[EL] The need for less disclosure sometimes

Mon Apr 7 06:59:30 PDT 2014

". intended to pass only to get to conference committee where things can be
ironed out."

Sean Parnell

President

Impact Policy Management, LLC

6411 Caleb Court

Alexandria, VA  22315

571-289-1374 (c)

sean at impactpolicymanagement.com

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Sean
Parnell
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 9:52 AM
To: 'David Keating'; 'Josh Orton'; 'Smith, Brad'
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] The need for less disclosure sometimes

It's been several years, but sometime around 2010 I think (obviously
post-Citizens United) "reformers" in New Jersey proposed a disclosure law
that would have brought charities under their regime simply for including a
candidate's name on a piece of material. So if the local hiking enthusiasts
organization simply mentioned in their newsletter that Assembly Member Smith
had spoken at their monthly meeting about her efforts to protect state
forests, then that organization would have had to reveal all their donors
above the specified levels.

I'm not sure the scope was intentional, more than likely it was simply inept
drafting. But sometimes legislation that is ineptly drafted does become law
(ditto for legislation that was simply draft legislation, intended to pass
only to get to committee where things can be ironed out - this was the case
with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which makes so amusing
to me the people trying to divine what the "intent" of that law was. The
intent was that it never be enacted).

Best,

Sean Parnell

President

Impact Policy Management, LLC

6411 Caleb Court

Alexandria, VA  22315

571-289-1374 (c)

sean at impactpolicymanagement.com

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of David
Keating
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2014 10:58 PM
To: Josh Orton; Smith, Brad
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] The need for less disclosure sometimes

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> 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-inti
midate-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/20140407/696767a1/attachment.html>