[EL] McCutcheon transcript -- Definition of Audacity

[Marty Lederman]

But at least that argument makes some conceptual sense, when it is that *
Congress* has made the holes in the law and thus can't justify the
remaining regulations -- a classic underinclusiveness argument.  Here,
however, it's not only that it was *the Court* that eliminated the
expenditure limitations, but that it did so *on the ground that
expenditures are not corrupting!*


On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  I should add that this is the whole bootstrapping argument of the
> anti-regulation crowd.  Make a hole in the law, and then argue that with
> the hole, no further regulation makes any sense.
>
>
> On 10/8/13 5:05 PM, Marty Lederman wrote:
>
> Please let me know if I'm misreading this, but doesn't Justice Scalia,
> joined by Justice Kennedy, spend page after page chiding the SG that the
> contribution limits can't possibly serve an anti-corruption interest
> because they'll simply cause wealthy individuals to funnel their dollars
> into independent expenditures (and PAC expenditures), for which
> officeholders will be even *more *grateful, thereby increasing the risk
> and degree of corruption?
>
>  Finally, after exhibiting admirable patience, SG Verrilli said:  "Well,
> Justice Scalia, I'm not here to debate the question of whether the
> Court's jurisprudence is correct with respect to the risks of corruption
> from independent expenditures."  And then when Justice Kennedy expressed
> dissatisfaction with that answer, Justice Kagan quipped:  "I suppose that
> if this Court is having second thoughts about its rulings that independent
> expenditures are not corrupting, we could change that part of the law."
>
>  I don't know how it played in the courtroom . . . but on the page, it
> sure comes off as the ultimate in chutzpah.
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>>  Read the Transcript in McCutcheon Oral Argument at Supreme Court<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55810>
>>  Posted on October 8, 2013 10:33 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55810> by
>> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Here<http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-536_21o2.pdf>
>> .
>>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D55810&title=Read%20the%20Transcript%20in%20McCutcheon%20Oral%20Argument%20at%20Supreme%20Court&description=>
>>   Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
>>
>> --
>> Rick Hasen
>> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>> UC Irvine School of Law
>> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>> Irvine, CA 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.edu
>> hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/http://electionlawblog.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.edu
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20131008/4417b13a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20131008/4417b13a/attachment.png>