Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USA
One could also ask if political speech that is chilled by disclosure
deserves to be chilled? Not a very constitutionally based question, but still an
interesting one.
I had a client once - a candidate for Congress - who said often, "If you
can't do it in public you probably shouldn't be doing it." Wise man. He
lost.
Larry Levine
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 9:22
AM
Subject: Re: [EL] interesting question
regarding Priorities USA
Those are two separate issues:
- What reform leaders say (not monolithic).
- What Sen. Schumer
says.
The fascinating thing on some threads in the
recent week or two is that anti-reformers ask others on the list to own the
speech of others. Maybe that’s a new approach: “free association
speech”
On 4/29/11 12:04 PM, "Sean Parnell" <sparnell@campaignfreedom.org>
wrote:
There are two separate issues:
1.
Anonymous money in politics is
bad
2. Disclosure doesn’t chill
political speech
My point was largely directed at the
second issue. I’ve heard repeatedly from the ‘reform’ side that disclosure
doesn’t chill anybody’s speech. Am I now to understand that, in fact,
disclosure can indeed chill political speech by limiting the willingness of
citizens to support particular speech, that Senator Schumer was right when
he touted disclosure as having a “deterrent” effect?
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: David Levine [mailto:davidalanlevine@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 12:01 PM
To: Sean
Parnell
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject:
Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities
USA
Mr.
Parnell,
I don't think the issue is whether omitting the
identities of donors is an effective campaign practice -- I think
substantial evidence from the 2010 elections, including from American
Crossroads and Crossroads GPS donors, indicates this is a way to
successfully win campaigns for a party or candidate. Rather, the issue is
whether large amounts of anonymous money should play a substantial role in
elections. However, until the "rules of the game change" (requiring the
disclosure of donors), so to speak, there is little to no incentive for
candidates and/or independent groups, regardless of their views on
money and politics, to effectively handicap themselves while seeking (or
assisting someone else seek) office.
David
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Sean Parnell
<sparnell@campaignfreedom.org>
wrote:
Many of you have no doubt read Jeanne Allen’s
excellent piece in Politico <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53905.html>
revealing the creation of two independent Democratic groups that will
be active in the 2012 election cycle. Both of course will accept unlimited
donations, and similar to the pairing of American Crossroads and Crossroads
GPS, one of the Democratic groups will disclose all donors, while the other
is a 501(c)4 that does not..
I don’t find anything particularly
hypocritical about the decision to create these groups – whether one likes
it or not, they are part of the political process now, and I can’t fault
even the most diehard Democratic ‘reformer’ for deciding not to unilaterally
disarm. If Republicans are raising and spending big bucks to promote their
favored candidates, it would be foolish of Democrats not to do
likewise.
But I am curious about the decision of Priorities USA
to not to disclose donors to the 501(c)4 group. I’ve heard repeatedly from
the ‘reform’ community that only nefarious interests would have a need to
not disclose donors, and that there is no chilling of speech that occurs
through disclosure. If that’s true – and while I have my doubts, ‘reformers’
do not seem to share them – then why would a group run by ‘reformers’ decide
not to disclose their donors?
I’ve written more here, in case
anyone is interested: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/why-are-reformers-making-donor-secrecy-a-priority
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
<tel:%28703%29%20894-6800> phone
(703) 894-6813
<tel:%28703%29%20894-6813> direct
(703) 894-6811
<tel:%28703%29%20894-6811>
fax
_______________________________________________
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