[EL] The need for less disclosure sometimes

Thu Apr 3 21:19:57 PDT 2014

Of course, Josh is not asking a question at all, but making an assertion that fails to address Joe's challenge at all. Josh tendentiously asks, "is it clearly constitutional to legislatively require disclosure of potentially corrupting political contributions?" I say tendentious, because there's a lot packed into the idea of "potentially corrupting political contributions." Depending on how one defines that phrase, the courts have not, Josh's assertion notwithstanding, "plainly said yes." See e.g. Buckley, McIntyre, Socialist Workers.

Joe argues that the limits on disclosure should be greater because of the loss of privacy and the harassment that can result, which also can chill speech. I don't take Joe to deny for a second that there might be a speech (and associational) interest in boycotting others - but the first question is whether there is a state interest in requiring people to disclose information that enables others to boycott them. I would presume the answer to that question is obviously "no." The state must have some other interest before it can order people to disclose private information. So Josh merely identifies such an interest, and then in conclusory fashion proclaims "case closed." But that's wrong. That merely starts the balancing test; and while the answer is that much forced disclosure is allowed, much has not been allowed. And while the Court has allowed much, Joe, I take it, is arguing that some of those decisions are wrong. Perhaps if Josh is willing to never criticize Citizens United or McCutcheon again (because the Court has spoken) Joe will agree never to criticize compulsory disclosure rulings again.

Bradley A. Smith

Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault

   Professor of Law

Capital University Law School

303 E. Broad St.

Columbus, OH 43215

614.236.6317

http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx

________________________________

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<mailto: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/20140404/2cbb5d5e/attachment.html>