[EL] Civic Courage, Indeed

[Robert Wechsler]

One has a First Amendment right to be snarky, but not a First Amendment 
right to commit fraud (saying one is independent when one has a close 
personal relationship so that one can spend unlimited contributions on a 
campaign that is limited with respect to contributions). But fraud is 
the sort of thing that isn't in the Constitution. It is found in the 
Bill of Responsibilities known as criminal laws, so it does not exist in 
your world. It exists in mine.

Rob

On 11/21/2013 2:01 PM, Sean Parnell wrote:
>
> Ah, my apologies -- you're not prohibiting people from exercising 
> their First Amendment rights, you're only prohibiting them from doing 
> so in the manner they prefer and find effective. Forgive me for not 
> picking up on that distinction. Next I suppose we ought to focus on 
> prohibiting Rush Limbaugh from being as effective as he is. Maybe we 
> can restrict his political speech mode to some form of artistic 
> expression where he won't so dominate the field, such as erotic dance?
>
> I have to admit however, I struggle to find the 'Bill of 
> Responsibilities' embedded in the Constitution alongside the Bill of 
> Rights. Perhaps it's one of the emanations? A penumbra maybe? It might 
> be hidden in the general welfare language, I suppose.
>
> If that's too snarky for you, I apologize, and I'll simply observe 
> that our rights have legal underpinnings embedded in the U.S. 
> Constitution, while these 'responsibilities' you refer to generally do 
> not have the same sort of legal force. Your '3 dimensions' apparently 
> give equal /legal/ weight to all 3 dimensions, whereas I am content to 
> keep two of those three dimensions well in the background when it 
> comes to the exercise of constitutional rights. One chief advantage (I 
> believe at least) of my one dimensional world is it keeps me from 
> wanting to strip some people of their constitutional rights because it 
> /appears/ to me that doing so would be of benefit to the public (or 
> that part of the public I align with) or where I believe some people 
> are failing to live up to their /responsibilities/ as good citizens.
>
> Best,
>
> 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 1:01 PM
> *To:* Sean Parnell
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Civic Courage, Indeed
>
> 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
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>
>     *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu <mailto: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/20131121/36370b2b/attachment.html>