election-law_gl-digest Thursday, March 7 2002 Volume 01 : Number 154
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 11:54:05 -0500
From: "Trevor Potter" <TP@capdale.com>
Subject: Re: First Amendment rights of children
In response to Graeme Orr's questions:
1.) There is a statutory exemption from the definition of "contribution" for voluntary labor;
2.) There is now a long, well-publicized, history of parents giving through their minor children, down to infants.
Trevor Potter
Caplin & Drysdale
One Thomas Circle, N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005-5802
t: (202) 862-5092 f: (202) 429-3301
TP@capdale.com
Graeme Orr <g.orr@mailbox.gu.edu.au> 03/03/02 06:20AM >>>
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.'.
< - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
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.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 15:37:54 -0500
From: "Lash LaRue" <laruel@wlu.edu>
Subject: Fwd: Re: First Amendment rights of children
This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to
properly handle MIME multipart messages.
- --=_B3EE05AF.40211FD3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
- --=_B3EE05AF.40211FD3
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 09:45:24 -0500
From: "Lash LaRue" <laruel@wlu.edu>
Subject: Re: First Amendment rights of children
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Posner does indeed suggest that parents should receive an extra vote. In
his book on the recent election, he makes this suggestion in an
interesting context.
The question he addresses is whether a voter's failure to follow
instructions should be a legitimate grounds for not counting that
voter's vote. Posner says No. His theory of politics is interest
representation; the interests of illiterates should be represented;
their interests will not be represented unless their votes count; but to
enforce a forfeiture rule for failure to follow instructions is to
disenfranchise illiterates.
And then he does a "so also." (If my memory is correct.) So too, the
interests of children should be represented; they are not being
represented currently (for proof, he cites the disparity between old age
welfare and child welfare, i.e., Social Security as the "third rail" of
politics). The only practical way to represent them is to give extra
votes to parents. Q.E.D.
Best wishes, Lash /
p.s.: Rick: I am not sure this will go to the list.
"Tom Round [Griffith Univ.]" <T.Round@mailbox.gu.edu.au> 03/06/02
20:08 PM >>>
(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/
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --=_B3EE05AF.40211FD3--
------------------------------
End of election-law_gl-digest V1 #154
*************************************