[EL] The need for less disclosure sometimes
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Thu Apr 3 20:29:34 PDT 2014
Brad,
I agree with Josh that the analogy to charitable giving is off the mark,
because there is nothing to balance on the other side.
My own view is that for small donations, there should be a zone of
informational privacy. Revealing such information serves little public
purpose and could deter some giving by small donors. For larger donors,
I think the privacy interest should give way to anticorruption and
informational interests.
I develop these ideas in much more detail 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)
It is also a little ironic, as a reader pointed out to me, that you kept
the Libertarian candidate off the ballot recently in Ohio for failing to
include employment information on collected petitions.
Rick
On 4/3/14, 8:17 PM, Josh Orton wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:480.272.2715>
>>> email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen 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/20140403/5d1a8f1f/attachment.html>
View list directory