[EL] WRTL v Barland - Victory

Thu May 15 06:51:27 PDT 2014

Well said, Steve.

Or as the void for vagueness doctrine holds,  (1) “that regulated parties
should know what is required of them so they may act accordingly”; and (2)
“precision and guidance are necessary so that those enforcing the law do
not act in an arbitrary or discriminatory way."  The story since *Buckley*,
with one *McConnell* blip, has been the correct application of the
vagueness and overbreadth doctrines to whittle down utopian plans of
campaign finance reform.

Allowing for indecipherable standards to govern the application of
regulatory electoral speech standards empowers petty bureaucrats, power
hungry prosecutors, and judges to balance away basic individual liberties
in the name of "clean elections," "mere disclosure," "providing the
electorate with more information," and other marketing nonsense.  Given my
interactions with these cast of characters in past and present, I suspect
they rather enjoy that boundless power the Constitution forbids they hold.
 Some things are hard to give up.

What the law needs now is better prospective protection against cruel John
Doe raids and intrusive, busybody 24/7 invasions into the political privacy
of every American.  Speaking of that, SCOTUS will be considering our cert
petition at 10 AM re: Free Speech v. FEC.

Forward,

Benjamin Barr

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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/f45b46bd/attachment.html>