Well, I agree there will be more interest on this topic in the states. And depending on what specifically is being proposed as “updates,” there might even be a few items that CCP could support. Disclosure regimes with regulations that only contemplated individuals/parties/PACS spending money on independent expenditures would seem to be in need of review to see if they can accommodate the fact that corporations and unions (and other forms of association) can now spend money in campaigns, for example.

 

 

 

 

Sean,

            Thanx to you and again to Trevor for the correction that in CU, Kennedy’s treatment of disclosure got 8 votes.  This is a wonderful instance in which even in math, context makes a difference:  having only 4 votes means zero precedential value, having 8 means all but the best, far more than doubling when 4=0..

            Yes I can guess your “answer … regarding whether”, when it comes to these campaign funders, voters shouldn’t be informed.  But given that 1) changing FECA isn’t feasible (partly because of coming election results, also because the 2010 experience makes some people and some entities more passionate than ever for non-disclosure); and 2) never has more public attention been given to the need for disclosure …  Don’t you agree that lotsa people will be all-out for up-dating disclosure requirements?  Which means going to the States (where, after all, campaign finance disclosure started).

            So, Some States Worth Work?—

            --?Minnesota, which as Trevor writes in his new ABA article, on these matters “is in the vanguard” …?

            --?Iowa, where right now major out-state funds are flowing in against retention of three Justices ?

            --?Ore, Calif, Wash, Mont?

            --?Colo?

            --?Ohio, where thanx to Ned Foley’s long litigation against the Chamber’s wanting to keep its donors (for an independent campaign effort) under burqas, disclosure was won, at least for judicial elections …?

            --?Fla and NC?

            --?Mass/Me/Vt/Conn?

            --?others?

            Reactions from knowledgeable people would be valuable.

                                                                                                            Onwards, and Thanx again,   Roy

 

 

 

 

I think we can all guess what my answer is regarding whether “energies [should] go into effective bills in XYZ States?” ;->

 

But for the record, the disclosure portions of Citizens United got 8 votes – it was the one part that Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens, and Sotomayor signed onto.

 

Also, when it comes to the First Amendment and campaign finance, Kennedy IS one of the “radicals,” at least as I believe the term is being used here. Maybe not as radical as me, though. ;->

 

 

 

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?