On 9/28/10, JBoppjr@aol.com <JBoppjr@aol.com> wrote:
By the way, the importance of CU goes way beyond whether corp and
labor unions can now do "vote for" ads. Analytically, the "corporate
corruption" interest supported numerous government campaign finance
restrictions and
regulations. These are now also bereft of legal support and await the next
lawsuit to strike them down. Jim Bopp
Here again, is Jim Bopp (or his allies) going to bring these next
lawsuits for reasons of mere theoretical purity or to test the
boundaries of mootness doctrine, or will the lawsuits be brought
because they will allow still freer and larger political spending by
corporations? I'm surprised Jim Bopp doesn't embrace his own
victories instead of trying to minimize them. Every corporate dollar
spent is a dollar liberated by the newly interpreted First Amendment.
That being said, the corporate power of Citizens United operates just
as powerfully when money is not actually spent, because it deters or
influences candidate positions and candidate decisions. Politicians
often know quite well where most large corporations' bread is
buttered, without the need for another visit from a lobbyist.
Everyone knows politicians calculate with respect to all the available
political warchests in the campaign field, and are nearly obliged to
respond to every attack, so it borders on naive to think there is no
deterrent effect with large corporate potential warchests, just as it
would be naive to think there's no such thing as a nuclear or military
deterrent just because political science may have some difficulties
measuring the deterrence because one can't "see" it. It's analogous
to the black letter law allowing cases to go to the jury on damages
when the fact of damage is certain, even though the amount is very
uncertain and there may indeed be no hard data to support any
particular amount of damage.
Paul Lehto, J.D.
In a message dated 9/28/2010 10:58:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
lehto.paul@gmail.com writes:
It certainly seems fair to conclude, even prior to empirical proof,
that Jim Bopp's landmark litigation to remove corporate limits in
campaign finance was not a moot case or an academic case with nothing
truly at issue. Corporations freed from these limits would naturally
take advantage of that freedom.
Because I believe Congress did not set totally meaningless limits on
corporate contributions and that Jim Bopp doesn't bring moot cases not
capable of repetition, the only real question is by how much past
corporate expenditures increase in given major election periods, not
if they are increasing.
Paul Lehto, J.D.