[EL] Civic Courage, Indeed

[Robert Wechsler]

I don't understand why, if you believe in your argument, you cannot make 
it without misrepresenting others' arguments. I never said that these 
people (including myself) should not exercise their First Amendment 
rights, based on appearances. I just said that they should not do it in 
the form of a supposedly independent group that does not appear 
independent (with clear definitions of who this includes).

I also find it deeply sad that you don't see that responsibilities 
accompany rights. I live in a wonderfully complex, three-dimensional 
world of rights, responsiblities, and appearances. My responsibilities 
are at least as important to me as my rights. You live in a simple 
one-dimensional world of rights, rights, and rights. I wouldn't live 
there for anything.

Rob


On 11/21/2013 8:35 AM, Sean Parnell wrote:
>
> Thank you, Robert, for helping to fill in a few of the details on what 
> I'm sure will be the ever-growing list of Americans who are prohibited 
> from exercising their First Amendment rights based on appearances, or 
> at least the appearances preferred (disfavored?) by the 'reform' 
> community. I look forward to reading about more Americans who need to 
> go on this list. Perhaps it could be cross-referenced with Santa's 
> naughty/nice list?
>
> Sean Parnell
>
> President
>
> Impact Policy Management, LLC
>
> 6411 Caleb Court
>
> Alexandria, VA  22315
>
> 571-289-1374 (c)
>
> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
>
> *From:*Robert Wechsler [mailto:catbird at pipeline.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 21, 2013 8:01 AM
> *To:* Scarberry, Mark; sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Civic Courage, Indeed
>
>
> Dear Mark and Sean:
>
> I think it is too often forgotten that campaign finance is part of 
> government ethics. Therefore, basic government ethics principles can 
> seem foreign to the conversation.
>
> Both of you note that family members often don't like each other's 
> politics. In fact, they often don't like each other, period. But that 
> does not make them any less conflicted with respect to their 
> candidate/official sibling. And the public, which does not know the 
> details of any sibling relationship (see all of literature for the 
> complexities involved), sees the same thing no matter what the 
> relationship actually is. And they are right to. Equally, governments 
> are right to create clear conflict rules, rather than basing them on a 
> vague concept of appearance.
>
> I have never seen a conflict of interest provision that differentiates 
> between siblings that like or agree with their siblings. This equal 
> treatment of siblings, and others, is a basic government ethics 
> principle. It should apply equally in campaign finance.
>
> Mark asks, "Would a family member be disqualified under this standard 
> from organizing an independent group to oppose a family member's 
> election?" The family member would still be conflicted, but would 
> coordination still be a concern?
> Well, it could be a fake supporter of an opponent. There are so many 
> fakes in recent elections that this kind of fake would not be 
> surprising. Considering how effective some outside independent groups 
> have been at shooting those they support in the foot, I would argue 
> that a coordinated opposing group would be a clever tactic.
>
> The other basic concept that seems to be missing here is power. Both 
> of you seem to think that family relationships involve political 
> ideas. No, family relationships tend to involve power. The Cheney 
> sisters' public disagreement is atypical, as are Carville and Matlin.
>
> With respect to independent groups, the principal issue involving 
> family members is not ideas. The principal issue is family members 
> being seen as coordinating to help one member get elected, to get power.
>
> I don't share all the views of the senator my stepson works for, but I 
> know that if I were to form a supposedly independent group that took 
> sides in his next election, no one who knew about the relationship 
> would believe there was no coordination. The First Amendment isn't all 
> that relevant here. No one has a First Amendment right to insist he is 
> not coordinating with his stepson when the public reasonably believes 
> that he is coordinating. This is about fraud and making a mockery of 
> rules that are intended to prevent corruption, not about a marketplace 
> of ideas.
>
> Rob
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20131121/52df8b5b/attachment.html>