[EL] disclosure

[JBoppjr at aol.com]

And oh, yes, full disclosure for every group that "coordinates" with  them. 
 Jim Bopp
 
 
In a message dated 4/9/2015 10:28:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
JBoppjr at aol.com writes:

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/d6adcaf6/attachment.html>