[EL] Twitter's Lawsuit and Brown v. Socialist Workers Party

Fri Apr 7 10:56:32 PDT 2017

Twitter disagrees. It relies on McIntyre, a case about the distribution of campaign literature. And Brown is entirely about the raising and spending of money in political campaigns; its relevance was Rick's suggestion.

________________________________
From: Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com>
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 1:30:49 PM
To: Rick Hasen
Cc: Allen Dickerson; Jason Torchinsky; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Twitter's Lawsuit and Brown v. Socialist Workers Party

I may be missing something, buy I fail to see how the twitter dispute has much to do with the disclosure of the spending of money for advertising to voters in elections...

Trevor Potter

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 7, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:

I have addressed these arguments in this article:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1948313<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1948313>
Chill Out: A Qualified Defense of Campaign Finance ...<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1948313>
papers.ssrn.com
Everywhere you look, campaign finance disclosure laws are under attack. Disclosure has been opposed by the National Organization for Marriage, Senate and House

Chill Out: A Qualified Defense of Campaign Finance ...<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1948313>
papers.ssrn.com
Everywhere you look, campaign finance disclosure laws are under attack. Disclosure has been opposed by the National Organization for Marriage, Senate and House

I’m not going to rehash it here.

I do note that this is the second time, when pressed by me, Brad has refused to condemn Trump actions impinging on the First Amendment, and has instead accused me of trolling. We’ll watch and see what CCP and similar groups do.

I’m done with this particular discussion, but others of course can continue if they think it is worthwhile.

Rick

From: Allen Dickerson <adickerson at campaignfreedom.org<mailto:adickerson at campaignfreedom.org>>
Date: Friday, April 7, 2017 at 10:20 AM
To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>, Jason Torchinsky <jtorchinsky at hvjt.law<mailto:jtorchinsky at hvjt.law>>, Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: [EL] Twitter's Lawsuit and Brown v. Socialist Workers Party

Rick's interesting summary of Brown v. Socialist Workers Party deserves equal attention with his offer of a broader pro-privacy alliance.

Brown carries a lot of water for the pro-disclosure case. But if it provides effective protection, and especially if it is to be the last line of defense in the area of political privacy, we should try to agree on its scope. A few questions:

1. Rick speaks of "an exemption when the government singles out people for harassment." Does he (and do others) think that Brown applies only to government action? Brown itself spoke of both private and governmental harassment. Is either sufficient, standing alone?

2. How serious, and how immediate, does the potential harm have to be? Why do some think the record developed in the Prop 8 litigation -- which detailed vandalism, threats, and actual "loss of livelihood" -- was insufficient, but the possibility of harm to government employees (with their various job protections) is not?

3. What governmental interest is sufficient? Donors -- including, in some cases, very low level donors -- have their political views made available to their "superiors." Why does the informational interest in such low levels of financial support ($200 federally; $100 over four years in Delaware Strong Families, a case which Rick and others opposed) cancel out their right to workplace anonymity, but the government's interest in enforcing the Hatch Act does not?

I recognize that Rick spoke in shorthand. But Brown strikes me as a rare place for broad agreement. It has been on life support in recent years -- the Socialist Workers own exemption is languishing at the FEC, and may not be renewed. On what terms do pro-disclosure advocates propose its resurrection?

Allen

________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> on behalf of Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 10:21 AM
To: Jason Torchinsky; law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Twitter sues - and Seth Waxman urges protection for anonymous speech

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<mailto: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<http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
Law-election Info Page - University of California, Irvine<http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
department-lists.uci.edu
Welcome to the Election Law mailing list! The ELECTION-LAW list is an Internet Listserv residing at the University of California, Irvine. This list is for general ...

Law-election Info Page - University of California, Irvine<http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
department-lists.uci.edu
Welcome to the Election Law mailing list! The ELECTION-LAW list is an Internet Listserv residing at the University of California, Irvine. This list is for general ...

_______________________________________________
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
Law-election Info Page - University of California, Irvine<http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
department-lists.uci.edu
Welcome to the Election Law mailing list! The ELECTION-LAW list is an Internet Listserv residing at the University of California, Irvine. This list is for general ...

[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/20170407/d865b355/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 117040713305401849.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9617 bytes
Desc: 117040713305401849.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170407/d865b355/attachment.png>