[EL] disclosure
David A. Holtzman
David at HoltzmanLaw.com
Wed Apr 8 16:02:07 PDT 2015
I, too, believe the informational interest should fall as a matter of
Con Law. This puts me at odds with the League of Women Voters (of which
I was once president of a chapter), and with a law professor on this
list who cited it at a League meeting last summer as an interest
justifying campaign finance regulation.
On the "Pillar of Law" thread on this list, someone pointed out today
that there is a group which "argues that '[v]oters need to know who is
funding political communications in order to evaluate the full context
of the message.'"
Well, as a consumer, I need to know the names and amounts invested (and
when) of all people involved with a business, as well as the details of
the day-to-day receipts and disbursements of the business, in order to
evaluate the full context of a contemplated purchase or contract. Until
you give me that, constitutionally, via compulsory law, I'm not about to
change my mind. I believe I've heard that between the business realm
(business activity) and the political realm (political activity), the
business realm is supposed to enjoy less constitutional protection from
government intrusion.
Once someone becomes a government official, governmental ethics rules
may come into play. But if a person runs for public office and loses?
No. (Paperwork sucks. Yes, April 15 approaches.)
Now there could be a business for a Consumer Reports-like organization
in gathering data and maintaining a public database from candidates who
voluntarily disclose, and who agree to abide by the org's reformist
rules. I'd "invest" in that, and try to shape its rules (to protect
donors who have cause to be concerned about retribution...which, come to
think of it, may be true of all donors to a losing campaign who might at
some point want constituent or governmental services administered or
affected by the winner).
- dah
P.S. Speaking of April 15, isn't there more of a public interest in
compelled disclosure of all charitable donations claimed on tax returns
than there is in compelled disclosure of donations to losing campaigns?
We subsidize charitable donations through tax expenditures.
On 4/8/2015 2:01 PM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
>
> There are readers at many levels of interest, so let me say one more
> thing.
>
> In terms of 21st century jurisprudence, the "Super Groups" should have
> been compelled to disclose their IEs under section 434c, when and as
> they made IEs. Their day-to-day receipts and disbursements should not
> have been disclosed; they should not be PACs
>
> This as-you-speak disclosure would have been based on the
> informational interest -- independent groups don't corrupt -- even as
> I personally believe the informational interst should fall as a matter
> of Con Law.
>
> Steve
>
> On Apr 8, 2015 4:52 PM, "Steve Klein" <stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com
> <mailto:stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I'm personally on board, but have serious reservations about what
> constitutes a "contribution" (thanks, Wisconsin), "PAC," etc.,
> etc. I don't know what constitutes proof, but I believe I've been
> clear about that in my writing.
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu
> <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
>
> I believe it is no strawman at all Allen. I doubt that Sean,
> Ben, Steve, Jim Bopp and many others who have chimed in about
> disclosure would agree that they support disclosure of large
> contributions to candidate committees, political parties, and
> PACs.
>
> I'd love to be proven wrong.
>
>
>
> On 4/8/15 1:16 PM, Allen Dickerson wrote:
>
> "Opponents of disclosure" is, of course, a straw man. Many
> of us support disclosure of large contributions to
> candidate committees, political parties, and PACs. The
> question is whether other organizations, including groups
> like CLC and the Pillar of Law Institute, should be
> subject to that same standard.
>
> CLC is entitled to whatever voluntary disclosure policy it
> wishes. But, to the extent it advocates the use of state
> power to impose similar requirements on other nonprofit
> organizations, it should clarify the standard.
>
> In that vein, it's worth noting that this discussion
> started with a vaguely-written local news piece. Larry
> Noble is not directly quoted as conflating the Institute
> with individuals seeking to influence elections.
> Presumably he, and the other lawyers at CLC, would
> recognize the difference between a public interest law
> firm and a PAC.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On
> Behalf Of Rick Hasen
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 4:00 PM
> To: law-election at UCI.edu
> Subject: [EL] disclosure
>
> I find it fascinating how many opponents of disclosure
> seem to so keenly interested in the Campaign Legal
> Center's disclosure policies. It's especially interesting
> given arguments from opponents that disclosure provides no
> useful information and that privacy and anonymity are
> paramount.
> I get the point of trying to show CLC as hypocrites (and I
> don't see that they are in this regard at all). But the
> effort is still comical and ironic.
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science UC
> Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 <tel:949.824.3072> - office
> 949.824.0495 <tel:949.824.0495> - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 <tel:949.824.3072> - office
> 949.824.0495 <tel:949.824.0495> - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Klein
> Attorney*
> Pillar of Law Institute
> www.pillaroflaw.org <http://www.pillaroflaw.org>
>
> /*Licensed to practice law in Illinois and Michigan/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
david at holtzmanlaw.com
Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be
confidential, for use only by intended recipients. If you are not an
intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email to
an intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in
error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying
of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email
in error, please immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150408/b6eb0f5f/attachment.html>
View list directory