[EL] Civic Courage, Indeed

Tue Nov 19 11:01:31 PST 2013

Trevor,

I can't imagine that that is a line anyone actually wants to draw.  If the examples you use are actually evidence of a lack of "independence," then the only real way to avoid these types of investigations is to have independent expenditure groups supporting a candidate be staffed entirely by people who (i) despise the candidate, or (ii) have no idea who the candidate is.  That appears to be the end result from the suggestion that a committee is not independent if it is manned by people who know the candidate well or who have worked with him or her in the past.  If the fact that you worked with a candidate in the past, or even previously have met them, means you cannot participate in unlimited independent speech in support of the candidate, then campaign finance laws are more oppressive then even I had assumed.

That definition of "independent" is not the one in the law.  The one in the law focuses on whether the candidate coordinated the spending or speech and it seems to be a fairly straightforward test.  Under that test, "independent" is not a synonym for "utterly isolated."

Regards,

Bill Maurer

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Trevor Potter
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:09 AM
To: Mark Schmitt; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Civic Courage, Indeed

I have the sense that Steve is suggesting that the Supreme Court presented a poisoned chalice in Citizens United when it stated that because independent expenditures are independent of candidates and political parties, they  cannot corrupt , and therefore cannot be limited by the government (unless they are by sources we do not like in US elections, such as some foreigners) . The poisoning comes from the fact that the Court conditions this finding on the lack of coordination-going back to Buckley, the Court has variously referred to such expenditures as "wholly", totally", and "completely" independent of candidates and political parties. But as 2012 made clear, that is not how many such "independent expenditure" groups have actually operated in federal elections: they have been created by persons close to the candidates to be benefited, including previous employees and even family members; persons involved in the campaign have also been involved in the "independent expenditures" (as vendors and fundraisers);  the candidates have thanked donors for contributing to these efforts; and the candidates have met with the principal funders of these groups.

It seems Steve ( and the Wall street Journal) believes that Wisconsin is investigating whether the "independent expenditures" in the Walker recall election were actually coordinated with the candidate or his agents (and therefore should have been restricted by state limits  enacted to prevent corruption). What is at play here is the suggestion that unlimited  independent expenditures should not be conditioned on actual independence, because that might undermine the ability to engage in such expenditures...even though the Supreme Court in Citizens United only allowed such expenditures (and the Circuit Court  in Speech Now only allowed the collection of unlimited funds for such expenditures) because it found as a matter of legal reasoning that the independence of such expenditures ensured they could not corrupt (a debatable proposition of its own)...bootstrapping, anyone?

Trevor Potter

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu]<mailto:[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu]> On Behalf Of Mark Schmitt
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:32 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Civic Courage, Indeed

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

Mark Schmitt
202/246-2350<tel:202%2F246-2350>
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: mschmitt9

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Steve Hoersting <shoersting at campaignfreedom.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%28703%29%20894-6800>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.

This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure, copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.

--

________________________________

Spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04KPtbv5D&m=39d69d1c66df&t=20131119&c=s>
Not spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04KPtbv5D&m=39d69d1c66df&t=20131119&c=n>
Forget previous vote<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04KPtbv5D&m=39d69d1c66df&t=20131119&c=f>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20131119/beaed033/attachment.html>