the basic restriction that we're discussing here has been in place for 59 years
Say What? If only we'd known, everyone could have saved a lot of energy over the past decade.
________________________________
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu on behalf of Marty Lederman
Sent: Thu 4/20/2006 9:25 PM
To: John Pomeranz; election-law
Subject: Re: message from Gerry Hebert re: Maine Christian Civil League v. FEC
Well, if we're talking about the 441b restrictions and the like, "people" can use their own money to run all the ads they want -- the restrictions only apply to corporations and unions; and even then, many nonprofits engaged in "truly non-electoral activities" are MCFL-exempt. (Speaking of which, why isn't the Maine CCL exempt? Presumably because it accepts corporate donations -- and if it ceased to accept such donations, the expenditure limitations would not apply to it.)
As many readers know, I am somewhat ambivalent, skeptical even, about whether Austin was rightly decided; and I certainly don't think the extension of Austin to unions is defensible. But let's be honest -- the basic restriction that we're discussing here has been in place for 59 years, and it has not, over those many generations, imposed a significant burden on the ability of corporations and unions to engage in lobbying or other public speech on issues of the day.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Pomeranz <mailto:jpomeranz@harmoncurran.com>
To: election-law <mailto:election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 7:39 PM
Subject: RE: message from Gerry Hebert re: Maine Christian Civil League v. FEC
Putting aside how different people choose to characterize the facts of this particular case, I really must dispute Gerry Hebert's suggestion that the electioneering communications restrictions and other parts of BCRA aren't actually harming people and organizations.
On a regular basis I am faced with people obliged to constrain truly non-electoral activities as a result of the broad sweep of BCRA-created tests. But you're going to have to take my word for that, because I can't ethically tell you about those people, and they've decided to do the best they can by curtailing planned efforts and working within these tests. These people and groups have other agendas -- protecting the environment, ensuring the civil rights of all Americans, fighting for economic justice for working people, ending discrimination against gay and lesbian families, challenging an unjust war, and more -- that they see as more important than spending years and hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting for their constitutional rights in the courts.
What's worse are all the people who don't even get as far as these advocates. These people see the tangle of tax and election laws governing their every move. They see the fees charged by the handful of lawyers who have made it their life's work to really understand -- as well as anyone can -- these laws. They hear the caveat-filled "advice" we are obliged to give as a result of the ambiguity of these laws. And they give up. They don't get involved. They leave the dirty business of governing the country to the few saints, fools, and fanatics so obsessed with their particular causes that they are willing to persevere against all of the barriers set against them.
Corrupt public officials (and those that corrupt them) will guarantee ongoing public support for groups that propose more more and more restrictions on political speech, and incumbents seeking to secure their positions will support those efforts. Few will fund efforts to ensure a robust -- and, yes, sometimes not very pretty -- political debate. Perhaps the only people willing to challenge those calling for more regulation will be those with a partisan ax to grind. Be grateful that at least they will! For there are others with arguably purer hearts, but without the stomach for this fight.
John Pomeranz
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP
1726 M Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
p: 202.328.3500
f: 202-328-6918
e: jpomeranz@harmoncurran.com