[EL] Information as a thing of value

Fri Jul 14 07:22:55 PDT 2017

Other than name calling, "ideologues," mocking, and sarcasm, it seems that  
Mr. Farrell has no substantive response.  

My point, which was obvious, was not to question whether the government can 
 prohibit foreign contributions, which I agree that they can based on a  
compelling governmental interest, but what can legitimately be deemed to be  a 
contribution. I am concerned about this issue.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 7/14/2017 10:02:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
jfarrell at mccandlishlawyers.com writes:

Have  either of these two ideologues read the Bluman case which analyzes 
the  interaction of the prohibition on foreign contributions and the First  
Amendment?  And the per curium affirmation by a unanimous Supreme Court?  

And please do a "words and phrases" search for solicitation, especially  in 
the context of prostitution, “johns” get convicted on far less.

This prohibition on foreign contributions is so ingrain with non-lawyers  
involved in the electoral process that even candidates for school board ask  
contributors to affirm that they are U.S. citizens.  Sheesh.

—
    John  W. Farrell 
Attorney  at Law 
 (http://mccandlishlawyers.com/)  11350 Random  Hills Road | Suite  500
Fairfax, Virginia 22030-7421
email  jfarrell at mccandlishlawyers.com
tel (703)  934-1182 | cell (703)  507-1182
_website_ (http://mccandlishlawyers.com/)  | _bio_ 
(http://mccandlishlawyers.com/attorney/john-w-farrell/)  | _vCard_ 
(http://www.dynasend.com/signatures/vcard/jfarrell-at-mccandlishlawyers.com.vcf)  | _map_ 
(http://maps.google.com/maps?q=11350+Random+Hills+Road,+Fairfax,+VA+22030&hl=en&ll=38.857288,-77
.338471&spn=0.028874,0.038409&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=59.206892,78.66210
9&vpsrc=6&hnear=11350+Random+Hills+Rd,+Fairfax,+Virginia+22030&t=m&z=15)  | 
email      (https://twitter.com/mccandlaw)  
(http://www.facebook.com/McCandlishLillard)  (http://www.linkedin.com/company/mccandlish-&-lillard-p.c.)  
(http://www.youtube.com/user/McCandlishLillard)   This  email is not 
intended, nor shall it be deemed, unless otherwise  expressly provided in writing, 
to (1) constitute or provide legal advice  or counsel, unless the recipient 
already has an attorney-client  relationship with the firm or me; (2) create 
an attorney-client  relationship; or (3) contain my electronic, or other 
implied,  signature. 

On Jul 14, 2017, at 9:44 AM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu>  wrote:

It would also suggest that we've had massive reporting violations for  
years.

In this case though, I don't think we need to go this far because there  
was no solicitation in any case.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 14, 2017, at 9:32 AM, "JBoppjr at aol.com" <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:

But context does matter.  There is no suggestion in this case  that the 
court analyzed the question under the First Amendment.   Obviously, the 
information Trump, Jr. hoped to receive, but did not, was  directly related to a 
political campaign and thus protected by the First  Amendment. Thus, this case 
is irrelevant.

I really think that the proponents of this theory - that information  is a 
thing of value for purposes of being a "contribution" under the  federal 
campaign law - should pause and consider the ramifications of this  position, 
beyond their hope that it will finally "get Trump." There are  significant 
ramification to viewing a campaign as having received a  contribution if it 
receives information. 

Of course there are prohibitions, corporations and labor unions may  not 
make contributions to federal candidates, for instance.  If the  information 
is viewed as coming from that source, it is prohibited and a  crime.

But even if not prohibited, if Joe Blow tells a campaign some  information 
that someone would view as having value, say his opponent -  say, "hey Jill 
Smith likes you and you ought to contact her for a  contribution" - it would 
be subject to contribution limits and reporting.  Failure to do that would 
also be a crime. (And how much is this worth,  another great issue for the 
opponent to dispute.)

Thus, a candidate receiving a contribution always has some legal  
ramifications.

Under these circumstances, I just dont see how any campaign would  ever be 
willing to discuss anything about the campaign with anyone. This  would have 
a devastating effect of the freedom of association protected by  the First 
Amendment. Jim Bopp

In a message dated 7/14/2017 12:12:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ 
(https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://rhasen@law.uci.edu&c=E,1,k_wP59vh0LyVBj9kYmlvwZoudItTTwWIjeVjcgG_5tzPTGBxCiOWvpSi5-kemLJmzprc0
_dtk5IBgY1qp_shHdWIt-ZckO6f1NiWHqkfIWg,&typo=1)   writes:

_9th  Circuit 1980 Case: “Information,” “State Secrets,” “Information 
Obtained  for Political Advantage” All “Things of  Value”_ 
(https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93830&c=E,1,twvj_GA87t_JBiX
c6_g3z92FaHyu3dwPrO8WhFLaro5xZpbk5MjfKicsDYTB404eD3uIHn_h02EUC-0hSy5Z6SWMSDq
6gsY4UU34fqsPNNP55xIsyTs,&typo=1)  
Posted on _July  13, 2017 12:44 pm_ 
(https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93830&c=E,1,59Wbi4W8zun6oCtzwZ_b3EQAt8g66ocTrDh
5oOliU8MPktbMkY4QmQ2fzIhjVyJ65YlAhVQJ40OFX0lMJU6mBuXnqtQGaauajPmYoJbUDzCh&ty
po=1)  by _Rick  Hasen_ 
(https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3&c=E,1,WIsczwAq8E63uMVS-h2kPpsEfx9_1IATxKY8cvRC4KLLzm
S1TuY8d_qc45ptNQCQ2hiKyptQRHE89Egqq7Zyz3EobPymlk7nRv34duY,&typo=1)  
_This  case_ 
(https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://www.leagle.com/decision/19801225618F2d607_11114/UNITED%20STATES%20v.%20SHEKER&c=E,1,B8_-PS7jO
iRwMS9nUSA6z7W9XBYNRrxD1vJIsxflhFshF5fsMHTh4QO9QTpplBOMItiaofXXEOlIRpoEOgS5E
PWhxxAz7YI7QJuHhQOyj2wp_iwc7H9e9xk,&typo=1)  presents a very different 
context than _Donald  Trump, Jr._ 
(http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/07/donald_trump_jr_s_free_speech_defense_is_as_bogus_as
_it_sounds.html) , but the discussion is instructive: 
II. Sufficiency of the  Indictment 
The indictment  adequately charged Sheker with impersonating a federal 
officer to obtain  a thing of value, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 912._2_ 
(https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://www.leagle.com/decision/19801225
618F2d607_11114/UNITED%20STATES%20v.%20SHEKER#fid3&c=E,1,-ebBzJY23-pLbuyrJyA
mDGjXIwdMueJF_Fnf8M65rJKdjXT06iAfdwX-ZZd7I_a9NF4esIry9aI_3I8DpDZu6VXL8Q-Tvo1
yC-NzTQYI3fGEFX0lkauFEPrV&typo=1)  See U. S. v.  Mitman, _459  F.2d 451_ 
(https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://www.leagle.com/cite/459%20F.2d%20
451&c=E,1,wONZg0jWWChBY6CpqJMMR_tV3gUHvG7KKhTAK-5TR5MW9gJ8EOsnpqNUwK5x_an72S
mRSCPU6mOIpcs_284t9s0JWmeidHZVwwWP7ahcLVF5WEez98k3&typo=1)  (9th Cir.), 
cert. den. 409 U.S. 863, 93  S.Ct. 154, 34 L.Ed.2d 111 (1972). We do not 
embrace the government’s  sweeping position that 18 U.S.C. 912 extends to anything 
that has value  to the defendant. Such a broad reading of “value” negates 
any limitation  the word could imply. By the same token, we cannot accept 
Sheker’s  suggestion that 18 U.S.C. 912 covers only things having commercial  
value.Information can be a thing of value. Whaley v. U.  S., _324  F.2d 356_ 
(https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://www.leagle.com/cite/324%20F.2d
%20356&c=E,1,kSreztNRiC0LcUivURZoSvQy_6VyA-hP9bmbausjeipRQ9WxYXekCy3OmtmZIwo
xe34OfbfiQNQvZntdn39-dfrM04LuN4PrMsGQdA4MzXVI&typo=1)  (9th Cir. 1963). In 
normal English usage commercial  worth is not the exclusive measure of 
value. For instance, state secrets  might trade hands without cash consideration. 
Information obtained for  political advantage might have value apart from 
its worth in dollars. In  each case the information sought would have value 
to others,in  addition to the seeker. Such is the case here. Stokes would see 
value in  keeping his whereabouts unknown to Sheker. The criminal justice 
system,  concerned with the safety of witnesses, has a similar interest. 
Because  the information sought had value in these broader senses, we hold the  
indictment sufficient. 
In view of this  conclusion, we also hold that the challenged language in 
the indictment  (“concerning the location of a witness against him”) was not 
prejudicial  surplusage. The quoted words were properly included to explain 
why the  information sought was valuable. See generally, U. S. v.  Root, 
_366  F.2d 377_ 
(https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://www.leagle.com/cite/366%20F.2
d%20377&c=E,1,BYygnwc34YZ_3eg8qzrUhDT2WMqim0I9Z3cjSRuNF7gdVrW_ImJNSv9mVrNdJPzYOay7m6MdQaHkVb1LmknjJbR2md9Rx7m6ZcMmdlJkpnjrxbSgvg,,&typo=1) 
, 381 (9th Cir.), cert. den. 386 U.S. 912, 87  S.Ct. 861, 17 L.Ed.2d 784 
(1966). 
The language of the  statute is not sufficiently ambiguous to call into 
play the rule of  lenity. As the Supreme Court said in Bell v. U. S., _349  
U.S. 81_ 
(https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://www.leagle.com/cite/349%20U.S.%2081&c=E,1,2fZs897EuaFCZ5i1cOGCB4Tp2o1WYarOIKLWj7VukkP-e1uIcRZywOsV_Lx
Fjj4sy8zvYOoVl0EDI401Oh-XVGlvAhKwySYj1MxUkJud0Yi6zIcfe3LB&typo=1) , 83, 75 
S.Ct. 620, 622, 99 L.Ed. 905  (1955): 
[L]anguage used in  criminal statutes should not be read with the saving 
grace of common  sense with which other enactments, not cast in technical 
language, are  to be read. 
We find the statute  unambiguous. 
_<image001.png>_ 
(https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93830&title=9th%20Circuit%201980%20Case:%20“Information,”%20“
State%20Secrets,”%20“Information%20Obtained%20for%20Political%20Advantage”
%20All%20“Th)  
Posted in _Uncategorized_ 
(https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1&c=E,1,W-JBx16o3yXGxcUqcuJOTSTFhA0MFL05eS4Ef_mmcUmmW3g
xTV61B0u-3fDlBehx1jUsKa6D6Q7GaPzrhwRGzRzIorQHkWwK9t5234xmMw,,&typo=1) 

_______________________________________________
Law-election  mailing list
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https://Law-election@department-lists.
uci.edu&c=E,1,UEWwe8N_VChnW1HZ6T9iYZTcqb-K3nWOpF4bNRFDLNwSo3CB6jHKWuEYIMRXij
pofV9D5J89v_4BYudIUfSdqAhQQNDud1droVvK8lQlV0rvTsRb9cGI&typo=1
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailma
n/listinfo/law-election&c=E,1,ijdkI0Lh_4fbfGCExkaYHXH7SmMshS7yv-quKBFH02al3H
fgvAYQv_dcEBdn0ZaJ5a2RI9Ep-cj12ld5kD5akJRSjL6vryysec5s4MSU0m3zJIcnwt6uMQ,,&t
ypo=1

<image001.png>_______________________________________________
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/20170714/b5fe5bb5/attachment.html>