[EL] Civic Courage, Indeed

[Mark Schmitt]

OK, I'll bite. What does disclosure have to do with this story? It appears
that a Wisconsin prosecutor has reason to think that some Wisconsin law was
broken, and has subpoenaed a lot of information. That's what prosecutors do
-- they subpoena information that otherwise would be private. And defense
attorneys contest subpoenas, and hearings and sometimes trials or
settlements ensue.

Did these groups violate Wisconsin law? I don't know, and I don't think you
know or the unnamed Wall Street Journal writer knows. There's no doubt that
there's plenty of prosecutorial excess -- e.g., the Ted Stevens case -- but
that's a very different issue than disclosure.



On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304799404579155953286552832
>
> Can we yet stop calling it the "informational interest" in disclosure, and
> start calling it the "retributional interest," as is rightly deserved?
>
> And if ever there were reason to reconsider Buckley's in-kind contribution
> / independent expenditure line, this is it.
>
> Welcome to your brave new world, members of the left. May it never come
> back on you. (Though, if you've been reading the papers lately, and closely
> enough, you know it already has).
>
> --
> Stephen M. Hoersting
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131118/bfd099af/attachment.html>