[EL] The need for less disclosure sometimes

[Josh Orton]

Actually, the question is: is it clearly constitutional to legislatively
require disclosure of potentially corrupting political contributions? This
and previous courts have plainly said yes.

The comparison with private charity is completely faulty, unless you
believe our government has literally no interest in acting to preserve the
faith of its own citizens.

And speaking politically, I'm actually quite encouraged by the angry
complaints about the exercise of informed economic freedom by peer
corporations and consumers. It helps build momentum for further disclosure.


On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:

>  Totally wrong question. The question is: should the government be able
> to force people to reveal personal information that others will use to harm
> them? Is there any government interest, let alone a "compelling" one, the
> usual standard where first amendment rights are infringed  and if the
> government has some other interest, how strong must it be to overcome this
> first amendment interest?
>
>  Here's a question: would you favor a law requiring all charitable
> contributions to be placed on the web, so that citizens can boycott fellow
> citizens more easily? If not, I think you've answered my first question
> above.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 3, 2014, at 9:10 PM, "Rick Hasen" <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>   Do you see no protected First Amendment right to an economic boycott ?
>
> Rick Hasen
>
>  Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse typos.
>
> On Apr 3, 2014, at 5:49 PM, "Joe La Rue" <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   "The resignation of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich over a personal $1,000
> donation he made in 2008 in support of California's Proposition 8 shows the
> dark side of campaign disclosure laws and how [some] are using them to
> intimidate, harass, and bully anyone who disagrees with them on social and
> cultural issues."
>
> Sometimes the answer is not "more disclosure."  Sometimes the answer must
> be less disclosure, if we are to allow unpopular political speech to
> survive.  This is precisely what the Bopp Law Firm argued in Doe v. Reed.
>
> Read more here.
> http://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/03/liberals-using-campaign-disclosures-intimidate-harass/
>
>
> Joe
> ___________________
> *Joseph E. La Rue*
>  cell: 480.272.2715
> email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments,
> is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law.
> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
> you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the
> sender and permanently delete the message.
>
> PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION/ATTORNEY WORK
> PRODUCT.
>
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Any tax advice contained in this
> communication was not written and is not intended to be used for the
> purpose of (i) avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code or
> (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending any transaction or matter
> addressed herein.
>
>         _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140403/634647f5/attachment.html>