[EL] Prop 8 harassment

[JBoppjr at aol.com]

Yes, we have debated this before and to correct the record, I have a few  
comments:
 
In that series of posts, I pointed out that the courts in the  
Protectmarriage.com and Doe v. Reed cases rejected Jim's claims that there was  much 
unconstitutional harassment of people simply for making donations.   (There 
were some instances of harassment of leaders of the group---but not of  simple 
campaign donors). 
 
My reference was to Protectmarriage.com (Calif Prop 8) where there were  
over 250 incidents of harassment of supporters of Prop 8, including donors who 
 were mapquested.  Rick says:  (There were some instances of  harassment of 
leaders of the group---but not of simple campaign  donors). That statement 
refers to Doe v. Reed (Wash. petition  signers), not Protectmarriage, and 
the reason is that we got an injunction to  prevent disclosure of the petition 
signers -- they were the ones threatened with  harassment -- so no one knew 
who signed the petition so they were not harassed.  (Years later, the 
District Court did order disclosure of the names,  but the heat had gone out of 
the issue.} 
 
If I remember Jim's response the last time we debated this, he rejected  
the court's findings on the extent of the harassment as well as the question 
of  what should count as unconstitutional harassment.
 
Yes, the critical issue is what should count as unconstitutional  
harassment.  The District Court basically said only acts that are illegal,  but they 
don't count anyway because they could be reported to the police.   This is a 
very restrictive standard which means that no evidence could ever meet  the 
standard.  
 
By the way, 9th Circuit argument is Oct. 11th.  Jim Bopp
 
 
In a message dated 8/31/2013 1:19:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:

Jim Bopp  wrote a message which I inadvertently deleted but was able to 
find in _this  archived post_ 
(http://department-lists.uci.edu/pipermail/law-election/2013-August/007755.html)  and _this  one_ 
(http://department-lists.uci.edu/pipermail/law-election/2013-August/007756.html) . In the posts, Jim 
claimed there were lots of instances of Prop. 8  supporters be harassed 
(thanks to mapquesting by the "homosexual lobby" of  campaign donors).

Jim and I debated this point on the listserv last  year.  In that series of 
posts, I pointed out that the courts in the  Protectmarriage.com and Doe v. 
Reed cases rejected Jim's claims that there was  much unconstitutional 
harassment of people simply for making donations.   (There were some instances 
of harassment of leaders of the group---but not of  simple campaign donors).  
If I remember Jim's response the last time we  debated this, he rejected 
the court's findings on the extent of the harassment  as well as the question 
of what should count as unconstitutional  harassment.  (The debate has some 
interesting parallels to the points Sam  Bagenstos was making about private 
retaliation.)

I cover the evidence  of the extent of the harassment in _Chill Out: A 
Qualified Defense of  Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws in the Internet Age_ 
(http://ssrn.com/abstract=1948313) , 27 Journal of Law  and Politics 557 (2012). 
I'd also recommend my former student's note,  Elian Dashev _Economic  
Boycotts as Harassment: The Threat to
First Amendment Protected Speech in  the Aftermath of Doe v. Reed_ 
(http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2776&context=llr) .  In 
my article, while I reject the  claims of harassment as exaggerated, I do 
believe that as a matter of policy,  jurisdictions should greatly increase the 
threshold for disclosure of campaign  contributions and spending, because 
there is a value in donor privacy and  releasing the names of those who are 
very small financial players in elections  does not serve an important 
governmental purpose.

I don't plan to  engage in a debate about this with Jim again---but I did 
not want to leave his  points unanswered for those new to the listserv (or 
with memory loss).  

-- 

Rick Hasen

Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science

UC Irvine School of Law

401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000

Irvine, CA 92697-8000

949.824.3072 - office

949.824.0495 - fax

_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) 

http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/

_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/) 


_______________________________________________
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/20130901/2cc644d3/attachment.html>