[EL] Krauthammer latest to reject the Informational Interest ...

[Steve Hoersting]

I actually hear what Mark is saying. My belief, on this point, is that Dr.
K is early in his conversion, and that his thinking on the topic will
strengthen over time.

The roots of "let's have full disclosure" run deep. Antipathy to its
automated appeal will increase as the true purpose of compelled disclosure
continues to reveal itself -- particularly for noncorrupting speech -- and
the relative lack of benefit is better understood.

People are realizing: Margaret McIntyre's experience is too often the rule,
not the exception.

-S
Sent from my phone.



On Apr 21, 2014 1:02 PM, "Mark Schmitt" <schmitt.mark at gmail.com> wrote:

>  I can understand the argument that the potential abuses of disclosure
> might outweigh the benefits to democracy. (Especially because I think those
> benefits are overstated.) But it seems awfully weird to hold the view that
> disclosure was "an elegant solution" and "a reasonable way to reconcile the
> irreconcilables," but *also* that it has now been "ruined" beyond
> rescue. Ruined by a handful of incidents, all of which involve a single
> issue in a single state. (I'm ignoring good old Mr. Vander Skloot and his
> multi-level marketing scheme -- it's hard to believe he wasn't audited
> sooner.)
>
> It's a lot like saying that you thought the First Amendment was a good
> idea, until some "zealot" ruined it by calling someone a bad name or
> burning a flag. It seems like the worst possible form of argument.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Scarberry, Mark" <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>
> To: "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>
> Sent: 4/20/2014 10:39:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [EL] Krauthammer latest to reject the Informational Interest
> ...
>
>
> The end of his column (fair use, I think):
>
> "The ultimate victim here is full disclosure itself. If revealing your
> views opens you to the politics of personal destruction, then transparency,
> however valuable, must give way to the ultimate core political good, free
> expression.
>
> "Our collective loss. Coupling unlimited donations and full disclosure was
> a reasonable way to reconcile the irreconcilables of campaign finance. Like
> so much else in our politics, however, it has been ruined by zealots. What
> a pity."
>
> Mark S. Scarberry
>
> Pepperdine University School of Law
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 20, 2014, at 7:11 PM, "Steve Hoersting" <hoersting at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376023/zealots-win-again-charles-krauthammer
>
> Hear. Hear.
>
> --
> Stephen M. Hoersting
>
>  _______________________________________________
> 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/20140421/c7579f5d/attachment.html>