[EL] What a Shock!
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Thu Apr 10 05:10:03 PDT 2014
Interesting take:
The idea that individual rights must be sacrificed for the sake of a
vaguely defined collective interest reflects the dangerously broad agenda of
campaign finance "reformers," who seek to shape the political debate so that
it comports with their own notion of the public good.
_Click here: Free Speech vs. the Collective - Reason.com_
(http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/09/free-speech-vs-the-collective)
It sounds sorta outlandish but maybe he is on to something. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 4/10/2014 12:14:19 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
schmitt.mark at gmail.com writes:
I disagree with Mr. Bopp, Steve Hoersting, Brad Smith and the CCP crowd
90% of the time, and I often vow to resist engaging. Nonetheless, I’m very
appreciative of their contributions here and hope they continue. I recognize
that sometimes the tone of these pop-up ideological fights might seem out
of place on a list that is mostly meant to disseminate news and practical
information for election lawyers and academics. But I don’t know of any
other forum where this kind of engagement and debate across a wide spectrum of
views on election law and campaign finance takes place. It seems like an
accidental but valuable aspect of the list. I hope that those who are not
interested can find a way to ignore it or put up with it. (Or better, join
the conversation.)
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) ]
On Behalf Of Douglas Carver
Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2014 4:32 PM
To: _JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com)
Cc: _law-election at uci.edu_ (mailto:law-election at uci.edu)
Subject: Re: [EL] What a Shock!
Jim, I know plenty of campaign finance reformers. Some of them agree with
you at times, you may be surprised to know. Very often, most often, even,
they disagree with you, usually pretty strongly. But none of them want to
shut you up.
One of the things I most value about this listserve -- and why I am so
grateful to Rick and all of the others who keep it running and participate in
its dialogue -- is that there is free and frank discussion of the issues.
So thanks to all who make it happen.
Douglas Carver
Albuquerque, NM
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:32 PM, <_JBoppjr at aol.com_
(mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) > wrote:
As I have explained, which started this all, "reformers" want to use
campaign finance laws to shut up their opponents so they can get their liberal
agenda through. Comments by them after McCutcheon have made this crystal
clear, as well as has Breyer's dissent. So I am not at all surprised that
they want to shut me up too. Many people think that disagreeing with them
is disagreeable.
Rick, I am glad you may not be in that camp. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 4/9/2014 2:47:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) writes:
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_ (mailto: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_ (mailto: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_ (mailto: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_ (mailto: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_ (mailto: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_ (mailto: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.
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
_Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court _
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom
%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
_“Miss. preparing to use new voter ID law” _
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McC
utcheon&description=)
_Posted on April 8, 2014 8:00 pm by Rick Hasen _
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%
20McCutcheon&description=)
_Gannett reports._
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
_Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars _
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%
20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
_“Blacks and Early Voting, in Ohio and Wisconsin” _
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20
on%20McCutcheon&description=)
_Posted on April 8, 2014 7:56 pm by Rick Hasen _
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%
20McCutcheon&description=)
_NYT letter to the editor from NAACP Ohio and Wisconsin leaders._
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=To
m%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
_Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars, voter registration
_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
_NYT Letters to the Editor on David Brooks McCutcheon Column _
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%2
0Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
_Posted on April 8, 2014 7:55 pm by Rick Hasen _
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%
20McCutcheon&description=)
_Here._
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
_Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court _
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McC
utcheon&description=)
_How Low Will Dick Morris Go? _
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&descri
ption=)
_Posted on April 8, 2014 7:53 pm by Rick Hasen _
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%
20McCutcheon&description=)
_This low._
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
_Didn’t realize he was a member of the fraudulent fraud squad._
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%
20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
_Posted in fraudulent fraud squad, The Voting Wars _
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%2
0on%20McCutcheon&description=)
_What a Shock!: “John Roberts Gets the Parties Started” _
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.or
g/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
_Posted on April 8, 2014 7:43 pm by Rick Hasen _
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%
20McCutcheon&description=)
_Politico reports:_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
_Insiders are dreaming up how to maximize a recent Supreme Court ruling
that frees up some big donors to give even more._
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20M
cCutcheon&description=)
_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._
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%2
0McCutcheon&description=)
_Of course Roberts told us that this wouldn’t happen, or that the FEC or
Congress would easily fix it._
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&descript
ion=)
_Yeah right._
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
_And don’t delude yourselves. Many Democratic party operatives are
delighted with McCutcheon._
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
_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._
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=T
om%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
_Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court _
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McC
utcheon&description=)
_Two Panels on Voting Rights May 2 at LA Law Library as Part of Law Week
_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
_Posted on April 8, 2014 7:00 pm by Rick Hasen _
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%
20McCutcheon&description=)
_Looking forward to participating in this:_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McCu
tcheon&description=)
Posted in voting, Voting Rights Act
“Government Brief Cites McCutcheon Case In Defending FEC’s Requirements
for PACs”
Posted on April 8, 2014 6:51 pm by Rick Hasen
Bloomberg BNA: “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 filed with the high court (Free
Speech v. FEC, U.S., No. 13-772, brief filed 4/4/14).”
Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court
“How to Clean Up American Elections”
Posted on April 8, 2014 6:46 pm by Rick Hasen
Ganesh Sitaraman writes for Politico.
Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court
“RNC chairman: Strike down all contribution limits”
Posted on April 8, 2014 6:44 pm by Rick Hasen
That’s more like it.
Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court
“Stay issued on subpoenas in NC election law case “
Posted on April 8, 2014 1:31 pm by Rick Hasen
AP reports.
Posted in The Voting Wars
“The Hounding of Brendan Eich Gives New Cover to Defenders of Dark Money”
Posted on April 8, 2014 1:30 pm by Rick Hasen
Important piece from Alec MacGillis.
Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court
“McConnell Doubts Individual Campaign Finance Limits Will Go Away”
Posted on April 8, 2014 1:20 pm by Rick Hasen
Roll Call reports. I don’t think he’s the only one calling the shots on
this though.
Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court
Demos Explainer on McCutcheon
Posted on April 8, 2014 1:03 pm by Rick Hasen
Guide for the Perplexed.
Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court
“Judge Rules Delaware Disclosure Law Unconstitutional”
Posted on April 8, 2014 12:58 pm by Rick Hasen
CCP: “A federal court today issued an order barring enforcement of a
recently adopted Delaware law that would have forced a group that publishes
non-partisan voter guides to violate its members’ privacy.”
Posted in campaign finance
“Rich People Will Always Beat Campaign Finance Restrictions”
Posted on April 8, 2014 12:55 pm by Rick Hasen
Steve Chapman writes for Reason.
Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court
“Shelby and Section 3: Pulling the Voting Rights Act’s Pocket Trigger to
Protect Voting Rights after Shelby County v. Holder”
Posted on April 8, 2014 12:51 pm by Rick Hasen
Paul Wiley has posted this draft student note on SSRN (forthcoming,
Washington and Lee Law Review). Here is the abstract:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder presents voting
rights advocates with a difficult challenge: finding an effective substitute
for the preclearance regime struck down by the Court. The best possible
alternative may live within the Voting Rights Act itself in Section 3(c)’s “
pocket trigger.” Section 3(c) permits a federal court to retain
jurisdiction and preclear a jurisdiction’s changes to its voting procedures upon a
finding of a constitutional violation. By relating more closely to current
conditions in a specific locality, Section 3(c) preclearance avoids many of
the problems the Court identified in NAMUDNO and Shelby County.
This Note analyzes the history of Voting Rights Act litigation and
suggests a more expansive use of Section 3(c) preclearance to continue federal
oversight of election procedures.
Posted in Supreme Court, Voting Rights Act, VRAA
All My McCutcheon Commentary in One Place
Posted on April 8, 2014 10:47 am by Rick Hasen
Courtesy of @UCILaw:
* The Guardian
* Daily Journal (PDF)
* Reuters
* SCOTUSBlog
* Slate
Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court
“McCutcheon and Corruption in America”
Posted on April 8, 2014 9:13 am by Rick Hasen
Harvard University Press blog:
In Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin’s Snuff Box to Citizens
United, Teachout reminds us that the particularly demanding notion of
corruption represented by that early gifts rule is central to American law and
democracy. This notion of corruption, she explains, is not limited to the
blatant bribes and explicit quid pro quo to which Chief Justice Roberts
referred in this week’s McCutcheon v. FEC ruling, and Justice Kennedy in
Citizens United before that. The foundational American understanding of
corruption encompassed emotional, internal, psychological relationships in an
effort to protect the morality of interactions between official
representatives of government and private parties, foreign parties, or other
politicians.
Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court
Marty Lederman Goes Into the Weeds on Standing and Ripeness Issues in
Susan B. Anthony False Speech SCOTUS Case
Posted on April 8, 2014 9:00 am by Rick Hasen
A very helpful primer, at SCOTUSBlog.
Posted in campaigns, Supreme Court
--
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
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
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
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/_hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org
--
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
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org
--
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
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org
_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=) _
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election_
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20E
dsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%20on%20McCutcheon&description=)
_--
Dilexi iustitiam et odivi iniquitatem, propterea morior in exilio.
(I have loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile.)
-- the last words of Saint Pope Gregory VII (d. 1085) _
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60250&title=Tom%20Edsall%
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/20140410/69a828f7/attachment.html>
View list directory