[EL] WRTL v Barland

[Benjamin Barr]

Justin,

To followup on Brad's point, *Massachusetts Citizens for Life*, citing
*Buckley*, focuses on the spending activity of the group, further
indicating *Barland* is not an extension or modification of *Buckley*.  And
remember that the phrases "to influence political campaigns" or "campaign
activity" mean express advocacy per *Buckley*'s limiting construction.

"Furthermore, should MCFL's independent *spending become so extensive* that
the organization's major purpose may be regarded as campaign activity, the
corporation would be classified as a political committee. *See Buckley,* 424
U.S. at 424 U. S.
79<http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/424/1/case.html#79>.
As such, it would automatically be subject to the obligations and
restrictions applicable to those groups whose primary objective is to
influence political campaigns. In sum, there is no need for the sake of
disclosure to treat MCFL any differently than other organizations that only
occasionally engage in independent spending on behalf of candidates."

Forward,

Benjamin Barr.




On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Justin Levitt <levittj at lls.edu> wrote:

>  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  90015213-736-7417justin.levitt at lls.edussrn.com/author=698321
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140515/e01e6184/attachment.html>