election-law_gl-digest Wednesday, March 6 2002 Volume 01 : Number 153
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 21:44:00 -0500
From: Edward Still <still@votelaw.com>
Subject: Re: Shays-Meehan
It appears to me that the Wellstone amendment does not entirely negate
the
exception for 501(c)(4) and 527 corporations. Note that the Wellstone
amendment says "Paragraph (2) shall not apply in the case of a targeted
communication that is made by an organization described in such
paragraph."
Thus an untargeted electioneering communication -- i.e., one made in
connection with a presidential campaign -- would still be allowed.
Edward Still
Washington DC
Michael Malbin wrote:
Thanks to Adam Winkler for his kind
words about the Campaign Finance
Institute's eGuide. We ended up
re-re-editing the section on Snowe-Jeffords
and Wellstone to make the language more
clear. The two sections are difficult,
as many have noted, but the reading may
become easier when you see how they are
"layered". Here is the new language,
below my signature: both the short
squib from the main eGuide,
www.CFInst.org/eGuide and the longer
explanation to which the user is sent
when s/he clicks through. Both are
now posted on the website. I hope this
helps.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:51:12 -0500
From: "Michael Malbin" <mmalbin@cfinst.org>
Subject: RE: Shays-Meehan
About Edward Still's question about the
Wellstone Amendment: the paragraph after
the one he cites makes it clear that the
Amendment would apply to Presidential
elections.
The paragraph cited was the following:
"(A) EXCEPTION DOES NOT APPLY- Paragraph (2)
shall not apply in the case of a targeted
communication that is made by an organization
described in such paragraph."
Edward Still's question goes to the definition
of "targeted." The following paragraph says:
"For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term
`targeted communication' means an electioneering
communication (as defined in section 304(f)(3))
that is distributed from a television or radio
broadcast station or provider of cable or satellite
television service AND, IN THE CASE OF A COMMUNICATION
WHICH REFERS TO A CANDIDATE FOR AN OFFICE OTHER THAN
PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT, is targeted to the
relevant electorate."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Michael J. Malbin
Executive Director
Campaign Finance Institute
1990 M Street NW (Suite 380)
Washington, D.C. 20036
202-969-8890
FAX: 202-969-5612
mmalbin@CFInst.org
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu]On Behalf Of Edward
Still
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 9:44 PM
To: mmalbin@cfinst.org; election law list
Subject: Re: Shays-Meehan
It appears to me that the Wellstone amendment does not entirely negate
the
exception for 501(c)(4) and 527 corporations. Note that the Wellstone
amendment says "Paragraph (2) shall not apply in the case of a targeted
communication that is made by an organization described in such
paragraph."
Thus an untargeted electioneering communication -- i.e., one made in
connection with a presidential campaign -- would still be allowed.
Edward Still
Washington DC
Michael Malbin wrote:
Thanks to Adam Winkler for his kind
words about the Campaign Finance
Institute's eGuide. We ended up
re-re-editing the section on Snowe-Jeffords
and Wellstone to make the language more
clear. The two sections are difficult,
as many have noted, but the reading may
become easier when you see how they are
"layered". Here is the new language,
below my signature: both the short
squib from the main eGuide,
www.CFInst.org/eGuide and the longer
explanation to which the user is sent
when s/he clicks through. Both are
now posted on the website. I hope this
helps.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:55:36 -0800
From: "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu>
Subject: First Amendment rights of children
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1C562.07A671A0
Content-Type: text/plain
Any sense of whether the ban on contributions by minors, see below,
is likely to be held constitutional? Seems to me to be hard to uphold.
Eugene
H.R.2356
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (Engrossed in
House )
SEC. 318. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MINORS.
Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431
et seq.), as amended by section 101, is further amended by adding at the
end the following new section:
`PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MINORS
`SEC. 324. An individual who is 17 years old or younger shall not
make a contribution to a candidate or a contribution or donation to a
committee of a political party.'.
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1C562.07A671A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>First Amendment rights of children</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P> <FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Any sense of whether the ban on contributions by minors, =
see below, is likely to be held constitutional? Seems to me to be =
hard to uphold.</FONT></P>
<P> <FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Eugene</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0<BR>
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 H.R.2356 </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT =
FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (Engrossed in House ) =
</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">SEC. 318. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY =
MINORS. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0=A0=A0 Title III of the Federal Election =
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as amended by section 101, =
is further amended by adding at the end the following new =
section:</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">`PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MINORS </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">=A0=A0=A0=A0 `SEC. 324. An individual who is 17 =
years old or younger shall not make a contribution to a candidate or a =
contribution or donation to a committee of a political =
party.'.</FONT></P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1C562.07A671A0--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 15:35:02 -0800
From: Rick Hasen <rick.hasen@lls.edu>
Subject: Re: First Amendment rights of children
The purpose of the ban apparently is to prevent parents from making
additional hard money contributions in the name of their children. One
might argue that if children constitutionally may be denied the right to
vote (something that doesn't seem to be in question), they may be denied
the right to make campaign contributions as well.
There's some discussion of the literature on the parallel question of
the constitutionality of preventing resident aliens from making campaign
contributions. (The articles are cited on pages 874-875 of the Election
Law casebook edited by Dan Lowenstein and me.) One might make the point
that those denied the right to vote have an especially strong reason to
be allowed to make campaign contributions to have some influence over
the political process.
On the subject of children being denied the right to vote, Robert
Bennett argues at 94 Northwestern Law Review 503 (2000) that parents
should receive extra votes to vote on behalf of their minor children.
- --
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 21:20:06 +1000
From: Graeme Orr <g.orr@mailbox.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: First Amendment rights of children
Presumably the ability to make a rational decision to support a party must
precede the decision to contribute to it: so from first principles if a ban
on donations is unconstitutional, so ought be the restriction of the
franchise to 'adults'. Is there sufficiently compelling evidence of
donations being channeled by wealthy adults through children? I confess
if 'contribute' extends to any voluntary labour, then the provision is poor
policy, since it may only further suppress the nexus between
politics/civics and youth, which has been paper thin since at least
Generation X. (ps - forgive my reasoning from first principles. I write
from Australia, where there has been only one, dubious, invocation of an
'implied' 'freedom of political communication' by the courts to override
electoral legislation).
At 02:55 PM 3/6/02 -0800, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
Any sense of whether the ban on contributions by minors, see
below, is likely to be held constitutional? Seems to me to be hard to
uphold. Eugene
H.R.2356
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (Engrossed in
House )
SEC. 318. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MINORS. Title III of
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as
amended by section 101, is further amended by adding at the end the
following new section: `PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MINORS
`SEC. 324. An individual who is 17 years old or younger shall not make a
contribution to a candidate or a contribution or donation to a committee of
a political party.'.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:50:13 -0800
From: "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu>
Subject: RE: First Amendment rights of children
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1C569.A8859810
Content-Type: text/plain
Hmm: If our concern is that somehow kids will be acting
irrationally -- or under coercion from their parents -- and need to be
protected from this, then doesn't this justify virtually any restriction on
the speech of minors? Tinker could no more (and no less) make a rational
decision to wear an armband than to donate $50 to an anti-Vietnam War
advocacy group or to an anti-Vietnam War candidate. Would it be
constitutional for the government to ban kids from attending political
marches, on the theory?
As to parents channeling money through kids, I don't see how
minor children are differently situated from others here; the concern about
the use of straw donors (I'll give $10,000 by giving $1000 to each of 10
friends on the condition that they donate it to the candidate) is equally
present with friends, or for that matter with grown children.
Also, even if the concern is for some reason seen as
stronger for parents using their minor children as straw donors ("having
one's children become contributors to the candidate"), then the less
restrictive alternative would be simply to require that the $1000 maximum
apply to a person and all his children. True, this alternative might still
be problematic, but surely it's less restrictive than the total ban on
donations by minors, and pretty much as effective.
Finally, I have little trouble with the notion that children
may be denied the vote -- which is not a constitutional right -- but still
have rights under the First Amendment. (Note, incidentally, that a similar
issue arises with regard to campaign-related speech and contributions by
out-of-staters and by noncitizens; I know there have been hot debates with
regard to both, but I think that speech and contributions by both should be
constitutionally protected.)
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
From: Graeme Orr [SMTP:g.orr@mailbox.gu.edu.au]
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 3:20 AM
To: Election-Law (E-mail)
Subject: Re: First Amendment rights of children
Presumably the ability to make a rational decision to support a party must
precede the decision to contribute to it: so from first principles if a
ban
on donations is unconstitutional, so ought be the restriction of the
franchise to 'adults'. Is there sufficiently compelling evidence of
donations being channeled by wealthy adults through children? I
confess
if 'contribute' extends to any voluntary labour, then the provision is
poor
policy, since it may only further suppress the nexus between
politics/civics and youth, which has been paper thin since at least
Generation X. (ps - forgive my reasoning from first principles. I write
from Australia, where there has been only one, dubious, invocation of an
'implied' 'freedom of political communication' by the courts to override
electoral legislation).
At 02:55 PM 3/6/02 -0800, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
Any sense of whether the ban on contributions by minors, see
below, is likely to be held constitutional? Seems to me to be hard to
uphold. Eugene
H.R.2356
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (Engrossed
in
House )
SEC. 318. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MINORS. Title III of
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as
amended by section 101, is further amended by adding at the end the
following new section: `PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MINORS
`SEC. 324. An individual who is 17 years old or younger shall not make a
contribution to a candidate or a contribution or donation to a committee
of
a political party.'.
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1C569.A8859810
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: First Amendment rights of children</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P> <FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Hmm: If our concern is that somehow kids will be =
acting irrationally -- or under coercion from their parents -- and need =
to be protected from this, then doesn't this justify virtually any =
restriction on the speech of minors? Tinker could no more (and no =
less) make a rational decision to wear an armband than to donate $50 to =
an anti-Vietnam War advocacy group or to an anti-Vietnam War =
candidate. Would it be constitutional for the government to ban =
kids from attending political marches, on the theory?</FONT></P>
<P> =
<FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" =
FACE=3D"Arial">As to parents channeling money through kids, I don't see =
how minor children are differently situated from others here; the =
concern about the use of straw donors (I'll give $10,000 by giving =
$1000 to each of 10 friends on the condition that they donate it to the =
candidate) is equally present with friends, or for that matter with =
grown children.</FONT></P>
<P> =
<FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Also, even if the concern is for some reason seen as =
stronger for parents using their minor children as straw donors =
("having one's children become contributors to the =
candidate"), then the less restrictive alternative would be simply =
to require that the $1000 maximum apply to a person and all his =
children. True, this alternative might still be problematic, but =
surely it's less restrictive than the total ban on donations by minors, =
and pretty much as effective.</FONT></P>
<P> =
<FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Finally, I have little trouble with the notion that =
children may be denied the vote -- which is not a constitutional right =
- -- but still have rights under the First Amendment. (Note, =
incidentally, that a similar issue arises with regard to =
campaign-related speech and contributions by out-of-staters and by =
noncitizens; I know there have been hot debates with regard to both, =
but I think that speech and contributions by both should be =
constitutionally protected.)</FONT></P>
<P> =
<FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Eugene</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<UL>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">From: </FONT></B> <FONT =
SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Graeme Orr =
[SMTP:g.orr@mailbox.gu.edu.au]</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Sent: </FONT></B> <FONT =
SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Sunday, March 03, 2002 3:20 AM</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Arial">To: </FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Arial">Election-Law (E-mail)</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Arial">Subject: </FONT>=
</B> <FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Re: First Amendment rights of =
children</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Presumably the ability to make a =
rational decision to support a party must</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">precede the decision to contribute to =
it: so from first principles if a ban</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">on donations is unconstitutional, so =
ought be the restriction of the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">franchise to 'adults'. Is =
there sufficiently compelling evidence of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">donations being channeled by wealthy =
adults through children? I confess</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">if 'contribute' extends to any =
voluntary labour, then the provision is poor</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">policy, since it may only further =
suppress the nexus between</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">politics/civics and youth, which has =
been paper thin since at least</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Generation X. (ps - =
forgive my reasoning from first principles. I write</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">from Australia, where there has been =
only one, dubious, invocation of an</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">'implied' 'freedom of political =
communication' by the courts to override</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">electoral legislation).</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">At 02:55 PM 3/6/02 -0800, Volokh, =
Eugene wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Arial">>  =
; Any sense of whether the ban on contributions by minors, =
see</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">below, is likely to be held =
constitutional? Seems to me to be hard to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Arial">uphold. &n=
bsp; Eugene =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> =
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =
H.R.2356 </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 =
FACE=3D"Arial">>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (Engrossed in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">House ) </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">> SEC. 318. PROHIBITION OF =
CONTRIBUTIONS BY MINORS. =A0=A0=A0=A0 Title III =
of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">>the Federal Election Campaign Act =
of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">>amended by section 101, is =
further amended by adding at the end the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">>following new section: =
`PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MINORS =
=A0=A0=A0=A0</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">>`SEC. 324. An individual who is =
17 years old or younger shall not make a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">contribution to a candidate or a =
contribution or donation to a committee of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">a political party.'. =
</FONT>
</P>
</UL>
</BODY>
</HTML>
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1C569.A8859810--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:21:50 -0800
From: "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu>
Subject: RE: First Amendment rights of children
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1C56E.13106300
Content-Type: text/plain
But if the concern is money being funneled through minor children in
order to avoid the parents' contribution limits, why apply this when the
parents haven't exhausted the limits? Why not just count the minors'
contributions towards the parents' $1000 limits? Shouldn't be hard to
administer -- just require minors to list their parents' names on the
disclosure forms. In fact, it should be much easier to administer than the
current bans on straw donations.
Also, while one *might* argue that children may be denied the right
to make contributions when they can't vote, would this be a winning
argument? As I mentioned, children lack a constitutional right to vote, but
they do have First Amendment rights -- and the Court has repeatedly held
that the right to contribute money to an expressive activity (such as an
electoral campaign) is a First Amendment right. (I'm not suggesting that
Rick and I actually disagree on this point -- I think we might; I'm just
responding to the argument that Rick restates.)
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Hasen [SMTP:rick.hasen@lls.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 3:35 PM
To: Volokh, Eugene
Cc: Election-Law (E-mail)
Subject: Re: First Amendment rights of children
The purpose of the ban apparently is to prevent parents from making
additional hard money contributions in the name of their children. One
might argue that if children constitutionally may be denied the right to
vote (something that doesn't seem to be in question), they may be denied
the right to make campaign contributions as well.
There's some discussion of the literature on the parallel question of
the constitutionality of preventing resident aliens from making campaign
contributions. (The articles are cited on pages 874-875 of the Election
Law casebook edited by Dan Lowenstein and me.) One might make the point
that those denied the right to vote have an especially strong reason to
be allowed to make campaign contributions to have some influence over
the political process.
On the subject of children being denied the right to vote, Robert
Bennett argues at 94 Northwestern Law Review 503 (2000) that parents
should receive extra votes to vote on behalf of their minor children.
--
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1C56E.13106300
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: First Amendment rights of children</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P> <FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" =
FACE=3D"Arial">But if the concern is money being funneled through minor =
children in order to avoid the parents' contribution limits, why apply =
this when the parents haven't exhausted the limits? Why not just =
count the minors' contributions towards the parents' $1000 =
limits? Shouldn't be hard to administer -- just require minors to =
list their parents' names on the disclosure forms. In fact, it =
should be much easier to administer than the current bans on straw =
donations.</FONT></P>
<P> <FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Also, while one *might* argue that children may be =
denied the right to make contributions when they can't vote, would this =
be a winning argument? As I mentioned, children lack a =
constitutional right to vote, but they do have First Amendment rights =
- -- and the Court has repeatedly held that the right to contribute money =
to an expressive activity (such as an electoral campaign) is a First =
Amendment right. (I'm not suggesting that Rick and I actually =
disagree on this point -- I think we might; I'm just responding to the =
argument that Rick restates.)</FONT></P>
<P> <FONT COLOR=3D"#000080" =
FACE=3D"Arial">Eugene</FONT>
</P>
<UL>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">From: </FONT></B> <FONT =
SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Rick Hasen [SMTP:rick.hasen@lls.edu]</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Sent: </FONT></B> <FONT =
SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Wednesday, March 06, 2002 3:35 PM</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Arial">To: </FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Arial">Volokh, Eugene</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Arial">Cc: </FONT></B> <FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Arial">Election-Law (E-mail)</FONT>
<BR><B><FONT SIZE=3D1 =
FACE=3D"Arial">Subject: </FONT>=
</B> <FONT SIZE=3D1 FACE=3D"Arial">Re: First Amendment rights of =
children</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">The purpose of the ban apparently is =
to prevent parents from making</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">additional hard money contributions =
in the name of their children. One</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">might argue that if children =
constitutionally may be denied the right to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">vote (something that doesn't seem to =
be in question), they may be denied</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">the right to make campaign =
contributions as well.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">There's some discussion of the =
literature on the parallel question of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">the constitutionality of preventing =
resident aliens from making campaign</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">contributions. (The articles =
are cited on pages 874-875 of the Election</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Law casebook edited by Dan Lowenstein =
and me.) One might make the point</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">that those denied the right to vote =
have an especially strong reason to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">be allowed to make campaign =
contributions to have some influence over</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">the political process.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">On the subject of children being =
denied the right to vote, Robert</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Bennett argues at 94 Northwestern Law =
Review 503 (2000) that parents</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">should receive extra votes to vote on =
behalf of their minor children.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">--</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Rick Hasen</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Professor of Law and William M. Rains =
Fellow</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Loyola Law School</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">919 South Albany Street</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">Los Angeles, CA =
90015-1211</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">(213)736-1466 - voice</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">(213)380-3769 - fax</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial">rick.hasen@lls.edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2 FACE=3D"Arial"><A =
HREF=3D"http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html</A></F=
ONT>
</P>
</UL>
</BODY>
</HTML>
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C1C56E.13106300--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 10:47:37 +1000
From: "Tom Round [Griffith Univ.]" <T.Round@mailbox.gu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: First Amendment rights of children
(1) Doesn't Richard Posner make a similar suggestion somewhere amid his
voluminous corpus?
(2) This issue actually has arisen here in Australia, albeit
indirectly. Because enrolling and voting are compulsory for all adult
citizens, electoral boundaries are drawn on the basis of numbers of
enrolled voters. Before the 1970s, electorates were often very unequal but
since then most State and federal governments have legislated to require
substantial equality (plus or minus 10 per cent). In 1974, the then Labor
Government proposed a constitutional amendment (defeated at referendum) to
require equality within 10% for all legislatures but would have based this
on total population, not enrolled voters. This would have helped Labor
because more non-naturalised migrants and families with small children are
located in its its stronghold regions. (Our High Court has consistently
refused to strike down unequal electoral boundaries as unconstitutional.)
At 15:35 6/03/02 -0800, Rick Hasen wrote:
From: Rick Hasen <rick.hasen@lls.edu>
Subject: Re: First Amendment rights of children
To: "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH@mail.law.ucla.edu>
Cc: "Election-Law (E-mail)" <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
[...]
On the subject of children being denied the right to vote, Robert
Bennett argues at 94 Northwestern Law Review 503 (2000) that parents
should receive extra votes to vote on behalf of their minor children.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Round
BA (Hons), LL.B (UQ)
Research Officer & Associate Lecturer -- Key Centre for
Ethics, Law, Justice and Governance (KCELJAG)
(incorporating the National Institute for Law, Ethics
and Public Affairs [NILEPA])
Room 1.10, HUM[anities] Building, Nathan Campus
Griffith University, Queensland [Australia] 4111
Ph: 07 3875 3817
Mobile: 0438-167-304
Fax: 07 3875 6634
E-mail: T.Round@mailbox.gu.edu.au
Web: http://www.gu.edu.au/centre/kceljag/
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of election-law_gl-digest V1 #153
*************************************