[EL] disclosure
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Wed Apr 8 16:20:44 PDT 2015
So if individuals have to disclose in your preferred world, but groups
do not, could you and I not form a "group" to give to candidates and
simply evade all public disclosure of our identities?
On 4/8/15 4:18 PM, Benjamin Barr wrote:
> For the record,
>
> I have no particular objection to easily understood, high-threshold
> reporting of contributions made to candidates or political parties.
> That's not remotely the regulatory world we live in. Thus, some of us
> object to the well-sung-song of "it's just disclosure" because it's
> not. It's obscure reporting requirements, onerous organizational
> requirements imposed on grassroots voices, and the slow slide toward
> making politics near and far a professional sport. I've long been
> worried about the damages "it's just disclosure" works against
> emerging voices, new ideas, and poorly funded upstarts. Since "its
> just disclosure" is amazingly overbroad, swallows large amounts of
> speech and conduct not connected to any government interest in
> preventing corruption, and works real injuries against many speakers,
> I am usually focused on curing these aspects.
>
> Like any other market, political information markets suffer when
> regulatory barriers impede points of entry by newcomers or political
> or social entrepreneurs. In knocking down regulatory points of entry
> and razing obscure compliance codes, everyone has access to more ideas.
>
> I'd concur with Steve Hoersting's comments concerning "Super Groups."
> And I hope, one day, we're able to lift difficult PAC status for many
> groups and otherwise eradicate the notion that citizens must register
> and report with the government just to criticize it.
>
> Forward,
>
> B
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
--
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 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150408/83d2d210/attachment.html>
View list directory