| Subject: Re: [EL] Senator Feingold (was more news 11/2/10) |
| From: Jamin Raskin |
| Date: 11/2/2010, 2:39 PM |
| To: "BSmith@law.capital.edu" <BSmith@law.capital.edu>, "election-law@mailman.lls.edu" <election-law@mailman.lls.edu> |
In the spirit of not-allowing-a-man-to-be-kicked-when-he's-down(-in-the-polls-at-least), I want to say a word in defense of Senator Feingold, who inspired the criticism of Brad Smith with this statement:
“I’ve always been a target in this stuff,” Feingold said during a recent campaign stop. “And this year, I’m getting the full dose: over $2 million in these ads [criticizing him] that used to not be legal.”
This prompts Brad to say: "I think: yes, that is exactly why we oppose campaign finance regulation. Essentially, Senator Feingold is saying that these expenditures - i.e. this speech - are bad, because, as a result, he might lose his seat today."
Really? I have re-read the statement mutiple times and cannot find the slightest implication that the reason Senator Feingold deplores the Citizens United decision, and has deplored it from the start, is that it might cause him to "lose his seat."
Senator Feingold was making the simple and indisputable point that he was attacked with millions of dollars of ads paid for out of corporate treasuries that would have been plainly illegal prior to the decision.
To say that this means Senator Feingold finds fault with treating corporations as citizens armed with political rights because it threatens his own political future is a totally groundless ad hominem argument that cheapens the serious debate over this landmark decision (which a majority of the American people reject). It makes no more sense, and no less sense, to say that the reason Brad and Jim Bopp cheer the decision is that they want to see Senator Feingold and other critics of corporate dominance of government lose their seats. I am willing to concede a lot more principle and integrity to people's arguments than that.
Win or lose, Senator Feingold is a man of principle who has gladly risked his own political future many times to stand on his beliefs.
This item appears at the WSJ Law Blog.
TPM reports.
Jon Ralson thinks yes.
Josh Douglas has written an oped that appears in some Kentucky newspapers. With permission I have also posted it at this link. It begins:
Raw Story reports. Not sure what makes this an "Exclusive."
The St. Thomas Law Review is sponsoring this event on Nov. 12 and 13. Nate Persily will be moderating. (Unfortunately, I had to turn down an invitation to this event, as I'll be speaking at the Georgia State Citizens United event.)
-- 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