[EL] "Conservative Echo Chamber in WI John Doe Case"

[Steve Hoersting]

Ah, the old Cooler Heads Prevail, approach, huh?

Well, I admit, I did read it. And liked it.

You know, since the acronym FIRE is being ably employed by a noble group
outmatched for resources and *fire*power, perhaps your group could take on
the acronym WATER.

Wading-in After the Tussle to Enlighten and Respond.

Nice piece.

There is one thing I can't let go, however. The clause following your "or,
as I like to say" predates you.

Better to nail down who said it best, first -- as you did recently with the
timely quote from Jonathan Rauch -- and turn your "as I like to say" into
an "as _____ once said, ".

Best, Steve,

Steve
On Jul 17, 2015 9:50 AM, "Steve Klein" <stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com> wrote:

> Brendan Fischer writes:
>
>
>> The Court also cited a sensational National Review article on the John
>> Doe "raids" by David French, the past president of the Foundation on
>> Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which received more than $1.3
>> million from the Bradley Foundation since 1999.
>
>
> We can certainly agree that the debate about "money is speech," or, as I
> like to say, "money is an integral tool for speech" will continue in
> earnest. I'm admittedly taken aback, though, that the right wing money
> plague extends so far as to guilt by association with FIRE, an organization
> fighting inquisitors who usually argue "your speech isn't speech."
>
> Fischer's organization, Center for Media and Democracy, has received
> funding from the Democracy Alliance, a private gathering of wealthy
> progressives that, among other things, believes overturning *Citizens
> United* is a cornerstone of progressive progress. What does this do to
> the merits of Brendan's arguments? Not a thing, in my opinion, but I say
> the same for everyone in every nonprofit getting money from rich people.
> (Representatives from effective charities solely receiving money from the
> poor and middle class could not be with us today because they are figments
> of your imagination.)
>
> I think the merits of yesterday's opinion are sound, and wish the echo
> chamber focused more on them and not the facts of the investigation. The
> vague and overbroad application of Wisconsin's law forecloses *any *kind
> of investigation no matter the tactics used by the prosecutors.
> Unfortunately, communicating the merits of free speech is a difficult task.
> The proof is in the pudding: the Republican platform still, as of the
> last convention
> <http://wyliberty.org/feature/on-second-look-free-speech-could-use-a-little-more-love/>,
> contains support for an anti-flag burning amendment. (Perhaps, going back
> to my opening with all due snark, here some could find common ground with
> Republicans behind this: "FIRE isn't speech"?) Nearly as many people poll
> in favor of banning "hate speech" as favor the ever-nebulous "campaign
> finance reform." It is nothing short of amazing that the First Amendment
> endures.
>
> As to the merits of the case, I believe paragraphs 55-67 provide sound
> analysis. I think the court, agreeing with the Seventh Circuit panel in *Barland
> II*, is right to call the law "labyrinthian." In my opinion, any law
> regulating political engagement cannot include definitions like "Acts which
> are for 'political purposes' include *but are not limited to*..."
> (emphasis added). That tells political participants to steer widely from
> certain political activities, a First Amendment no-no. It tells prosecutors
> "these are regulated, but also other things; you'll know them when you see
> them." Bigger First Amendment no-no. (I will avoid here the bigger
> discussion of the burdens of disclosure versus different types of
> regulation, but I believe the "coordination" at issue here amounted to
> strict limits since coordinated communications are contributions, which may
> be and are limited under Wisconsin law.)
>
> To put this into perspective, reword the law to apply to a less protected
> area of expression. "Acts which are *obscene *include *but are not
> limited to*..." Larry Flynt's attorneys would have field day with that,
> and rightfully so.
>
> Campaign finance reform centers a lot on divining intent. Look no further
> than this case: agree with Scott Walker's campaign on an issue, advocate
> for that issue and a group is actually a shadow campaign. (Like the tactics
> of the investigation, the facts of the groups' activities at issue in this
> case are irrelevant, too: the law cannot be allowed to capture such a broad
> swath of political activity, whether for punishment or even investigation.
> And that's what Wisconsin law permitted.) It is apparently impossible that
> groups large and small just might actually care about the issues. Adopting,
> for a moment, the power to discern what people's speech* really means*, I
> fear that the trouble for reformers is that specific law everyone can
> understand would invite, rather than dissuade, engagement.
>
> Have a great weekend, all. I know I need one.
>
> --
> Steve Klein
> Attorney*
> Pillar of Law Institute
> www.pillaroflaw.org
>
> **Licensed to practice law in Illinois and Michigan*
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150717/55b0fc26/attachment.html>