[EL] What a Shock!

Wed Apr 9 12:03:40 PDT 2014

I've been on the listserv since 2006. I have to say: I think all have
become more respectful to all, over time, from all quarters.

I've learned  a lot from the list, not so much in terms of material for
cases. But learned alot about where the other side is "coming from."

I even skimmed the offerings on MotherJones today, just because....

It's a good thing. The list is a good thing,

Steve
On Apr 9, 2014 2:48 PM, "Rick Hasen" <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  Jim,
>
> If I really wanted to discourage you from commenting about my views on the
> listserv, I would have removed you from the listserv, which many people
> have been urging me to do for your lack of civility for some time.
>
> (More emails to that effect came in today.  A few choice quotes: "I’d move
> to get rid of Jim Bopp from the list-serve.  ....  It’s tiresome.  He
> clearly can’t disagree without being disagreeable.  Let him find another
> forum for his snark.  I’d prefer not to get any more emails from him.  And
> I don’t even necessarily disagree with some of his positions.  I can’t be
> alone in this assessment."  "Just curious, is there a way to tone down
> the constant snark/invective he (and many of the CCP folks) constantly
> post?  It is ironic because, even as a reformer, I could take their
> arguments more seriously if they weren’t so obnoxious.").
>
> Instead, despite your intemperate comments on the listserv I have engaged
> with you, just like I have debated Brad Smith and Floyd Abrams with whom I
> also disagree.
>
> Rick
>
> On 4/9/14, 10:48 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
>
>      Fair enough.  I have no interest in long debates either but it is
> also true that these fundamentally different world views continue to be
> advocated for and currently debated.
>
>   I thought I raised a new twist on it in my post, in response to yours,
> which is the fact that reformers regularly make dire predictions that
> almost never come true.  Your post wants to hold the "deregulators" into
> account for their predictions and I was simply holding "reformers" to the
> same.  Their predictions about CU were wrong, they should be held in
> account for it and as a result their current predictions should be viewed
> with more skepticism.
>
>     But of course you and anyone is free not to defend their opinions if
> they choose. But that won't discourage me from commenting on them, which
> honestly is what I think you are trying to do.  Jim Bopp
>
> PS And I seriously doubt that anyone would think that you would agree with
> even my non-outlandish and non-snarky statements.
>
>  In a message dated 4/9/2014 1:16:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>
> Jim,
>
> We have fundamentally different world views as well as assessments of the
> empirical evidence.  We have had a number of exchanges on the list and
> elsewhere over the years about these conflicting normative views and views
> of the evidence, and I don't think that repeating that debate on the
> listserv would be a good use of anyone's time. It is not that I don't think
> you are unworthy of debate. It is that it all has been said before. I am
> not sure if our CATO live debate from a few years ago is still on the
> Internet.  I'd be happy to reprise that debate at some point in the future.
> But back and forth sniping on the listserv seems a waste of time.
>
> The fullest explication of my views on campaign finance appears in my 2003
> book, *The Supreme Court and Election Law.  *You can read the chapter on
> campaign finance if you want to understand my full views---though they have
> evolved in some significant ways since then. I am planning likely another
> book length treatment to make my full case for a political equality view of
> the First Amendment---one which differs, by the way, from Justice Breyer's
> dissent in some important ways. I hope when I can make my sustained
> argument it will convince many people who might be on the fence on these
> issues.  I certainly don't expect it to convince you even in a book length
> treatment (much less in a short listserv response).
>
> Of course my views expressed on the blog or elsewhere are fair targets for
> you, and you can respond however you wish. The reason I posted a short note
> in response to you was that I did not want to leave anyone new to the list
> with the impression that I agreed with your outlandish and snarky
> statements.  Beyond that, you have new lawsuits to bring (and many to win,
> unfortunately in my view) and I have a book to write.
>
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>
>
> On 4/9/14, 10:03 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
>
>  Well then I will await your much larger work anxiously. I can raise
> questions about your posts and you defend yourself by citing "larger works."
>
> You have said repeatedly, when you occasionally respond to one of my
> posts, that  "I'm not going to get into another long debate with you on the
> internet." I don't know if you think I am just not worthy of debating
> you or you don't want to debate in public so others can evaluate your
> arguments. Or perhaps you prefer just to express your opinions everyday but
> are above defending them. The Oracles of Delphi felt the same way.  Either
> way it is an odd brush off by someone with so many opinions and one who so
> aggressively puts them out to the public. But I guess some are just too
> good to be soiled by debate with us commoners.
>
> Oh, and by the way, just because I responded I am still "not going to get
> into another long debate with you on the internet."  How about a short
> debate instead? I have more lawsuits to work on. Jim Bopp
>
>  In a message dated 4/9/2014 11:18:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>
> Jim,
> I'm not going to get into another long debate with you on the internet.
> But depending upon how one defines the problem, the sky actually is already
> falling, and the election of Obama does not prove that the system is
> working.  I've made a number of points about the problem of legislative
> skew in this piece (
> http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/lobbying-rent-seeking-and-constitution)
> and I've begun work on a much larger work which will eventually respond to
> these points.
> Rick
>
> On 4/9/14, 5:55 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
>
> Regarding Rick's comment under "What a Shock!:"
>
> *P.S. Someone should collect all the statements from the deregulationists
> who said getting rid of aggregate limits is no big deal and it wouldn’t
> lead to multi-million dollar checks and the emergence of soft money.*
>
> I would but my hard drive is already full of all the Chicken Little claims
> of imminent doom by the campaign finance "reformers" after almost
> every Court decision since *Buckley*.
>
> Just to mention one, *Citizens United* was decided in 2010.  The Chicken
> Littles said that corporations would own all the politicians.  Obama was
> reelected in 2012.  Was he owned by corporations?  Opps.  And the Chicken
> Littles have not even apologized to Obama.  They just press on with more
> dire predictions.  Jim Bopp
>
>  In a message dated 4/8/2014 11:47:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>
>
>
>    Tom Edsall on McCutcheon <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250>
> Posted on April 8, 2014 8:27 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Important NYT opinion column<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/opinion/the-high-cost-of-free-speech.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>
> .
>
> Tom links to my SCOTUSBlog post, “Does the Chief Justice not Understand
> Politics, or Does He Understand it all too Well?<http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/symposium-does-the-chief-justice-not-understand-politics-or-does-he-understand-it-all-too-well/>
> “
>
> It’s not every day I’m called more cynical than Richard Posner.
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom
> Edsall on McCutcheon&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>      “Miss. preparing to use new voter ID law”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60247>
> Posted on April 8, 2014 8:00 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60247> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Gannett reports.<http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20140408/NEWS01/304080033/Miss-preparing-use-new-voter-ID-law>
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60247&title=â€œMiss.
> preparing to use new voter ID lawâ€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60247&title=%E2%80%9CMiss.%20preparing%20to%20use%20new%20voter%20ID%20law%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>      “Blacks and Early Voting, in Ohio and Wisconsin”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60245>
> Posted on April 8, 2014 7:56 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60245> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NYT letter to the editor<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/opinion/blacks-and-early-voting-in-ohio-and-wisconsin.html?ref=opinion>from NAACP Ohio and Wisconsin leaders.
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60245&title=â€œBlacks
> and Early Voting, in Ohio and Wisconsinâ€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60245&title=%E2%80%9CBlacks%20and%20Early%20Voting%2C%20in%20Ohio%20and%20Wisconsin%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter registration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=37>
>      NYT Letters to the Editor on David Brooks McCutcheon Column<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60243>
> Posted on April 8, 2014 7:55 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60243> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Here.<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/opinion/money-politics-and-the-justices.html?ref=opinion>
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60243&title=NYT
> Letters to the Editor on David Brooks McCutcheon Column&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60243&title=NYT%20Letters%20to%20the%20Editor%20on%20David%20Brooks%20McCutcheon%20Column&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>      How Low Will Dick Morris Go? <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60241>
> Posted on April 8, 2014 7:53 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60241> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> This low.<http://thehill.com/opinion/dick-morris/203019-dick-morris-investigate-2012-vote-fraud>
>
> Didn’t realize he was a member of the fraudulent fraud squad.
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60241&title=How
> Low Will Dick Morris Go?&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60241&title=How%20Low%20Will%20Dick%20Morris%20Go%3F&description=>
>   Posted in fraudulent fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>      What a Shock!: “John Roberts Gets the Parties Started”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60239>
> Posted on April 8, 2014 7:43 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60239> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Politico reports:<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/john-roberts-supreme-court-mccutcheon-republican-party-105503.html>
>
> Insiders are dreaming up how to maximize a recent Supreme Court ruling
> that frees up some big donors to give even more.
>
> A prominent idea: create a new class of donors who contribute a total of
> six- or seven-figures to each of three party committees and spread cash to
> endangered lawmakers. In exchange, the big-money givers would get something
> of an “all access pass” that comes with perks from the big three national
> committees, like face time with top officials.
>
> Of course Roberts told us that this wouldn’t happen, or that the FEC or
> Congress would easily fix it.
> Yeah right.<http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/symposium-does-the-chief-justice-not-understand-politics-or-does-he-understand-it-all-too-well/>
> And don’t delude yourselves. Many Democratic party operatives are
> *delighted* with *McCutcheon.*
> P.S. Someone should collect all the statements from the deregulationists
> who said getting rid of aggregate limits is no big deal and it wouldn’t
> lead to multi-million dollar checks and the emergence of soft money.
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60239&title=What
> a Shock!: â€œJohn Roberts Gets the Parties Startedâ€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60239&title=What%20a%20Shock%21%3A%20%E2%80%9CJohn%20Roberts%20Gets%20the%20Parties%20Started%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>      Two Panels on Voting Rights May 2 at LA Law Library as Part of Law
> Week <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60236>
> Posted on April 8, 2014 7:00 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60236> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Looking forward to participating in this:
>
> [image:
> http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Law_Week_Flyer_Friday.png]<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Law_Week_Flyer_Friday.png>
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60236&title=Two
> Panels on Voting Rights May 2 at LA Law Library as Part of Law
> Week&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60236&title=Two%20Panels%20on%20Voting%20Rights%20May%202%20at%20LA%20Law%20Library%20as%20Part%20of%20Law%20Week&description=>
>   Posted in voting <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=31>, Voting Rights Act<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>      “Government Brief Cites McCutcheon Case In Defending FEC’s
> Requirements for PACs” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60234>
> Posted on April 8, 2014 6:51 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60234> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Bloomberg BNA<http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=44415475&vname=mpebulallissues&jd=a0e8w1u4z2&split=0>:
> “Supreme Court precedents, including the court’s most recent campaign
> finance ruling in McCutcheon v. Fed. Election Comm’n, consistently have
> supported requirements for public disclosure of campaign money, government
> attorneys argued in a brief<http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/freespeech_fec_opp_brief.pdf>filed with the high court (Free Speech v. FEC, U.S., No. 13-772, brief
> filed 4/4/14).”
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60234&title=â€œGovernment
> Brief Cites McCutcheon Case In Defending FECâ€™s Requirements for PACsâ€
> &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60234&title=%E2%80%9CGovernment%20Brief%20Cites%20McCutcheon%20Case%20In%20Defending%20FEC%E2%80%99s%20Requirements%20for%20PACs%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>      “How to Clean Up American Elections”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60232>
> Posted on April 8, 2014 6:46 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60232> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Ganesh Sitaraman writes<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/clean-up-elections-with-peoples-pledge-105492.html#.U0SlbMeT6N8>for Politico.
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60232&title=â€œHow
> to Clean Up American Electionsâ€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60232&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20to%20Clean%20Up%20American%20Elections%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>      “RNC chairman: Strike down all contribution limits”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60230>
> Posted on April 8, 2014 6:44 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60230> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> That’s
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/08/rnc-chairman-strike-down-all-contribution-limits/>more
> like it.
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60230&title=â€œRNC
> chairman: Strike down all contribution limitsâ€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60230&title=%E2%80%9CRNC%20chairman%3A%20Strike%20down%20all%20contribution%20limits%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>      “Stay issued on subpoenas in NC election law case “<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60228>
> Posted on April 8, 2014 1:31 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60228> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP reports.<http://www.news-record.com/news/north_carolina_ap/article_451dc9df-0dcb-58c2-9fb5-8b87ed1d86b9.html>
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60228&title=â€œStay
> issued on subpoenas in NC election law case â€œ&description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60228&title=%E2%80%9CStay%20issued%20on%20subpoenas%20in%20NC%20election%20law%20case%20%E2%80%9C&description=>
>   Posted in The Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>      “The Hounding of Brendan Eich Gives New Cover to Defenders of Dark
> Money” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60226>
> Posted on April 8, 2014 1:30 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60226> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Important piece<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117307/brendan-eichs-resignation-mozilla-gives-new-cover-dark-money>from Alec MacGillis.
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60226&title=â€œThe
> Hounding of Brendan Eich Gives New Cover to Defenders of Dark Moneyâ€
> &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60226&title=%E2%80%9CThe%20Hounding%20of%20Brendan%20Eich%20Gives%20New%20Cover%20to%20Defenders%20of%20Dark%20Money%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>      “McConnell Doubts Individual Campaign Finance Limits Will Go Away”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60224>
> Posted on April 8, 2014 1:20 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60224> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Roll Call reports<http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/mcconnell-doubts-individual-campaign-finance-limits-will-go-away/>.
> I don’t think he’s the only one calling the shots on this though.
>  [image:
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60224&title=â€œMcConnell
> Doubts Individual Campaign Finance Limits Will Go Awayâ€ &description=]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60224&title=%E2%80%9CMcConnell%20Doubts%20Individual%20Campaign%20Finance%20Limits%20Will%20Go%20Away%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Supreme
> Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>      Demos Explainer on McCutcheon <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60222>
> Posted on April 8, 2014 1:03 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60222> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Guide for the Perplexed.<http://www.demos.org/publication/what-mccutcheon-v-fec>
>
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D60222&title=Demos%20Explainer%20on%20McCutcheon&description=>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140409/7c3df776/attachment.html>