>
bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of John White
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:50 PM
> To: Bill Maurer; Frank Askin; Sean Parnell;
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] 12 Months After: The Effect of Citizens United
>
> I have to disagree with the point made about press corporations having a
> "special status recognized in the First Amendment." There is no special
> status granted to any category of speaker or user of the press.
>
> "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
> press . . ."
>
> At the risk of channeling Justice Scalia, the term "the press" is unlikely to
> have referred to press corporations, since corporations were a rarity in 18th
> Century America. Television and radio were entirely unknown. Thus, we
> must resort to interpretation of the text. We can agree or disagree on
> whether its protection for "freedom . . . of the press" warrants
> distinguishing potential criminal liability for the corporate press, multimedia
> conglomerates, or the incorporated corner pet store, or a nonprofit
> corporation devoted to [pick your favorite cause for the betterment of
> society] if they laud or criticize a candidate for federal office. A wealthy
> nonprofit can have the same "distorting" effect on an election by spending
> money as any other category of speaker.
>
> Note, that the Amendment provides no express protection for views
> expressed other than through speech or the press, but no one among us
> would have a problem interpreting the text to include a handwritten note or
> letter.
>
>
> John J. White, Jr.
>
white@lfa-law.com
> (425) 822-9281 ext. 321
> The contents of this message and any attachments may contain confidential
> information and be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product
> doctrine or other applicable protection. If you are not the intended
> recipient or have received this message in error, please notify the sender
> and promptly delete the message. Thank you for your assistance.
>
> Tax Advice Notice: IRS Circular 230 requires us to advise you that, if this
> communication or any attachment contains any tax advice, the advice is not
> intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding
> federal tax penalties. A taxpayer may rely on professional advice to avoid
> federal tax penalties only if the advice is reflected in a comprehensive tax
> opinion that conforms to stringent requirements. Please contact us if you
> have any questions about Circular 230 or would like to discuss our
> preparation of an opinion that conforms to these IRS rules.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:
election-law-
>
bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Maurer
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:28 PM
> To: Frank Askin; Sean Parnell;
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] 12 Months After: The Effect of Citizens United
>
> But individuals are also not given special status in the First Amendment
> and the First Amendment says nothing about individuals one way or the
> other.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Askin [mailto:
faskin@kinoy.rutgers.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:25 PM
> To: Sean Parnell; Bill Maurer;
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] 12 Months After: The Effect of Citizens United
>
> Press corporations are no more "people" than other corporations, but
> their special status is recognized in the First Amendment, which says
> nothing about not abridging the freedom of other corporations to speak
> OR try to influence the electoral process.. FRANK
>
>
>
>
> Prof. Frank Askin
> Distinguished Professor of Law and Director
> Constitutional Litigation Clinic
> Rutgers Law School/Newark
> (973) 353-5687>>> "Bill Maurer" <
wmaurer@ij.org> 1/19/2011 3:58 PM >>>
> What about for-profit press corporations? Are they people? And what
> is
> the "press"? Will we have a commission that determines whether an
> association of people is sufficiently "press-y" to qualify for
> personhood? And is the ability to vote the standard by which
> personhood
> is determined? The New York Times does not vote and it influences
> election outcomes.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From:
election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
> [mailto:
election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Sean
> Parnell
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 9:07 AM
> To:
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] 12 Months After: The Effect of Citizens United
>
>
>
> Ran across the following in the Public Citizen report:
>
>
>
> "Corporations are not people. They do not vote, and they should not be
> able to influence
>
> election outcomes. It is time to end the debate about the freedom of
> speech of for-profit
>
> corporations by amending the Constitution to make clear that
> for-profit
> corporations do
>
> not have the same First Amendment rights as people and the press."
>
>
>
> p. 27-28
>
>
>
> Wondering how "Corporations are not people" apparently morphs into
> 'For-profit corporations are not people.' Are nonprofit corporations
> people then? And of course there's the union issue, most of which
> aren't
> incorporated - are unions people? So confusing...
>
>
>
> Sean Parnell
>
> President
>
> Center for Competitive Politics
>
>
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
>
>
http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp
>
> 124 S. West Street, #201
>
> Alexandria, VA 22310
>
> (703) 894-6800 phone
>
> (703) 894-6813 direct
>
> (703) 894-6811 fax
>
>
>
> From:
election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
> [mailto:
election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Craig
> Holman
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 11:18 AM
> To:
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
> Subject: [EL] 12 Months After: The Effect of Citizens United
>
>
>
> Colleagues:
>
> Public Citizen has just released a report documenting the aftermath of
> the Citizens United decision on its one year anniversary --
>
> Excerpted press release and link to the report follows:
>
> A year has passed since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens
> United v. Federal Election Commission, and the damage is clear,
> according to a new Public Citizen report.
>
> The tally:
>
> * Outside groups are making record expenditures (more than four times
> as
> much spent in the 2010 midterm election cycle as in the last midterm
> election cycle in 2006);
>
> * Congressional staffs and lawmakers are intimidated by corporate
> lobbyists like never before;
>
> * Laws designed to protect the political system from the corrupting
> influence of money have been rendered dead in 24 states; and
>
> * Power has shifted in dozens of congressional seats in races won with
> the help of undisclosed outside money.
>
>
>
> The 76-page report, "12 Months After: The Effects of Citizens United
> on
> Elections and the Integrity of the Legislative Process," reveals a
> year's worth of damage done by the court's decision is available at:
>
http://www.citizen.org/12-months-after.
>
>
>
>
>
> Craig Holman, Ph.D.
>
> Government Affairs Lobbyist
>
> Public Citizen
>
> 215 Pennsylvania Avenue NE
>
> Washington, D.C. 20003
>
> TEL: (202) 454-5182
>
> CEL: (202) 905-7413
>
> FAX: (202) 547-7392
>
>
Holman@aol.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> election-law mailing list
>
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
>
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
>
> _______________________________________________
> election-law mailing list
>
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
>
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law