[EL] "Ready for a surprise? Money DOES equal access in Washington"

Tue Mar 11 11:59:49 PDT 2014

Regarding this:

And despite the cries of some on the right, Citizens United did not end  
campaign finance regulation.

We will see about that!  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 3/11/2014 2:53:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
levittj at lls.edu writes:

And another potential view still -- which is that  independent speech is of 
different value and poses different risks than direct  contributions.  

And still another view -- that even if  legislators needn't meet with 
everyone, there are still some impermissible  reasons to sort those who get 
meetings from those who do not.

And still  another other view -- that Caperton proves that the Court, and 
Justice  Kennedy, understand full well that the fact that independent speech 
can indeed  lead to impermissible influence over elected officials ... but 
that the remedy  must be adequately tailored to the harm.

Despite the cries of some on  the left, Citizens United did not end 
campaign finance  regulation.  And despite the cries of some on the right, Citizens 
 United did not end campaign finance regulation.
-- 

Justin Levitt

Associate Professor of Law

Loyola Law School | Los Angeles

919 Albany St.

Los Angeles, CA  90015

213-736-7417

_justin.levitt at lls.edu_ (mailto:justin.levitt at lls.edu) 

ssrn.com/author=698321
On 3/11/2014 11:22 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:

There is  another view, which is that the Court was wrong in writing that 
in Citizens  United, and the equation of access with corruption in McConnell 
(and other  cases was correct).
Things may change once the Supreme Court changes.  That is, the definition 
of "corruption' depends upon what 5 Justices of the  Supreme Court says it 
means.

On 3/11/2014 11:19 AM, Joe La Rue  wrote:

But access DOES NOT equal real or apparent  corruption, which as we all 
know is the only constitutionally cognizable  interest in limiting 
contributions or expenditures.  Indeed, "The fact that speakers may have influence over 
or access to  elected officials does not mean that these officials are 
corrupt."   Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S.Ct. 876, 910 (2010).   

Whether legislators should give greater  access to those who make 
contributions or expenditures is a fair  question.  Perhaps we should organize a 
petition to require the House  and Senate to change their rules to require their 
members  to meet with anyone and everyone who requests a meeting.  Of 
course,  that would likely keep the members of the legislature from legislating,  
which would keep them from spending money we don't have on projects  we 
don't need.

Now that you mention it, where do I sign that  petition?

Joe
___________________
Joseph E. La Rue

cell: 480.272.2715  
email: _joseph.e.larue at gmail.com_ (mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com) 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This  e-mail message, including any attachments, 
is for the sole use of the  intended recipient(s) and may contain 
confidential and privileged  information or otherwise be protected by law. Any 
unauthorized review,  use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you have 
received this  message in error, please immediately notify the sender and 
permanently  delete the message. 

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL  - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION/ATTORNEY WORK 
PRODUCT.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Any tax advice  contained in this 
communication was not written and is not intended to be  used for the purpose of (i) 
avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal  Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, 
marketing, or recommending any transaction  or matter addressed  herein.

_______________________________________________

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

-- 

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_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) 

hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/

_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/) 

_______________________________________________

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
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/20140311/cace3fd5/attachment.html>