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

[Scarberry, Mark]

In defense of Dr. K:

It doesn’t seem right to analogize the desire to have transparency, on the one hand, with the First Amendment, on the other. It’s perfectly reasonably to say that zealots ruined the usefulness of a method of creating transparency, so that the method is no longer on-balance desirable, without saying that the actions of some zealots would justify jettisoning the First Amendment.

Mark (the other “Mark”)

Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law



From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Hoersting
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 10:20 AM
To: Mark Schmitt
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Krauthammer latest to reject the Informational Interest ...


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<mailto: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<mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>>
To: "law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>" <law-election at uci.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<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/20140421/c2588a13/attachment.html>