[EL] WRTL v Barland - Victory

[Steve Hoersting]

Yes, those are the most important parts.

And, as good as the opinion is, it still stops short of ruling as it should
with regard to a regulation that forces political committee status on an
independent group that poses no threat of corruption.

Here is a quick note on what I mean:

At page 80, the *Barland II* Court, in the end, upholds a GAB regulation
(1.91) that forces political committee status upon *independent* groups
whose major purpose(s) are express advocacy (or its "functional equivalent"
-- darn you, John Roberts). Sounds pretty good, right? But the downside, in
other words, is that the Court lets slide a rule that permits a
non-corrupting group to be made a political committee.

Federally, this can be addressed by the SCOTUS, in the following manner, if
SCOTUS hears *Free Speech v. FEC*:

The *federal* law has a narrowly tailored option to disclose IEs (section
434(c)) -- and to disclose ECs (section 434(f)). SCOTUS can still hold
that, with narrowly tailored disclosure on the books to protect the
*informational* interest, there is no need to push political committee
status (section 434(a) reporting) on an independent group that poses no
threat of corruption. The *corruption* interest for independent groups is *de
jure* is inapposite.

That is exactly what the SCOTUS did in *MCFL* (1986).

[That Wisconsin has or hasn't narrowly tailored disclosure for IEs and ECs
does not matter].

Steve


On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu>wrote:

>  It's obviously a long opinion with a lot in it, but if you're pressed
> for time the most interesting and important parts are the analysis of
> disclosure (and what Citizens United had to say about it) on p. 67-70, and
> the major purpose analysis on p. 71-80.
>
>  *Bradley A. Smith*
>
> *Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault*
>
> *   Professor of Law*
>
> *Capital University Law School*
>
> *303 E. Broad St.*
>
> *Columbus, OH 43215*
>
> *614.236.6317 <614.236.6317>*
>
> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
> <http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx>*
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Benjamin Barr
> [benjamin.barr at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 14, 2014 7:58 PM
> *To:* Steve Hoersting
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] WRTL v Barland - Victory
>
>   What happens when a state embraces fuzzy speech standards and feels the
> need to check in on everyone's political spending through overbroad PAC
> rules?  Predawn raids, political retribution, and the whittling away of the
> First Amendment.  So joyous to see an opinion with clear thinking about the
> need for protection from ever-intrusive, 24/7 disclosure into the private
> politics lives of our citizens.
>
>  The opinion is fantastic and is attached here.
>
>  Forward,
>
>  Benjamin Barr
>
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 7th Circuit issues a permanent injunction in WRTL v. Barland (re:
>> Wisconsin law) -- in a lengthy and replete opinion.
>>
>> Just beginning to work my way through it, but it looks as though free
>> political speech wins the day.
>>
>> I'd send a link, but this is sent from my Phone.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>
>


-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140515/219807e8/attachment.html>