[EL] Wisconsin John Doe decision

Wed May 7 12:45:32 PDT 2014

Rick's right.  I'll rephrase my point.

Isn't this proceeding exactly the kind of politically-tainted proceeding that would cause people to lose confidence in the political process?  Isn't that the claimed purpose of campaign finance laws in the first instance?  And wouldn't publicity help ensure that these kinds of investigations are not undertaken for political reasons?

I had thought that public oversight of the machineries of government in investigations of campaign finance laws would be an area where de-reg and pro-reg people would share an interest in public oversight and I am legitimately surprised that those who support increased regulation of political finance-and who I would think would want to have as open a system as possible to reassure the public that the laws cannot be manipulated for political gain-are not more concerned about this case and the secrecy in which it was undertaken.  Secret, heavy-handed investigations by politically-interested parties certainly gives credence to the idea that campaign finance laws can easily be just become a tool to conduct campaigns in a courtroom.

(Also, please note that my snark about "sunlight" was directed (in my mind, at least) at Justice Brandeis himself, in that the analogy is based on a factually ridiculous premise.  It's like saying "Oxygen is the best flame retardant."  Sunlight is absolutely not the best disinfectant.  No doctor would say, "That cut looks  infected.  Let's get some sunlight on it."  It may explain why so many people died of sepsis back then.)

Bill

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 12:09 PM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Wisconsin John Doe decision

I think everyone needs to cool it on the snark.  We were doing very well discussing substance.

Rather than phrase points with sarcasm, say what you mean directly.

On 5/7/14, 12:05 PM, Josh Orton wrote:
You're totally right - sunlight is the best disinfectant. I've made it my practice to always violate court orders by leaking to actual named news reporters instead of anonymous opinion pages.

On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org<mailto:wmaurer at ij.org>> wrote:
So, the targets of this investigation are at fault because they "leaked" information to the WSJ?

But I thought "sunlight" was the best "disinfectant."

I would think that "sunlight" of what appears to be a politically-motivated use of law enforcement in secret proceedings is exactly the kind of thing that should be given public scrutiny or else the people will lose confidence in the political process and believe that the government is not working in their best interest but in the best interest of unidentified entities with political pull.  But I guess that principle only applies to $25 donations to initiative campaigns and not police raiding someone's house in the middle of the night because they supported the wrong candidate.  Apparently, that can and should remain absolutely secret.

Does anyone have a list of when sunlight is and is not the best disinfectant?  I mean, besides medicine and cleaning and pretty much any other time one might be tempted to use sunlight to disinfect anything.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
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 Trevor Potter
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:23 AM
To: David Keating
Cc: Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Wisconsin John Doe decision
David writes:" What happened in WI was outrageous and I hope it will get the attention it deserves.  Those who orchestrated this hopefully will be held accountable."

For a moment I thought this outrage was aimed at those who set out to circumvent ( the Judge's word)  WI campaign finance law  by coordinating advertising with a candidate for public office while seeking to avoid contribution limits, and then leaked secret information about a law enforcement investigation in an attempt to circumvent that too. But I guess not....

Trevor Potter

Sent from my iPad

> On May 7, 2014, at 12:38 PM, "David Keating" <dkeating at campaignfreedom.org<mailto:dkeating at campaignfreedom.org>> wrote:
>
> What happened in WI was outrageous and I hope it will get the attention it deserves.  Those who orchestrated this hopefully will be held accountable.

<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii)  promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.

This message is for the use of the intended recipient only.  It is from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure, copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
<-->

_______________________________________________
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

--
BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
------------------------------------------------------

Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 04LX6o7Qe) is spam:
Spam:        about:blank
Not spam:    about:blank
Forget vote: about:blank
------------------------------------------------------
END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS

_______________________________________________
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

--

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>

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

http://electionlawblog.org

________________________________

Spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04LX79dc6&m=46472b2f8ba9&t=20140507&c=s>
Not spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04LX79dc6&m=46472b2f8ba9&t=20140507&c=n>
Forget previous vote<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04LX79dc6&m=46472b2f8ba9&t=20140507&c=f>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140507/3bbe2967/attachment.html>