[EL] Fwd: Re: McCutcheon transcript -- Definition of Audacity

[Steve Hoersting]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Steve Hoersting" <hoersting at gmail.com>
Date: Oct 8, 2013 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: [EL] McCutcheon transcript -- Definition of Audacity
To: "Marty Lederman" <lederman.marty at gmail.com>
Cc: "Rick Hasen" <rhasen at law.uci.edu>

No. What Scalia was probing is the point that the SG's concerns boiled down
to concerns over gratitude and access - both forbidden interests.

Would say more, but am sending this from my phone.

Steve
On Oct 8, 2013 8:06 PM, "Marty Lederman" <lederman.marty at gmail.com> 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
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20131008/15ab043d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20131008/15ab043d/attachment.png>