[EL] disclosure

Thu Apr 9 02:48:33 PDT 2015

If nothing else, I would think disclosure for losers might be important to
ensure that people don't run for office and then personally steal all money
contributed to their campaign.

Moreover, disclosure could be what makes them losers. I believe Rick Hasen
credits disclosure with the defeat of PG&Es anti-community choice
aggregation proposition. It's for the benefit of the voters, before the
candidate earns his loser title.

Thomas Cares

On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:38 PM, David A. Holtzman <David at holtzmanlaw.com>
wrote:

>  I still don't understand why people lump "candidates and officeholders"
> together, or treat them as similarly situated.
> Most candidates lose, and with losers no corruption or appearance of
> corruption from contributions is possible.
>
> And beyond that principled distinction, various aspects of required
> disclosure systems work to prop up officeholders and burden challengers.
> - dah
>
>
> On 4/8/2015 5:33 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
> Very glad to hear it.
>
> Rick Hasen
>
>  Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse typos.
>
> On Apr 8, 2015, at 5:02 PM, Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   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
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150409/13f2309d/attachment.html>