Well, lots of people were concerned about this project not too long ago:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=ax33MvEtvy0E
http://www.slate.com/id/2147880/
and this guy is certainly concerned about retaliation:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/obamacare_extortion_
iQ5A2V2Nu2NoaBKQq2m9xK
Here's a story of a prominent lawmaker vowing to pressure big business
to support the lawmaker's party, pressure which is effective thanks to
disclosure: http://mobile.politico.com/story.cfm?id=42521&cat=lobbyists
The pro-reform Committee for Economic Development is concerned about it,
even if they don't agree with me or Jim Bopp. "51 percent of business
executives fear adverse legislative consequences to themselves or their
industry if they turn down requests for campaign contributions from
high-ranking political leaders and/or political operatives." Check here:
http://ced.org/issues/democratic-institutions/campaign-finance-reform.
Here's a tax lawyer who worries about it, coming from bureaucrats rather
than elected politicians:
http://blog.pappastax.com/index.php/2009/03/23/irs-has-zero-tolerance-ta
xpayer-harassment-policy-but-is-it-enforced/
A while back the Wall Street Journal quoted one lobbyist - who insisted
on anonymity due to fear of retaliation, saying that the Democratic
congressional leadership had put the word out that, "if you have an
issue on trade, taxes, or regulation, you'd better be a donor and you'd
better not be part of any effort to run ads against our freshmen
incumbents." http://www.freedomworks.org/news/comfy-with-k-street.
There's lots of people concerned about this.
I also found this line of Frank's interesting: "It seems to me the
purpose of transparency is so that voters and consumers can take
"vengeance" - particularly against corporations using their money to
corrupt the political process." That sounds like Frank sees the purpose
of added mandatory disclosure is to allow for consumer boycotts(if not
to encourage vandalism, and threats at executives). I think consumers
have a right to boycott. I see no way that that passes strict or even
intermediate scrutiny as a government interest.
Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
Designated Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 East Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43215-3200
614.236.6317
bsmith@law.capital.edu
http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp
CLS_Preferred Full Color Logo.jpg
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Askin [mailto:faskin@kinoy.rutgers.edu]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 5:11 PM
To: Paul Gronke; Smith, Brad
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out DeFazio tries to find out
whoisbehindmysterious attack ads
I am a bit confused. Who is concerned that "vengeful politicians" (and
who are they?) are going to retaliate against Exon-Mobil, Haliburton,
the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson (sp?), Adolf Coors and a host of
other shadowy billionaires?? It seems to me the purpose of transparency
is so that voters and consumers can take "vengeance" - particularly
against corporations using their money to corrupt the political process.
If they can't take the heat, they should stay out of the political
kitchen. FRANK ASKIN
Prof. Frank Askin
Distinguished Professor of Law and Director
Constitutional Litigation Clinic
Rutgers Law School/Newark
(973) 353-5687>>> "Smith, Brad" <BSmith@law.capital.edu> 9/27/2010 3:36
PM >>>
Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to complain that these ads are
being paid for by a "shadowy group" that won't disclose it donors and
which is run by a Republican consultant. That's that. No need for a
new law that infringes on privacy and allows vengeful politicians
opportunities to retaliate.
Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 236-6317
http://www.law.capital.edu/Faculty/Bios/bsmith.asp
________________________________
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu on behalf of Paul Gronke
Sent: Sat 9/25/2010 6:48 PM
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out DeFazio tries to find out who is
behindmysterious attack ads
Both the message and the messenger should be debated in a free and open
democratic society.
===
Paul Gronke
Paul.Gronke@gmail.com
This email sent from a mobile device.
On Sep 25, 2010, at 10:21 AM, JBoppjr@aol.com wrote:
Click here: DeFazio tries to find out who is behind mysterious
attack ads
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/24/AR20100
92406094.html>
This is a good example of how "disclosure" would divert
attention from the message to the messenger. Rather than debate the ad,
DeFazio want to debate the group. Jim Bopp
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law