[EL] WARNING: SNARK AHEAD RE: Supreme Court and campaign finance

[Trevor Potter]

I am delighted to hear that is the interpretation you put on Citizens United and McCutcheon....your Listserve statement that  "selling access " was not corruption under recent Supreme Court cases did not make that clear. I had thought your view would be that the buying and selling of access and meetings with legislators and executive branch officials --as described in the McConnell v FEC decisions and categorized therein as " corruption" --was precisely what the Court majority was rejecting in the more recent cases: glad to hear you take the position that was not so!

Trevor Potter
Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 3, 2014, at 2:18 PM, "JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>" <JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>> wrote:

Trevor, you are so silly.  This is already illegal and should be.  Jim

In a message dated 7/2/2014 7:37:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, tpotter at capdale.com<mailto:tpotter at capdale.com> writes:
right to buy and sell meetings with government officials
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.
 For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140703/cc7643c8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 114070309310110035
Type: image/png
Size: 9617 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140703/cc7643c8/attachment.png>