[EL] Citizens United revisionist history: "banning books"

[Benjamin Barr]

Trevor,

I do understand that a minority of folks believe controlling precedent is
wrong.  But you've lost that argument, so let's move on.

Of course, you must understand that PACs are legally distinct from any
corporate sponsor even if individuals wear "different hats," just like they
do for IRS non-profit issues.  Perhaps you just don't like that
longstanding rule?  Sure, there's an overlap of interests and perspectives,
just like in the 501C3/C4 dual hat-wearer context, but that doesn't
eviscerate the fact, and, well, precedent, that they are separate entities
with separate First Amendment rights.

It is equally silly to think that donors "no legal say" in how their
contributions are spent.  In a free society, you can decide if you want to:
 (a) keep investing in the corporation, (b) elect not to work for the
corporation, or (c) not otherwise contribute to the PAC in question.  No
government program needed.

Forward,

B





On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com> wrote:

> The only problem with citing Justice Kennedy's statement about Pacs is
> that it was incorrect: the Court had long held that Pacs were creations of
> their corporate and labor sponsors and completely under their control.
> Corporations selectthe treasurer and officers of their Pacs and gave them
> whatever structure they decide- including none. Many corporate Pacs simply
> have a treasurer appointed by the VP of Gov't Affairs. Donors have no legal
> say in how their contributions are spent.
>
> Trevor Potter
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 11, 2015, at 5:48 PM, Benjamin Barr <benjamin.barr at gmail.com
> <mailto:benjamin.barr at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear Marty,
>
> Just because government might force others to speak for you doesn't mean
> your First Amendment rights haven't been abridged. Or as Justice Kennedy
> explained in Citizens United: "A PAC is a separate association from the
> corporation. So the PAC exemption from §441b’s expenditure ban,
> §441b(b)(2), does not allow corporations to speak." There you have it.
>
> You probably don't want me to speak for you. I don't want you to speak for
> me. You get it, right? Individual rights are individual, not fungible,
> aggregate hazy approximations (apologies, Justice Breyer).
>
> Corporations are neat things. They allow for people to associate with one
> another, pursue common goals, get rich, clean up the environment, enact
> social justice, and so on. Cutting off shareholders from effective advocacy
> is, well, a ban. I'll leave it to the literature hounds to determine if it
> rises to a Fahrenheit-451 level.
>
> Forward,
>
> Benjamin Barr
> General Counsel
> Pillar of Law Institute
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.marty at gmail.com
> <mailto:lederman.marty at gmail.com>> wrote:
> No -- even a (hypothetical) (non-MCfL-exempt) corporation without a PAC
> would not be "barred" from publishing a book. Even if the book contained
> express advocacy, the law permitted a corporation to publish it as long as
> it did not use shareholder funds to do so. That is to say, it would as a
> practical matter have to set up a PAC and collect funds for the purpose of
> publishing the express advocacy. This sort of source restriction (not a
> publication restriction) really wasn't such a shocking idea -- it was the
> legal regime that had been in place for 60 years, and -- understandably --
> no one thought that we lived in a Fahrenheit-451-like world in which the
> state "banned books."
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Jonathan Adler <jha5 at case.edu<mailto:
> jha5 at case.edu>> wrote:
> Well, kinda.
>
> Pressed on the issue, he acknowledged that (under the government's
> position) a corporation could be banned from publishing a book unless it
> used PAC funds to pay for publication, so a corporate publisher that lacked
> a PAC, could be barred from publishing and distributing the book.
>
> Here's the transcript. The relevant exchanges occur at pages 28-30.
>
> JHA
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.marty at gmail.com
> <mailto:lederman.marty at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Just an aside, to address the oft-repeated canard that "the deputy
> solicitor defended government power to ban books at the first CU argument."
>
> Of course Malcolm Stewart said nothing of the sort. He said that if a
> corporation wished to publish a book containing express advocacy, the state
> could require that such publication not be subsidized by general corporate
> treasury funds.
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Ilya Shapiro <IShapiro at cato.org<mailto:
> IShapiro at cato.org>> wrote:
> But there's no need to balance rights/values here. 200 people spending a
> lot of money on political speech don't inhibit anybody else's right to
> spend money on speech (individually or pooled) or to knock on doors, or to
> otherwise engage in political speech. There's not some zero-sum game with a
> finite amount of speech (or a finite amount of money to spend on it).
>
> Also, three points regarding some mistaken premises (not sure to what
> extent the rest of your argument stands or falls thereby):
>
> 1. Money is speech only insofar as bullhorns, laptops, printing presses,
> wifi, and other tools for facilitating speech are, no more no less. That
> really shouldn't be controversial -- though perhaps, like the deputy
> solicitor who defended govt power to ban books at the first CU argument,
> many people on this list are ok with restricting all those tools if they're
> used "too much" for political speech.
>
> 2. There's not a consensus that money shouldn't be used to allocate
> kidneys. There's a reason there's a shortage of organs and people die on
> waiting lists. And evidence from Iran, of all places, show that kidney
> markets can work rather well.
>
> 3. I'm not sure what "false" allegations about Planned Parenthood you mean
> -- I guess something different/earlier than the current scandal -- but
> surely it's not the government role to be some sort of fact-checker
> regarding public debates. See the Ohio law that was before the Court last
> year (you'll perhaps recall my satirical brief that PJ O'Rourke joined) and
> was struck down on remand.
>
> Ilya Shapiro
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jonathan H. Adler
> Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law
> Director, Center for Business Law & Regulation
> Case Western Reserve University School of Law
> 11075 East Boulevard
> Cleveland, OH 44106
> ph) 216-368-2535<tel:216-368-2535>
> fax) 216-368-2086<tel:216-368-2086>
> cell) 202-255-3012<tel:202-255-3012>
> jha5 at case.edu<mailto:jha5 at case.edu>
> SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=183995<http://ssrn.com/author=183995>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/author/adlerj/<
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/author/adlerj/>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> [image: This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
> from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
> copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is prohibited.
> If you have received this communication in error, please advise us by
> return e-mail, or if you have received this communication by fax advise us
> by telephone and delete/destroy the document]
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151011/fd453756/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 115101117553704306.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9616 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151011/fd453756/attachment.png>