I don't know that the debate has "moved," but I've believed in the
idea of random audits of those engaged in large scale political
activities (again, with the information disclosed only to the gov't
agency, and not to the public), since I saw Republican concern voiced
about the Obama donations in 2008 and whether they could include
improper source donations in amounts the campaign reported as under $200
per individual contribution. This audit requirement would be subject to
as-applied exemptions for groups like the Socialist Workers' Party, who
can show a record of gov't/other harassment.
Rick
On 10/8/2010 4:24 PM, sparnell@campaignfreedom.org wrote:
Am I reading you correctly, Rick, that the debate has moved beyond the idea that donations/revenue to groups engaging in political speech should generally be disclosed, and that audits of groups engaged in political speech should be the new norm?
I'm kind of hoping I misread that.
Sean
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Hasen<hasenr@gmail.com>
Sender: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 12:36:26
To: Allison Hayward Gmail<allisonhayward@gmail.com>
Reply-To: rick.hasen@lls.edu
Cc: 'Election Law'<election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] disclosure and the Chamber
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law