[EL] Interesting example of disclosure's effect on potential donors

[Joe La Rue]

The IRS debacle illustrates the problem with "disclosure for disclosures'
sake." I don't know very many people who think there should be *no *disclosure
when it comes to who pays for political speech, or who makes contributions
to candidates. The two lines that seem to cause divisions are these: (1) *why
*have disclosure and (2) *at what level *should disclosure occur? The fact
that the government *can *target groups and people because of their
political speech -- and, in fact, apparently has done so -- should, in my
view, make us *all* a little more hesitant for the government to have that
weapon. Again, I certainly am not advocating for *no *disclosure. But I
think that the IRS debacle provides an important reason to consider at what
contribution or expenditure level disclosure should occur, and what the
actual purpose for disclosure is.




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, May 20, 2013 at 8:35 AM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:

> **
> Surely the "reformers" have now given up on their "there is no government
> harassment" mantra and the corollary that "donors aren't fearful."  Jim Bopp
>
>  In a message dated 5/20/2013 10:39:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com writes:
>
>  Found this article and thought it might be of interest to the list,
> given past discussions of whether disclosure can dissuade persons and
> institutions from giving:****
>
> ** **
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/us/politics/potential-donors-to-enroll-america-grow-skittish.html?emc=tnt&tntemail0=y&_r=1&
> ****
>
> ** **
> Potential Donors to Enroll America Grow Skittish**** By ROBERT PEAR<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/robert_pear/index.html>
> **** Published: May 19, 2013 **** ** **
>
> WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s efforts to raise private money to
> carry out the president’s health care law<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>have provoked such a strong partisan uproar that potential donors have
> become skittish about contributing, according to several people involved in
> the fund-raising program…****
>
> ** **
>
> Apparently they didn’t get the memo that if you have nothing to hide, you
> have nothing to fear.****
>
> ** **
>
> Sean Parnell****
>
> President****
>
> Impact Policy Management, LLC****
>
> 6411 Caleb Court****
>
> Alexandria, VA  22315****
>
> 571-289-1374 (c)****
>
> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com****
>
> ** **
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130520/9d906112/attachment.html>