The Socialist Workers Party won its disclosure exemption from the US Supreme Court because of both government and private hostility toward persons identified as being supporters and members of the SWP. See part III of the decision. "The district court found substantial evidence of both governmental and private hostility."
--- On Sat, 10/9/10, Allison Hayward <allisonhayward@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Allison Hayward <allisonhayward@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [EL] disclosure and the Chamber To: "Rick Hasen" <rick.hasen@lls.edu> Cc: "Election Law" <election-law@mailman.lls.edu> Date: Saturday, October 9, 2010, 8:14 AM
In SWP and NAACP v. Alabama, the government was
certainly part of the problem. But the facial challenge in Dow v. Reed left open the issue of whether evidence of harassment generally would support an as-applied challenge, didn't it?
Also: I think Rick's audit point was aimed at the deterrent effect, rather than publicity. That was responding to the point Brad and I made, more or less, about the fact disclosure can only do so much, and people can still cast aspersions on groups that disclose.
A.
(I really know better than to spend Saturday's on the listserv, don't I?) On Oct 9, 2010, at 10:53 AM, Rick Hasen wrote: The rationale applies to the extent that the group fears government harassment.
On 10/8/2010 5:47 PM, sparnell@campaignfreedom.org wrote: I too am confused about the SWP exemption proposed here, for different reasons. Since the results of the audit are not supposed to be made public (absent wrongdoing), the rationale for the current SWP exemption for disclosure would not seem to apply. Is the concern that those with access to the confidential information might try to use it to damage, embarrass, or harass the SWP? But I hardly think the SWP is alone in this fear, and in fact I think other, more mainstream groups have a more reasonable fear. Ask yourself, who would the Bush or Obama administrations get more mileage out of damaging - the SWP and John Birch Society, or the
Sierra Club and the Chamber of Commerce? And while Rick may be talking about random audits, right now the general conversation seems to be revolving around audits, FEC inquiries, and criminal investigations triggered by the requests of politicians and their allies, based in the case of the Chamber on little more than free association and conjecture remeniscent of John Nash's efforts to decode secret messages from Soviet spies cleverly hidden in newspaper headlines (note that Rick does not appear to be among this group). Sean
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry Date:
Fri, 8 Oct 2010 17:46:34 -0600 Subject: Re: [EL] disclosure and the Chamber Re the SWP: There's nothing like establishing a record of gov't harrassment before you have the First Amendment to fall back on.
What counts for gov't harassment these days? I would think a random audit based on the sole fact that an association is engaged in political activity meets the definition. Do you have a definition of "large scale political activities," or will the IRS/FEC just know it when it sees it? I suspect once the regulators get involved, many will be very surprised how small a large scale operation can get. As discussed earlier, does the policy of the FEC only disclosing small donor information to the public if it finds wrongdoing by said association attenuate the chill for small donors? I think not. Steve Klein Wyoming Liberty Group www.wyliberty.org On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Rick Hasen <hasenr@gmail.com> wrote: 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 _______________________________________________ election-law mailing list election-law@mailman.lls.edu http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
|