[EL] The need for less disclosure sometimes
Jeff Hauser
jeffhauser at gmail.com
Fri Apr 4 10:02:19 PDT 2014
The bipartisan revulsion against the Lochner era reflects a broad consensus
that power differentials between workers and owners are relevant to
assessing the constitutionality of government regulation of commerce
(and/or enforcement of the post-Civil War amendments).
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:
> No, it's not news. But describing what is is not the same as what should
> be; what exactly is the distinction? Why, suddenly, is "holding people
> accountable" not such a good idea?
>
> 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
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Jeff Hauser [jeffhauser at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 12:44 PM
> To: Smith, Brad
> Cc: Trevor Potter; law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] The need for less disclosure sometimes
>
> It is not news that employment law considers workers entitled to
> non-discriminatory treatment by employers in a way that the law more
> generally does not believe companies are entitled to "fair treatment" by
> customers.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu
> <mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>> wrote:
> The case gets more complex when we consider that many of those suggesting
> we should make it illegal to discharge (and presumably otherwise
> discriminate) against an employee based on his or her political beliefs
> have also been arguing that boycotts are an important first amendment
> value, and a good way to "hold people accountable" for their beliefs.
>
> 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
>
> ________________________________________
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] on behalf of Trevor
> Potter [tpotter at capdale.com<mailto:tpotter at capdale.com>]
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 12:16 PM
> To: <larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>>
> Cc: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] The need for less disclosure sometimes
>
> Those same arguments have not prevailed against current employment
> protections based on race and religion--nor have those existing protections
> been shown to overwhelm the court system or be ineffectual for workers
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 4, 2014, at 12:11 PM, "Larry Levine" <larrylevine at earthlink.net
> <mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net><mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net
> <mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>>> wrote:
>
> Any attempt to legislate such protections for workers will bump into the
> reality of the ability of the worker to seek redress for violation of those
> protections. It would require prolonged and expensive litigation that
> likely is beyond the means of many of not most workers. The level of proof
> required in litigation would be a difficult hurdle at the very least. But
> the same could be and has been said of all manner of legislative
> protections.
> Larry
>
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf Of Samuel
> Bagenstos
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 8:53 AM
> To: Jeff Hauser
> Cc: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [EL] The need for less disclosure sometimes
>
> To add to Jeff's point, there are lots of ordinary workers who are subject
> to dismissal for their political speech who are not in a position to make
> contributions above any disclosure limit. We've gone around on this matter
> before on this list, but it seems to me<
> http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/pdfs/112/Bagenstos.pdf> the best
> way to protect the freedom of workers to engage in political speech is to
> protect them against reprisals by their employers for engaging in that
> speech -- not to keep (one subset of) political speech private. To take
> the nondisclosure tack rather than the protection-against-reprisals tack is
> to privilege the kind of political speech that can, practically, avoid
> disclosure (the giving of money) over the kind of political speech that
> cannot (speaking out to the public, in one's own name, whether alone or
> with others, on an issue of the day). And it's to privilege the kind of
> political speech that richer people can engage in over the kind of pol
>
>
> itical speech that is easiest for ordinary workers.
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Jeff Hauser <jeffhauser at gmail.com<mailto:
> jeffhauser at gmail.com><mailto:jeffhauser at gmail.com<mailto:
> jeffhauser at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> Allen, do you support laws protecting employees from being fired for
> political views? Ramping up enforcement and sanction for pro-union workers
> fired with no greater potential sanction than lost wages several years down
> the line? What about employers mandating employees listen to political
> speech from their employers?
>
> This concern for the above disclosure limit contributor class and the
> consequences for them of disclosure would seem to imply a pretty broad
> array of commitments on behalf of people less powerful than those capable
> of making > disclosure limit contributions.
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Allen Dickerson <
> adickerson at campaignfreedom.org<mailto:adickerson at campaignfreedom.org
> ><mailto:adickerson at campaignfreedom.org<mailto:
> adickerson at campaignfreedom.org>>> wrote:
> If disclosure laws were tailored to the CEOs and CinCs of the world, I
> might agree. They are not. We need to be thinking about the other 35,000
> people, who can be cashiered without anyone on this list ever hearing
> about it.
>
> > On Apr 4, 2014, at 11:32 AM, "Trevor Potter" <tpotter at capdale.com
> <mailto:tpotter at capdale.com><mailto:tpotter at capdale.com<mailto:
> tpotter at capdale.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > Mr. Eich may have "pivoted" too--unlike the President, I don't believe
> he has said so. He certainly has a public pulpit to discuss the his views
> any time he wants, so his position should be no more "frozen in time" than
> an elected official's.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> >> On Apr 4, 2014, at 11:27 AM, "Allen Dickerson" <
> adickerson at campaignfreedom.org<mailto:adickerson at campaignfreedom.org
> ><mailto:adickerson at campaignfreedom.org<mailto:
> adickerson at campaignfreedom.org>>> wrote:
> >>
> >> The point is that contributions are made in a particular time and
> place, and then interpreted later in a different time and place. Politics
> and mores change. Politicians, including the President, routinely pivot to
> account for this fact. It ought to affect how we view political disclosure,
> and the manner in which particular disclosure regimes are tailored to the
> government's informational interest.
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: Josh Orton [orton at progressivesunited.org<mailto:
> orton at progressivesunited.org><mailto:orton at progressivesunited.org<mailto:
> orton at progressivesunited.org>>]
> >> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 11:05 AM
> >> To: Allen Dickerson
> >> Cc: Adam Bonin; larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:
> larrylevine at earthlink.net><mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:
> larrylevine at earthlink.net>>; Smith, Brad; Rick Hasen; law-election at uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu><mailto:law-election at uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu>>
> >> Subject: Re: [EL] The need for less disclosure sometimes
> >>
> >> Did Eich change his view on same sex marriage and I missed it? If not,
> what's the point of this Obama comparison?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Allen Dickerson <
> adickerson at campaignfreedom.org<mailto:adickerson at campaignfreedom.org
> ><mailto:adickerson at campaignfreedom.org<mailto:
> adickerson at campaignfreedom.org>><mailto:adickerson at campaignfreedom.org
> <mailto:adickerson at campaignfreedom.org><mailto:
> adickerson at campaignfreedom.org<mailto:adickerson at campaignfreedom.org>>>>
> wrote:
> >> I stand corrected. Thank you, Adam.
> >>
> >> But it somewhat avoids my point, which as that article states, is that
> Senator Obama "had said repeatedly that he believes marriage should be only
> between man and a woman. When the California Supreme Court overturned the
> state's ban on same-sex marriage in May, Obama released a carefully nuanced
> statement saying he respected the court's decision, believed states should
> make their own decisions on marriage and "will continue to fight for civil
> unions as president."
> >>
> >> That sort of nuance isn't present from the fact of a political
> contribution. Nor are most of the 35,000 contributors--some of whom, at
> least, must have changed their minds--in the same position to articulate
> their nuanced beliefs or explain their changing views. For them, a national
> boycott isn't necessary; just a boss who happens to have an Internet
> connection.
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: Adam Bonin [adam at boninlaw.com<mailto:adam at boninlaw.com><mailto:
> adam at boninlaw.com<mailto:adam at boninlaw.com>><mailto:adam at boninlaw.com
> <mailto:adam at boninlaw.com><mailto:adam at boninlaw.com<mailto:
> adam at boninlaw.com>>>]
> >> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 9:59 AM
> >> To: Allen Dickerson; larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:
> larrylevine at earthlink.net><mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:
> larrylevine at earthlink.net>><mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:
> larrylevine at earthlink.net><mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:
> larrylevine at earthlink.net>>>; 'Smith, Brad'; 'Rick Hasen'; 'Josh Orton'
> >> Cc: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>><mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>>
> >> Subject: RE: [EL] The need for less disclosure sometimes
> >>
> >> Actually, no. Eich supported Prop 8; the President opposed it.
> >>
> >>
> http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-opposes-proposed-ban-on-gay-marriag
> >> e-3278328.php<
> http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-opposes-proposed-ban-on-gay-marriag
> >> e-3278328.php>
> >>
> >>
> >> Adam C. Bonin
> >> The Law Office of Adam C. Bonin
> >> 1900 Market Street, 4th Floor
> >> Philadelphia, PA 19103
> >> (215) 864-8002<tel:%28215%29%20864-8002><tel:%28215%29%20864-8002> (w)
> >> (215) 701-2321<tel:%28215%29%20701-2321><tel:%28215%29%20701-2321> (f)
> >> (267) 242-5014<tel:%28267%29%20242-5014><tel:%28267%29%20242-5014> (c)
> >> adam at boninlaw.com<mailto:adam at boninlaw.com><mailto:adam at boninlaw.com
> <mailto:adam at boninlaw.com>><mailto:adam at boninlaw.com<mailto:
> adam at boninlaw.com><mailto:adam at boninlaw.com<mailto:adam at boninlaw.com>>>
> >> http://www.boninlaw.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>><mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>>>
> >> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>><mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>>>] On Behalf Of Allen
> >> Dickerson
> >> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 9:42 AM
> >> To: larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net><mailto:
> larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>><mailto:
> larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net><mailto:
> larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>>>; 'Smith,
> Brad'; 'Rick Hasen'; 'Josh Orton'
> >> Cc: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>><mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>>
> >> Subject: Re: [EL] The need for less disclosure sometimes
> >>
> >> That's an interesting empirical question. It's also one that will become
> >> clearer over time.
> >>
> >> There's another aspect though: this is a testable question precisely
> >> because, once the government compels disclosure, it can't restore a
> donor's
> >> privacy. This isn't something that can be put back in a box, nor is it
> >> something that necessarily conveys anything helpful years after the
> fact.
> >>
> >> Take Mr. Eich's example. We know only that, in 2008, he opposed
> Proposition
> >> 8. Of course, in 2008, so did the Democratic presidential nominee (at
> least
> >> in substance). But Mr. Eich has been forced from his job, while we do
> not
> >> see a groundswell of support for the President's impeachment, even
> though
> >> they expressed an identical opinion at an identical time.
> >>
> >> Of course, these are very different jobs. But I'd suggest there's
> another
> >> point as well: by virtue of his office, the President's thinking has
> been
> >> able to publicly evolve on this issue--as have the views of a
> substantial
> >> number of Americans, both in government and privately. But Mr. Eich is
> still
> >> defined by a contribution made in 2008. And even if Mr. Eich is a bad
> >> example, since he is a semi-public figure, certainly the 35,000 other
> >> contributors must include some individuals whose thinking has evolved
> but
> >> who will be judged by many solely on the basis of a contribution made
> in a
> >> very different time and place.
> >>
> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/04/brendan_e
> >> ich_quits_mozilla_let_s_purge_all_the_antigay_donors_to_prop_8.html<
> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/04/brendan_e
> >> ich_quits_mozilla_let_s_purge_all_the_antigay_donors_to_prop_8.html>
> (note:
> >> satire is involved).
> >>
> >> To translate all of that into law: the government's informational
> interest
> >> is short-term (who is affecting this vote?) and the individual's privacy
> >> interest is long-term (how will this be viewed in future decades?)
> That's a
> >> serious asymmetry since we are far more likely to be able to guess the
> >> former than the latter. Perhaps we should be asking the effect on
> political
> >> participation if individuals are required to make lifetime bets on
> >> historical trends, the sort of public record that has traditionally been
> >> limited to explicitly public positions and official action.
> >>
> >> It certainly argues for far more care in drafting disclosure statutes.
> After
> >> all, disclosure thresholds are set low enough to capture individuals who
> >> could not weather a future storm as well as Mr. Eich is likely to.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Allen
> >>
> >> Allen Dickerson
> >> Legal Director
> >> Center for Competitive Politics
> >> (703) 894-6800<tel:%28703%29%20894-6800><tel:%28703%29%20894-6800>
> >>
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>><mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>>>
> >> [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>><mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>>>] On Behalf Of Larry
> Levine
> >> [larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net><mailto:
> larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>><mailto:
> larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net><mailto:
> larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>>>]
> >> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 1:42 AM
> >> To: 'Smith, Brad'; 'Rick Hasen'; 'Josh Orton'
> >> Cc: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>><mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>>
> >> Subject: Re: [EL] The need for less disclosure sometimes
> >>
> >> Isn't the demonstrable likelihood of resultant boycotts so infrequent
> as to
> >> be called insignificant when measured against the public's right to
> know the
> >> source of funding for candidates and measure?
> >> Larry
> >>
> >>
> >> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>><mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>>>
> >> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>><mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>>>] On Behalf Of Smith,
> >> Brad
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 9:04 PM
> >> To: Rick Hasen; Josh Orton
> >> Cc: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>><mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>>
> >> Subject: Re: [EL] The need for less disclosure sometimes
> >>
> >> But Josh completely misses the point.
> >>
> >> Your original question: is there a free speech interest in boycotting?
> My
> >> point is that that is the wrong question.
> >>
> >> Of course there is, and no one is proposing to limit that the right to
> >> boycott (though I have argued, and continue to argue, that generally it
> is a
> >> bad use of freedom). Rather, the question is, does the government have
> an
> >> interest in forcing people to divulge personal information so that
> others
> >> can boycott them? I presume that the answer to that is "no."
> >>
> >> Josh says, in effect, but the state has other interests. I'll concede
> that.
> >> As I said, then it's a balancing matter, and you seem to agree, as does
> >> Josh. But it is not balancing the speech interest of boycotting with
> with
> >> the associational and privacy interests on the other side (or your
> answer to
> >> the question in the first paragraph would be "yes.") Rather, it is
> balancing
> >> whatever other "compelling" interest the government can come up with
> against
> >> the associational and privacy interests, and chilling effect on speech.
> >>
> >> In other words, if you really believe there is a First Amendment
> interest in
> >> having the government force others to provide you with the information
> you
> >> need to boycott them, then you would presumably have no objection to
> >> forcing, under penalty of law, the publication of memberships, voting
> >> records, charitable contributions, and such.
> >>
> >> Does the government have a compelling interest in encouraging private
> >> boycotts? Clearly not. It doesn't even have a rational basis interest in
> >> doing so, boycotting historically having been frowned upon as harmful to
> >> economic growth and civil society. But if you believe that there is a
> >> government interest in encouraging private boycotts on the basis of
> >> political belief and action, I don't see how you conclude there is not a
> >> government interest in encouraging private boycotts on the basis of
> voting
> >> records ("I do not want to do business with a person who votes
> >> Republican!"), charitable giving ("you give to the homophobic boy
> scouts! -
> >> you're fired!" "You support Planned Parenthood and killing babies!!! - I
> >> want nothing to do with you!"), memberships ("you're a Mason!!!!!!!???
> My
> >> business goes elsewhere!"), and probably quite bit more. Personally, I
> >> simply see no way that the state has a compelling interest in forcing
> people
> >> to divulge personal information so that others can try to harm them
> through
> >> boycotts.
> >>
> >> So in balancing, we weigh the state's interest in disclosure (an
> informed
> >> electorate, prevention of corruption, enforcement of limits) against the
> >> individual/group's interest in privacy, association, and speech. On the
> >> government side, we should place zero value on the fact that it will
> help
> >> people launch private boycotts - indeed, that is an argument in favor of
> >> limiting disclosure.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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<tel:614.236.6317><tel:614.236.6317<tel:614.236.6317>>
> >>
> >> http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Rick Hasen [rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:
> rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:
> rhasen at law.uci.edu>>>]
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 11:29 PM
> >> To: Josh Orton; Smith, Brad
> >> Cc: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>><mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>><mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>><mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu><mailto:
> law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>>>
> >> Subject: Re: [EL] The need for less disclosure sometimes 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><mailto:
> BSmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>><mailto:
> BSmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu><mailto:
> BSmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>>><mailto:
> BSmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu><mailto:
> BSmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>><mailto:
> BSmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu><mailto:
> 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><mailto:
> rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:
> rhasen at law.uci.edu>>><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu
> ><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>><mailto:
> rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto: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><mailto:
> joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>><mailto:
> joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com><mailto:
> joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>>><mailto:
> joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com><mailto:
> joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>><mailto:
> joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com><mailto:
> 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-inti
> >> midate-harass/<
> http://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/03/liberals-using-campaign-disclosures-inti
> >> midate-harass/>
> >>
> >> Joe
> >> ___________________
> >> Joseph E. La Rue
> >> cell:
> 480.272.2715<tel:480.272.2715><tel:480.272.2715<tel:480.272.2715>><tel:480.272.2715<tel:480.272.2715><tel:480.272.2715<tel:480.272.2715>>>
> >> email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
> ><mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
> >><mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
> ><mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
> >>><mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
> ><mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
> >><mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
> ><mailto: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><mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>><mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>><mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.u<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.u
> ><mailto:Law-election at department-lists.u<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.u>><mailto:Law-election at department-lists.u
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.u><mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.u<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.u>>>
> >> ci.edu<http://ci.edu><http://ci.edu><http://ci.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><mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>><mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>><mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.u<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.u
> ><mailto:Law-election at department-lists.u<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.u>><mailto:Law-election at department-lists.u
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.u><mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.u<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.u>>>
> >> ci.edu<http://ci.edu><http://ci.edu><http://ci.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><mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>><mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>><mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.u<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.u
> ><mailto:Law-election at department-lists.u<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.u>><mailto:Law-election at department-lists.u
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.u><mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.u<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.u>>>
> >> ci.edu<http://ci.edu><http://ci.edu><http://ci.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<tel:949.824.3072><tel:949.824.3072<tel:949.824.3072>> -
> office
> >>
> >> 949.824.0495<tel:949.824.0495> - fax
> >>
> >> rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:
> rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu
> >>><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:
> rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:
> rhasen at law.uci.edu>>>>
> >>
> >> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> >>
> >> http://electionlawblog.org
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Law-election mailing list
> >> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>><mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:
> 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><mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
> >> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> >
> > <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
> > To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,
> > we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise,
> > any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
> > attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
> > cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
> > penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting,
> > marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
> > matter addressed herein.
> >
> > This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
> > from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
> > confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
> > copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
> > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
> > advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
> > by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
> > <-->
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:
> 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><mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Bagenstos
> sbagen at gmail.com<mailto:sbagen at gmail.com><mailto:sbagen at gmail.com<mailto:
> sbagen at gmail.com>>
> Twitter: @sbagen
> My University of Michigan homepage:
> http://www.law.umich.edu/FacultyBio/Pages/FacultyBio.aspx?FacID=sambagen
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
> To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,
> we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise,
> any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
> attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
> cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
> penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting,
> marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
> matter addressed herein.
>
> This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
> from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
> copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
> advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
> by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
> <-->
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140404/7a74b553/attachment.html>
View list directory