Hence the need for a new law, which is to say that Ben Tillman's law was not interpreted to cover nor enforced against "spending," which is to say that therefore Ciizens United did not overturn "100 years of established law."
Bradley A. Smith
As Sen. Taft explained when clarifying the law in 1947:
The legislative history indicates that Congress believed both
contributions
and expenditures by corporations and unions were already prohibited by
the
Tillman Act. As Sen. Robert Taft (R-Ohio) explained, “[T]he previous law
prohibited any contribution, direct or indirect, in connection with any
election.” The new
legislation, he continued, “only makes it clear that an expenditure . .
. is the same as an indirect
contribution, which, in my opinion, has always been unlawful.”
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Birkenstock <jbirkenstock@capdale.com>
To: Smith, Brad <BSmith@law.capital.edu>
Cc: election-law <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
Sent: Wed, Feb 16, 2011 10:02 am
Subject: Re: [EL] Caperton, Citizens United, & Clarence Thomas
First enacted in 1907, more than a century ago, the Tillman Act
prohibited
corporate political "contributions" at a time when the
contribution/expenditure
distinction had not yet benansdpfoiCV"{Ofpasifhvcai ush-w98et5wggv
cxzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.........................
Apologies, everybody, I appear to have fallen asleep literally in the
midst of
writing this response. For more, please feel free to review the
listserv's
archives for any of the last eighty times Brad and I (and others) have
compared
notes on this issue.
________________________________
From: Smith, Brad [mailto:BSmith@law.capital.edu]
Sent: Wed 2/16/2011 9:46 AM
To: Joseph Birkenstock
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: RE: [EL] Caperton, Citizens United, & Clarence Thomas
Please explain. The law overturned has existed since 1947. The
precedents
overturned have existed since 1990 and 2003.
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: Joseph Birkenstock [mailto:jbirkenstock@capdale.com]
Sent: Wed 2/16/2011 9:17 AM
To: Smith, Brad; Scott Rafferty
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: RE: [EL] Caperton, Citizens United, & Clarence Thomas
No more so than it would to misrepresent that conclusion as a
"misrepresented"
"fact"...
________________________________
Joseph M. Birkenstock, Esq.
Caplin & Drysdale, Chtd.
One Thomas Circle, NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 862-7836
www.capdale.com/jbirkenstock
*also admitted to practice in CA
________________________________
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu on behalf of Smith, Brad
Sent: Wed 2/16/2011 12:21 AM
To: Scott Rafferty
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Caperton, Citizens United, & Clarence Thomas
So are you saying that by making the complaint public, Zeese has
violated ethics
rules?
Also, does it violate any rule to misrepresent the facts in an ethics
complaint?
("This case overturned a hundred years of established campaign finance
law.")
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 Scott Rafferty
Sent: Tue 2/15/2011 8:43 PM
To: Sean Parnell
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Caperton, Citizens United, & Clarence Thomas
D.C. Bar counsel claims that it is a violation of its rules for either
the
complainant or the complainee to disclose the existence of a bar
complaint.
It's nice to think that their interpretation is designed to protect
lawyers less
powerful than Justice Thomas from the stigma of complaints filed solely
for
publicity (with the clear understanding that Bar Counsel will never
take public
action to exonerate an unjustly accused attorney).
Publicizing a bar complaint against a Supreme Court justice is a wise
choice
compared to the alternative of publicizing a complaint of judicial
misconduct.
Those rules threaten the possibility of criminal prosecution against
citizens
who publicize the existence of their own complaint.
A complaint to the District of Columbia Bar may not be effective in
this case,
however. Justice Thomas, unlike most of his Brethren, does not
maintain his
complimentary judicial membership.
I
Scott Rafferty
4730 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20016
mobile 202-380-5525
On 15 February 2011 11:00, Sean Parnell <sparnell@campaignfreedom.org>
wrote:
The, ah, hysteria over Clarence Thomas and Citizens United has
just
gotten more hysterical, with a Caperton angle now.
http://www.velvetrevolution.us/images/Clarence_Thomas_Bar_Supplement.pdf
Can't remember if this scenario was one of the 43 (?) questions
that
Chief Justice Roberts raised in his dissent.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
<http://www.campaignfreedom.org/>
<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
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
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.
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
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.
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law