[EL] WRTL v Barland - Victory

[Steve Hoersting]

One more point.

To those on the list who do not spend a lot of time thinking about
political committee jurisprudence, the reason I and others try repetitively
to iron-out these questions is this:

Until a Court holds that noncorrupting independent speakers can report
their expenditures under the alternate, event-reporting, reporting
statutes, the political-committee-investigation "tuna nets" await any
independent noncorrupting "dolphin" that frustrates a politician.

Steve


On May 15, 2014 8:44 AM, "Steve Hoersting" <hoersting at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/b579e0d4/attachment.html>