[EL] It's About [Harassment], [Silly]

[Benjamin Barr]

Still, the dictates of the First Amendment seem to stand in the way of
broad, all-comprehsive disclosure, no?  I suspect arguing over which
government actor performs said broad, all-comprehensive disclosure in the
most nifty manner is beyond the point.

In our current system of chaotic regulation, would-be speakers face a
chorus of maddening and confusing regulations, sometimes contradictory,
often opaque, about their operation and application.  This fails under
standard vagueness concerns, most recently illustrated by the IRS'
"apology" to affected organizations.  Under a system of "clear rules for
disclosure" applied to donors who "fund significant amounts of federal
election advertising," whatever that may be, we suffer from overbreadth
concerns since advertising about federal elections necessarily involves
issue speech, poorly or creatively designed grassroots speech, and a whole
host of non-regulable speech captured by "clear rules" (because "clear
rules" usually mean broad and far reaching rules, unless Rick is suggesting
a much more constrained approach).

Of course, there's an out to all of this, which is accepting clear rules
that are dramatically limited in their sweep, something akin to the *Buckley
* formulation.  But I suspect that's not what Rick is hinting at.  Or is it?

On the exemption side, I still remained stumped why only the most obscure
and outlandish speakers (think fascists and socialists) should receive the
full protection of political anonymity while Rotarians and other ho-hum
speakers must forgo such protection.  Offering privacy exemptions to the
most outlandish among us while forcing others to sacrifice their political
anonymity seems a perverse incentive.  It's also just plain wrong.
 Fascists do not hold a superior claim to First Amendment protections than
Rotarians I should think.

In any event, the unfortunate unfolding of events by the IRS helps at least
illustrate that we do not live under a system of "mere disclosure" and
helps awaken Americans to the terrible misapplication and abuse of campaign
finance laws today.

Forward,

First Amendment Ben


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  To the contrary Steve.  I want to take the IRS out of the business of
> being a campaign finance regulator, and have Congress set clear rules for
> disclosure of contributions used to fund significant amounts of federal
> election advertising (with an exemption for those who face realistic
> threats of harassment).
>
>
> On 5/14/13 3:20 PM, Steve Klein wrote:
>
>  Rick, like Nancy Pelosi<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/13/pelosi_irs_scandal_an_opportunity_to_scrutinize_501c4s_and_overturn_citizens_united.html>,
> acknowledges that there's a problem with the IRS harassing groups based
> on their ideology.
>
> The solution is to provide the IRS with the names of people who support
> ideological groups.
>
>  Forgive a sarcastic response, but, "Wait, what?"
>
> Whether under fear of government incompetence or malfeasance, there are
> strong, principled reasons to oppose disclosure. This episode only
> reinforces my belief that disclosure serves, at best, an "obfuscational
> interest" in political discourse, letting the Willie Starks of the world
> find dirt on speakers (and "there's always something") rather than engage
> on important issues.
>
> --------
>
> “It’s About Disclosure, Stupid; The larger failing behind the terrible IRS
> treatment of tea party groups.” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50351>
>
> Posted on May 14, 2013 2:41 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=50351> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> I’ve written this commentary<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/05/the_irs_tea_party_scandal_the_lesson_is_better_campaign_finance_disclosure.html>for
> *Slate*.
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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 listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.htmlhttp://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/20130514/e2f78db6/attachment.html>