[EL] WRTL v Barland

[Justin Levitt]

A (real) question for list members: /Buckley/ avoided vagueness in 
defining a political committee as a group that 1) makes a certain 
threshold level of contributions, or 2) a group "under the control of a 
candidate or the major purpose of which is the nomination or election of 
a candidate" that makes a threshold level of express-advocacy 
expenditures. /Barland /seems to conflate two separate portions of part 
2, restricting political committees to groups under the control of a 
candidate or with the major purpose of engaging in express advocacy.   
Those appear to me to be different standards.  The /Buckley /test seems 
to encompass a group that adopts in its charter the sole goal of 
electing like-minded candidates, and then puts out a few "vote for" 
ads.  The /Barland/  standard would presumably exclude such a group 
unless they agreed that the method they chose to further the election of 
candidates would be express advocacy.

I know list members are likely to have rather strong feelings about 
whether changing the constitutional line in this way is good or bad.  
But I've got two different questions.  First, is /Barland/ the first 
decision to declare that the relevant "major purpose" is the major 
purpose _to engage in express advocacy_, or have their been others?  And 
second, do observers think that this _is not_ actually a change from 
/Buckley/?

Justin

-- 
Justin Levitt
Professor of Law
Loyola Law School | Los Angeles
919 Albany St.
Los Angeles, CA  90015
213-736-7417
justin.levitt at lls.edu
ssrn.com/author=698321


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140515/d67572d6/attachment.html>