[EL] The need for less disclosure sometimes

[David Keating]

Actually the comparison with charities is not faulty.  Delaware recently passed a law that requires PAC style disclosures for charities that publish non-partisan voter guides.  It is being defended in part by the Campaign Legal Center.  Our group represents the plaintiff in the case.

The current state of the law there will also require Project Vote Smart or the League of Women Voters to disclose or discontinue its voter guide info too.

David
_________________________________________________
David Keating | President | Center for Competitive Politics
124 S. West Street, Suite 201 | Alexandria, VA 22314
703-894-6799 (direct) | 703-894-6800 | 703-894-6811 Fax
www.campaignfreedom.org

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Josh Orton
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 11:17 PM
To: Smith, Brad
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] The need for less disclosure sometimes

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140406/3656f470/attachment.html>