Subject: Re: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 10/10/10
From: Salvador Peralta
Date: 10/11/2010, 9:35 AM
To: "Smith, Brad" <BSmith@law.capital.edu>, "election-law@mailman.lls.edu" <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>

Increased disclosure is a reasonable approach to moderating extremism.  That is true whether we are talking about mitigating the slanderous attacks that these IE campaigns tend to produce or the responses by candidates to such campaigns. 

As to your specific example... what difference does it make whether we are talking about the Chamber of Commerce or Think Progress?  The political demand that all of these memos be turned over is never going to materialize as a matter of public policy.  Nevertheless, I see no particular reason why such demands should not be made. As I said, I have no problem with assuming the worst about any of these groups and encouraging others to do the same.  Similarly, I have no problem with a member of Congress who makes it a point to directly confront a bogus entity that is smearing him or her.

I have absolutely no empathy for those who hide behind fictitious names for the purpose of smearing candidates in a consequence free environment.

YMMV.

From: "Smith, Brad" <BSmith@law.capital.edu>
To: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Sent: Mon, October 11, 2010 8:49:02 AM
Subject: Re: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 10/10/10

Think Progress's charges have been echoed by numerous Democratic politicians, including the Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Chris Van Hollen.  If Think Progress coordinated its charges and their release with the DCCC, then this would be an illegal and undisclosed coordinated contribution.  Do you agree that we need a full audit of Think Progress and its parent, the Center for American Progress, and that we cannot take their denials of coordination at face value?  Do you agree that their failure to disclose all of their internal memos, appointment calendars, and phone logs invites the most extreme characterizations of their efforts? 
 
There are many things in life that invite extreme characterizations.  When these things come up, responsible voices ought to seek to moderate those extreme characterizations, not to fan the worst fears of the overwrought and the conspiracy minded.
 
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 Salvador Peralta
Sent: Mon 10/11/2010 10:54 AM
To: JBoppjr@aol.com; rick.hasen@lls.edu; election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 10/10/10

It seems to me that the lack of disclosure of the sources of who is financing these independent expenditures invites the most extreme characterizations of who may or may not be behind the efforts. 

Waxing poetic about condemnable behavior on the part of victims of the negative attacks run through these independent expenditure campaigns (i.e., Peter DeFazio vs "Concerned Taxpayers of America") is all well and good, but let us not forget that a major reason why the donors are hiding their identities in the first place is that they would not want to be associated with some of the dishonest, slanderous, and mean-spirited messages they are using these front groups to communicate. 

Given that a lack of meaningful disclosure is a reason why the most heinous and dishonest of negative campaigns are typically run as independent expenditure campaigns, I see no particular reason why any candidate who is subject to attacks by these groups should not make it a point to assume the worst about the campaign's financiers, and encourage others to do the same. 

- Sal

From: "JBoppjr@aol.com" <JBoppjr@aol.com>
To: rick.hasen@lls.edu; election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Sent: Mon, October 11, 2010 6:13:33 AM
Subject: Re: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 10/10/10

    A government investigation of a group's exercise of their First Amendments activities is itself a burden and chill on those activities and requires a sufficient government interest. See Sweeny.  That is why the FECA requires that a complaint have sufficient verified facts to justify an investigation and the FEC must vote to do it.
 
    No facts and "we don't trust the Chamber without an investigation" does not justify an investigation. And without such facts, it is irresponsible to make this allegation.  It charges a crime and is also defamatory.  Such behavior ought to be condemned, not tolerated with a wink and a nod.  Jim Bopp
 

"It Appears They've Even Taken Secret Foreign Money to Influence Our Elections"

That's the unsubstantiated charge in a new DNC ad, "Stealing Democracy," against the Republicans and the Chamber.

As I told the NY Times, there's no proof that the Chamber has taken a penny of foreign money. But there's no way for us to know whether the Chamber, or anyone else engaged in election-related activity, is improperly using foreign money, unless we allow the FEC or another government agency the ability to audit the records of the political activities of such agencies. (These audits would not be made public unless there was proof of wrongdoing, and groups facing harassment should be exempt from the requirement).

I'll have more to say on the foreign money issue tomorrow in Slate.

Posted by Rick Hasen at 10:00 AM
 
In a message dated 10/10/2010 1:16:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rick.hasen@lls.edu writes:

October 10, 2010

Final Version of My California Law Review Book Review of Heather Gerken's Democracy Index Now Available

You can find Election Administration Reform and the New Institutionalism at 98 California Law Review 1075 (2010).

Posted by Rick Hasen at 10:08 AM

"Report: Dems planted NJ tea party House candidate"

AP offers this report.

Posted by Rick Hasen at 10:03 AM

"It Appears They've Even Taken Secret Foreign Money to Influence Our Elections"

That's the unsubstantiated charge in a new DNC ad, "Stealing Democracy," against the Republicans and the Chamber.

As I told the NY Times, there's no proof that the Chamber has taken a penny of foreign money. But there's no way for us to know whether the Chamber, or anyone else engaged in election-related activity, is improperly using foreign money, unless we allow the FEC or another government agency the ability to audit the records of the political activities of such agencies. (These audits would not be made public unless there was proof of wrongdoing, and groups facing harassment should be exempt from the requirement).

I'll have more to say on the foreign money issue tomorrow in Slate.

Posted by Rick Hasen at 10:00 AM

Linda Greenhouse on Justice Breyer and Statutory Interpretation

Here.

Posted by Rick Hasen at 09:51 AM
--
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org/


_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law