[EL] disclosure

Wed Apr 8 17:00:04 PDT 2015

Well, I think you will find us to be opposite, for the most part, the
scenario you paint in your last question/hypothetical.

Disclosure of contributions to candidates and officeholders would be
meaningful.

Until then,

Steve
On Apr 8, 2015 7:55 PM, "Rick Hasen" <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  I was trying to make the point that those who I consider opponents of
> disclosure rules often favor disclosure rules that are so weak or porous as
> to be mostly ineffective in supporting anti corruption, information or
> enforcement goals.
>
> Rick Hasen
>
>  Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse typos.
>
> On Apr 8, 2015, at 4:34 PM, Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   Rick, I thought you'd be glad to receive our responses to your question
> of 45 minutes ago.
>
> The responses placed us far closer to you than you connoted with your
> question.
>
> Are you now going to have us reconstruct sections 432 and 434a for you?
> Against the Buckley overlay?
>
> We certainly can. But all things in good time.
>
> Best, and have a good evening,
>
> Steve
> On Apr 8, 2015 7:20 PM, "Rick Hasen" <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>> 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> 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] 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 - office
>>>> 949.824.0495 - fax
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> 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 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/http://electionlawblog.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150408/642dc94c/attachment.html>