[EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/28/16

[JBoppjr at aol.com]

This "report" is grossly misleading. 
 
_“Leading Advocates of  “Dark Money” Previously Supported Disclosure”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82334) 
 
Posted  on _April 27, 2016 3:58  pm_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82334)  
by _Rick  Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3) 

 
_The Intercept  reports._ 
(https://theintercept.com/2016/04/26/dark-money-hypocrisy/) 


 
This is what this "reporter" said about my position:  

 
But even Bopp once sided with disclosure, writing for the Heritage  
Foundation in 1999 that campaign finance transparency is vital. 
“Proposals that are aimed at opening up the process, simplifying the  
campaign finance rules, and relying instead on complete and prompt disclosure  
would enhance politicians’ political accountability to the people,” Bopp 
_wrote_ 
(http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1999/07/campaign-finance-reform) . “Such proposals not only would be  constitutional, but they also would 
reinforce the sovereignty of the people over  elected officials and decrease 
the threat of corruption by making it more likely  that perceived influence 
will be exposed.” 
“I have not changed my position at all,” Bopp said in response to an  
email from The Intercept about his comments about disclosure in  the past. Asked 
if he would support disclosure for the numerous 501c nonprofits  that 
engage in election campaign spending, he replied that doing so would “crush  them.
” 
However, I had an email exchange with this "reporter" before he  prepared 
his "report." It began with: 
In a message dated 4/22/2016 2:33:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
_lee.fang at firstlook.org_ (mailto:lee.fang at firstlook.org)  writes:

Dear Jim  Bopp,

I’m a reporter with The Intercept. Doing a story on groups that  oppose 
greater campaign finance disclosure. I saw that you litigated last year  
against Montana’s new campaign disclosure law.

In 1999, you wrote for  the Heritage Foundation, calling for greater campa
ign finance disclosure:  "Proposals that are aimed at opening up the process, 
simplifying the campaign  finance rules, and relying instead on complete 
and prompt disclosure would  enhance politicians' political accountability to 
the people. Such proposals  not only would be constitutional, but they also 
would reinforce the  sovereignty of the people over elected officials and 
decrease the threat of  corruption by making it more likely that perceived 
influence will be exposed.”   
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1999/07/campaign-finance-reform

Can  you explain your shift on disclosure. Do you still believe campaign 
finance  disclosure is critical, and if so, should donors to 501c groups 
active in  elections be disclosed?

Thank you very much,

Lee  Fang
Reporter
The Intercept
 
I responded:
 
 
On Apr 22, 2016, at 11:38 AM, _JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com)  
wrote:

 
 
I have not changed by position at all.  I favored disclosure then of  the 
campaign donations and expenditures to political actors, candidates, PACs,  
and political parties, and for political activities of non-political actors  
like c4s, ie Independent expenditure reports. But most of what c4s do is not 
 properly called campaign speech that should be subject to disclosure.   
And making non-political lobby and advocacy groups, ie c4s, report all their  
donors will crush them.  See NAACP v. Alabama.  Jim
 
After I saw what the "reporter" put in his "report", I emailed  him and 
said:
 
So it is a "journalist" you call yourself? Your reference to me was  a 
calculated deception. Don't bother me again.  Jim Bopp 
 
I stand by this.  Jim
 



 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160428/ab1241d1/attachment.html>