an ‘entitlement’?”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48034)  
Posted  on _March 5, 2013 7:41 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48034)  
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

_Lyle  Denniston_ 
(http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-vote-entitlement-110207653--politics.html)  on Justice Scalia. 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48034&title=“Constitution%20Check:%20Is%20the%20right%20to%20vote%20an%20‘
entitlement’?”&description=) 

Posted in _Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29) , _Voting 
Rights Act_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15)   | Comments Off 

_Speaker Boehner Calls  Section 5 a “Small” Provision of the Voting Rights 
Act_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48031)  
Posted  on _March 4, 2013 4:51 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48031)  
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

_From  Meet the Press interview_ 
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/04/4-things-you-might-have-missed-from-john-boehners-meet-the-p
ress-interview/) : 
Question: Do you believe that the Voting Rights Act is still  needed? 
Boehner: “Oh, I think the Voting Rights Act is passed with large  
majorities in the House and Senate. I think it’s something that has served  our 
country well. But there is an argument over a very small section of the  Voting 
Rights Act. And that’s what the court is going to  consider.”

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48031&title=Speaker%20Boehner%20Calls%20Section%205%20a%20“Small”
%20Provision%20of%20the%20Voting%20Rights%20Act&description=) 

Posted in _Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29) , _Voting 
Rights Act_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15)   | Comments Off 

_“Is Wisconsin a Top-14  State in Racial Prejudice?”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48028)  
Posted  on _March 4, 2013 3:42 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48028)  
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

_Milwaukee  Journal-Sentinel_ 
(http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/194937681.html?page=1)  on the new _Elmendorf-Spencer data_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48009) . 
_P.J.  Media_ 
(http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2013/03/04/hey-southerners-youre-racist/) : “Hey Southerners–You’re Racist!!” 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48028&title=“Is%20Wisconsin%20a%20Top-14%20State%20in%20Racial%20Prejudice?”
&description=) 

Posted in _Voting Rights Act_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15)   | 
Comments Off 

_“Obama campaign  reveals biggest fundraisers around Election Day”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48025)  
Posted  on _March 4, 2013 3:27 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48025)  
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

_CNN  reports._ 
(http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/02/obama-campaign-reveals-biggest-donors-around-election-day/)  

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48025&title=“
Obama%20campaign%20reveals%20biggest%20fundraisers%20around%20Election%20Day”&description=) 

Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10)   | 
Comments Off 

_“Academics see limited  options for avoiding major blow to Voting Rights 
Act”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48022)  
Posted  on _March 4, 2013 3:20 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48022)  
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

The National Law Journal reports i_n an  article _ 
(http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleSCI.jsp?id=1202590810093) currently behind the pay wall 
(quoting Pildes, Persily, Fishkin,  and me). 
Marcia Coyle of NLJ also has written _An  Embattled Voting Rights Act_ 
(http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202590104050&et=editorial&bu=Na
tional%20Law%20Journal&cn=20130304nlj&src=EMC-Email&pt=NLJ.com-%20Daily%20He
adlines&kw=An%20embattled%20Voting%20Rights%20Act)  (also behind the pay 
wall). 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48022&title=“
Academics%20see%20limited%20options%20for%20avoiding%20major%20blow%20to%20Voting%20Rights%20Act”&description=) 

Posted in _Supreme Court_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29) , _Voting 
Rights Act_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15)   | Comments Off 

_“Legacy in mind, Obama  aides form web of influence”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48020)  
Posted  on _March 4, 2013 3:16 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48020)  
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

_AP  reports_ 
(http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMAS_NETWORK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-03-04-04-22-36)  on OFA etc. 
See also editorials from _NYT_ 
(http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/opinion/sunday/the-white-house-joins-the-cash-grab.html) ,  _WaPo_ 
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-temptation-of-dark-money/2013/03/03/819d636e-8104-11e
2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html?wp_login_redirect=0) . 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48020&title=“Legacy%20in%20mind,%20Obama%20aides%20form%20web%20of%20influence”
&description=) 

Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10) ,  _tax 
law and election  law_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=22)  | Comments Off 

_“Watchdogs Urge More  Disclosure of Expenditures by Political Committees 
in Comments on FEC  Rule”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48018)  
Posted  on _March 4, 2013 3:14 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48018)  
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

_See  this press release_ 
(http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2069:march-4-2013-watchdogs-urge-more-disclos
ure-of-expenditures-by-political-committees-in-comments-on-fec-rule-&catid=6
3:legal-center-press-releases&Itemid=61) . 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48018&title=“
Watchdogs%20Urge%20More%20Disclosure%20of%20Expenditures%20by%20Political%20Committees%20in%20Comments%20on%20FEC%20Rule”&description=) 

Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10)   | 
Comments Off 

_“No Set Price for  Meetings with President? Really?”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48016)  
Posted  on _March 4, 2013 3:12 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48016)  
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

_Fred  Wertheimer _ 
(http://www.democracy21.org/money-in-politics/press-releases-money-in-politics/no-set-price-for-meetings-with-president-really/) 
channels Seth Meyers. 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48016&title=“No%20Set%20Price%20for%20Meetings%20with%20President?%20Really?”
&description=) 

Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10)   | 
Comments Off 

_“Twitter Reaction to  Events Often at Odds with Overall Public Opinion”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48013)  
Posted  on _March 4, 2013 3:10 pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48013)  
by _Rick Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)   

_Important  new Pew study_ 
(http://www.pewresearch.org/2013/03/04/twitter-reaction-to-events-often-at-odds-with-overall-public-opinion/) . 
In the last chapter of _The  Voting Wars_ 
(http://www.amazon.com/Voting-Wars-Florida-Election-Meltdown/dp/0300182031/ref=sr_1_cc_2?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=132
9286945&sr=1-2-catcorr)  I discuss how extreme political positions on 
Twitter could  translate into social unrest in the event of another razor-thin 
Presidential  election. 

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=48013&title=“
Twitter%20Reaction%20to%20Events%20Often%20at%20Odds%20with%20Overall%20Public%20Opinion”&description=) 

Posted in _social media and social  protests_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=58) , _The Voting Wars_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60)   | 
Comments Off 

-- 

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_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) 

_http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html_ 
(http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html) 

_http://electionlawblog.org_ (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/20130305/d7422bde/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130305/d7422bde/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130305/d7422bde/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130305/d7422bde/attachment-0002.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130305/d7422bde/attachment-0003.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130305/d7422bde/attachment-0004.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130305/d7422bde/attachment-0005.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130305/d7422bde/attachment-0006.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130305/d7422bde/attachment-0007.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130305/d7422bde/attachment-0008.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130305/d7422bde/attachment-0009.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130305/d7422bde/attachment-0010.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130305/d7422bde/attachment-0011.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130305/d7422bde/attachment-0012.bin>