[EL] disclosure

[JBoppjr at aol.com]

After giving Rick's question (charge) all of the thought it deserves,  I 
think that only "reform" groups should have to disclose their  donors. After 
all, in the "reformers" (dream) world, harassment of donors  doesn't exist, 
so no problem. And Senator McConnell would be interested in them  just in 
case one of them asks Congress for a tax break or something.
 
But no cheep skate disclosure, Trevor, but total amount of annual  
contributions, occupation and employer for all contributors beginning at $25,  since 
"reformers" seem so interested in who the little guy is contributing  to.  
Jim Bopp
 
 
In a message dated 4/8/2015 4:31:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150409/ce588ae1/attachment.html>