| Subject: Re: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 4/5/11 |
| From: Joseph Birkenstock |
| Date: 4/5/2011, 1:07 PM |
| To: Rick Hasen <rhasen@law.uci.edu>, Jason Rylander <jasonrylander@gmail.com> |
| CC: Election Law <election-law@mailman.lls.edu> |
Short aside: I just realized I misread the item which started
this thread, and credited Alex DeMots (through no fault of his) with posting that
link to the list, when in fact Rick had already included that link in his typically
helpful and comprehensive summary of the day’s election law news.
So apologies to Rick if my sloppy reading gave anyone the wrong
impression!!
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
[mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 3:29 PM
To: Jason Rylander
Cc: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 4/5/11
I have explained my reasons
for favoring disclosure in the campaign finance context in a number of academic
and non-academic articles (here's a recent piece on Slate, http://www.slate.com/id/2271187/).
Roughly, the three interests in the campaign finance context are an
anticorruption interest, an information interest, and an enforcement
interest. I don't think the first and third of those reasons map to the
context of organized opposition to a dean search, though the information
interest surely does. So I might evaluate the credibility of the message
against a dean candidate if I knew it were funded by ideological enemies of the
dean candidate than if I thought the message was funded by a broad section of
faculty and students.
But my main reason for favoring disclosure in this context is the idea that
Justice Scalia so aptly called "civic courage" in his Doe v. Reed
concurrence. People have every right to oppose a dean candidate.
But unless they face a realistic threat of harassment, they should have the
courage to put their name with their accusations. As Justice Scalia wrote
in his McIntyre dissent: "I can imagine no reason why an
anonymous leaflet is any more honorable, as a general matter, than an anonymous
phone call or an anonymous letter. It facilitates wrong by eliminating
accountability, which is ordinarily the very purpose of the anonymity. There
are of course exceptions, and where anonymity is needed to avoid "threats,
harassment, or reprisals" the First
Amendment will require an exemption from the Ohio law. "
Rick
On 4/5/2011 12:11 PM, Jason Rylander wrote:
I'm interested in hearing why Rick thinks the organizers of
this website should have to disclose their identities and that of their
donors. Since he offered to list the reasons why ...
Jason Rylander
Arlington, VA
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Sean Parnell <sparnell@campaignfreedom.org>
wrote:
I enjoy pointing out irony. I find it
ironic that people who get hysterical over the thought of anonymous speech
would let this pass.
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: Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen@law.uci.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 1:08 PM
To: Sean Parnell
Cc: 'Election Law'
Subject: Re: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 4/5/11
Then I was wondering why you pointed out the fact that
it was anonymous, if you think that's unobjectionable. Did you think that
those who generally support disclosure would not do so in this case?
Rick
On 4/5/2011 9:51 AM, Sean Parnell wrote:
No, I’m quite fine with anonymous speech, political or
otherwise, and am a proponent of the idea that speech should generally be
judged on the quality of the argument rather than the source of funds. And of
course, individuals are free to give whatever credibility they wish to
anonymous speech, including zero.
Publius, NAACP v. Alabama, McIntyre, etc
- probably no need for me to further traumatize anybody else with my arguments
on this subject.
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: Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen@law.uci.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 12:46 PM
To: Sean Parnell
Cc: 'Election Law'
Subject: Re: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 4/5/11
Sean,
Do you believe that such donor information should be disclosed? I
certainly do, and I'd be happy to list the reasons why if you like. But
what about the idea that some in CCP have put forward that we should
judge political speech based upon the quality of the arguments and not who is
funding the argument?
Rick
On 4/5/2011 9:03 AM, Sean Parnell wrote:
So, I couldn’t help but notice that the web site
attacking Brad Smith as a potential candidate for Dean of Case Western’s law
school is… anonymous.
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 Rick Hasen
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 10:49 AM
To: Election Law
Subject: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 4/5/11
This NY Times report begins: "Until a few weeks
ago, this state's election on Tuesday for a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme
Court was widely expected to be dull and predictable."
Posted
by Rick Hasen at 07:45 AM
Roll Call offers this report.
Posted
by Rick Hasen at 07:41 AM
The Hamilton County judge case may be heading to the Supreme Court (which, if taken, would
almost certainly lead the Court to explain the meaning of Bush v. Gore)
The Ohio Chief Justice wants to change the rules for judicial selection.
ePollbooks may come to Ohio.
And there's controversy over Brad Smth's possible appointment as dean
of Case Western.
Posted
by Rick Hasen at 07:35 AM
Doug Kendall blogs.
Posted
by Rick Hasen at 04:48 PM
Politico offers this
report.
Posted
by Rick Hasen at 03:01 PM
Eugene Volokh has posted "The Freedom...Of the Press"-- from 1791 to 1868 to
Now -- Freedom for the Press as an Industry, or the Press as a Technology?
on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Both Justices and scholars have long debated whether the
"freedom ...of the press" was historically understood as securing
special constitutional rights for the institutional press (newspapers,
magazines, and broadcasters). This issue comes up in many fields: campaign
finance law, libel law, the newsgatherer’s privilege, access to government
facilities for newsgathering purposes, and more. Most recently, last year's
Citizens United v. FEC decision split 5-4 on this very question, and not just
in relation to corporate speech rights.
This article discusses what the "freedom of the press" has likely
meant with regard to this question, during (1) the decades surrounding the
ratification of the First Amendment, (2) the decades surrounding the
ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and (3) the modern First Amendment
era. The article focuses solely on the history, and leaves the First Amendment
theory questions to others. And, with regard to the history, it offers evidence
that the "freedom... of the press" has long been understood as
meaning freedom for all who used the printing press as technology -- and, by
extension, mass communication technology more broadly -- and has generally not
been limited to those who belonged to the institutional press as an industry.
Posted
by Rick Hasen at 01:24 PM
Roll Call offers this report.
Posted
by Rick Hasen at 12:36 PM
David Callahan has written this
important NYT oped.
Posted
by Rick Hasen at 08:49 AM
--
Rick Hasen
Visiting Professor
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen@law.uci.edu
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
--
Rick Hasen
Visiting Professor
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen@law.uci.edu
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
--
Rick Hasen
Visiting Professor
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen@law.uci.edu
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
--
Rick Hasen
Visiting Professor
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen@law.uci.edu
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> 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. |