[EL] Twitter sues - and Seth Waxman urges protection for anonymous speech

[Rick Hasen]

Just because I think it would be constitutional to require disclosure of funding of ads for and against pending Supreme Court candidates does not mean I necessarily think it is good policy.  I’m still mulling that.

But you are right I think that disclosure thresholds are way too low, and even though low thresholds are constitutional, they are bad policy because they do not further the government’s important interests in preventing corruption, providing voters with valuable information and (in some instances) allowing for the enforcement of other campaign laws.




From: Steve Klein <stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com>
Date: Friday, April 7, 2017 at 7:49 AM
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Cc: Jason Torchinsky <jtorchinsky at hvjt.law>, Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Twitter sues - and Seth Waxman urges protection for anonymous speech

I’m on the record defending<http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/bailey-v-maine-commission-on-governmental-ethics-another-step-toward-the-end-of-political-privacy> de minimis spending on political blogging from campaign finance disclosure.

Others disagree<https://twitter.com/GerryHebert/status/618439787855392768>.

Prof. Hasen, to the best of my recollection your work has focused on disclosing big money spent on political speech, such as it is. It was only two weeks ago, however, you defended placing disclosure on just about any kind of advocacy<http://department-lists.uci.edu/pipermail/law-election/2017-March/014167.html>, assuming the money is big.

But plenty of state regimes allow campaign finance disclaimers to apply to just this kind of speech, with no spending thresholds whatsoever. (Even on the narrower spectrum, some of these “alt” accounts have, indeed, gone well into express advocacy, etc.)

For what it’s worth, I condemn the effort (and, along with that, Gator baiting<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I0K-ymOTS4>). Though I’m quite impressed that Brown would still have a place for, of all things, protecting (presumed) federal employees who are finding new and interesting alternatives to work (for tweets during business hours, that is).

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
1. I imagine Twitter is a paying client for Seth Waxman, and this does not necessarily represent his personal views.
2. Even for those of us who support strong disclosure laws, there is an exemption when the government singles out people for harassment (Brown v. Socialist Workers Party).  From the Twitter complaint: “Such fears are likely to be especially great for users of “alternative agency” accounts who are currently employed by the very agency that is a principal target of the commentary, in light of the retaliation, harassment, or even loss of livelihood that might occur if their real identities became known to their superiors.”
3. Will all the campaign finance deregulation groups that oppose disclosure come out and condemn the attempt to unmask the identity of the Twitter user?

Rick

On 4/7/17, 3:32 AM, "law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of Jason Torchinsky" <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of jtorchinsky at hvjt.law> wrote:

    All,

    It is amazing to see this complaint urging the court to protect against government disclosure of speech.

    Jason



_______________________________________________
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



--
Steve Klein
Attorney*
https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephenrklein

*Licensed to practice law in Illinois and Michigan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170407/b1e1df43/attachment.html>