I’ve thanked (off-line) Trevor for the correction, it sure is more comfortable to have 8 votes.

 

 

 

Only one quibble with the wise Prof. Schotland's comments: I think it is accurate to say that the section of Justice Kennedy's majority opinion which discusses disclosure actually has EIGHT votes--the four dissenters and the members of the majority except Justice Thomas.

 

Trevor Potter

 

From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Roy Schotland
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 4:24 PM
To: Rick Hasen; Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] Justice Kennedy, DISCLOSE-- and on to the States!

Rick is right (his posting several days ago) about who are the culprits responsible for how sad is the current Disclosure picture (with major blame on Ds, in House as well as Senate).  Rick disagrees with leading jurisprude Joe Conason’s foolishly blaming Justice Kennedy for the current state of disclosure.  Critic Conason ignores that the Kennedy opinion’s treatment on disclosure got only four votes, Thomas not joining that part.   And the critic ignores the high odds that if Kennedy hadn’t authored the opinion, one of the radical Justices woulda, probably with damage to disclosure.  Ironically, Conason accuses Kennedy of “naïvete”.

 

In a posting last week I noted the DISCLOSE bill’s five fatal flaws.  With that bill, my party’s Members of Congress blew our best opportunity to update disclosure law.  Given that after the election it will be even harder (for several reasons) to change FECA, let’s remember the States.  Even in the many pro-disclosure States, requirements have been obsolete (at least since WRTL) in being limited to “express advocacy” ads.  Never has more public attention been given to the need for disclosure.  Shouldn’t energies go into effective bills in XYZ States? 

 

Roy A. Schotland

Professor Emeritus

Georgetown Law Center

600 New Jersey Ave. N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001

202/662-9098

        fax: -9680

 

<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein. This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure, copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.