[EL] Civic Courage, Indeed

[Mark Schmitt]

Sorry, Steve, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Maybe it
will become clear later.

Mark Schmitt
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: mschmitt9


On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Steve Hoersting <
shoersting at campaignfreedom.org> wrote:

> Hello, Mark,
>
> There is every reason to believe the special prosecutor is probing 1)
> reporting violations for independent speech, or 2) coordination violations
> for political speech.
>
> If it is the pursuit of 1), this case presents good reasons for us each to
> reconsider the rationale, costs and benefits of the so-called
> "informational interest."
>
> If it is 2), it is a good time seriously to take-up the
> expenditure/contribution distinction, that is, the (independent)
> expenditure / (in-kind) contribution distinction. Criminal prosecution of
> coordination will swallow Citizens United, and there is every reason the
> Court should take up that question, now before them, in McCutcheon --
> there's an op-ed to be written there if anyone wants it. And don't think
> the overarching effect of criminal prosecution of independent speech hasn't
> crossed anyone's mind, perhaps even minds in Wisconsin.
>
> Odds are the prosecutor is probing speech crimes. If so, these facts are a
> good time to reconsider the interests furthered by speech restrictions: the
> informational interest certainly, and the quid-pro-quo interest
> short-of-bribery, if we are serious about free speech, a representative
> republic and popular sovereignty. (Why do I suspect I am merely begging
> other questions?)
>
> Here's what will be *oh so special* about this matter should events go
> fully in the direction they are headed: And I suspect many on the left will
> hoot with joy should it happen. I can envision, as I sit here, a new
> Democratic governor of Wisconsin, sometime in January 2015, saying into a
> microphone: "Hey, if the people want civil society and education vouchers,
> they'd better start winnin' some elections..." Perhaps even the special
> prosecutor will be on the stage.
>
> Do we really want to live in a world of rigged games?
>
> Some look at the Wisconsin scandal and gleefully see Republican v.
> Democrat, "finally the endgame!", and for all the marbles. They ought to
> look a little closer. Visible in the Wisconsin tactics is something that
> transcends party, whether we want to acknowledge it or not: a future
> Enlightenment v. a future Dark Ages.
>
> I'll let you, Mark, and the left in on a little secret. How this turns out
> isn't really up to the right anymore. Look at the playing field and the
> balance of power. The left has got to ask itself, what are its limits, and,
> if it finds any, to start slowing the train, little by little.
>
> All the best,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Hoersting
> CENTER for COMPETITIVE POLITICS
> 124 S. West Street
> Suite 201
> Alexandria, Va. 22314
> (703) 894-6800
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20131119/5d542bf1/attachment.html>