[EL] disclosure

Rick Hasen rhasen at law.uci.edu
Thu Apr 9 08:13:44 PDT 2015


What charge do I know is not true?  I honestly don't know what 
disclosure laws, if any, you believe are both constitutional and desirable.

On 4/9/2015 7:58 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
> Well, then, please don't drag me gratuatousy into one of your fights 
> with a charge that you already know is not true. Jim
> In a message dated 4/9/2015 10:31:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
> rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>
>     *That's* the kind of answer I was expecting from you Jim. Thank
>     you very much.
>
>
>     On 4/9/2015 7:28 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
>>     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
>>
>
>     -- 
>     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
>     hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>     http://electionlawblog.org
>

-- 
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
hhttp://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/20150409/6640a2aa/attachment.html>


View list directory