Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USA

Who is going to make the determination of who has to be disclosed and who doesn't? How does one write a standard for that determination. We either have disclosure or we don't. If we have disclosure and there is retaliatory action, then there are laws against certain types of such behavior.

Larry

----- Original Message -----

From: David A. Holtzman

To: election-law@mailman.lls.edu

Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 11:29 PM

Subject: Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USA

Does anybody on this list NOT support protection from disclosure for people seeking to legalize their marijuana activity (those who contribute to ballot measures that would legalize)?

There may be a distinction between donations that might reasonably prompt or facilitate state action against the donors, and donations that might bring retaliation from non-state actors. The state is supposed to protect people from non-state evil-doers, but it’s less well-accepted that the state would ever stay its own hand and refrain from using publicly available information to discriminate, to repress, or simply to target people for law enforcement scrutiny. Concern about state response to donations is heightened when there is a close connection between the donations and activity that is currently illegal.

Not sure that is a sharp distinction. Just trying to be helpful.

(And the foregoing has nothing to do with my work for the League of Women Voters.) - dah

On 4/29/2011 12:49 PM, Smith, Brad wrote:
The answer to larry's question, of course, is sometimes yes, and sometimes no.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu on behalf of Larry Levine
Sent: Fri 4/29/2011 12:37 PM
To: David Donnelly; Sean Parnell; david.alan.levine@gmail.com
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USA

Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USAOne 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 -----
From: David Donnelly
To: Sean Parnell ; david.alan.levine@gmail.com
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USA

Those are two separate issues:

    1.. What reform leaders say (not monolithic).
    2.. 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
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
--
David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
david@holtzmanlaw.com
Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be confidential, for use only by intended recipients. If you are not an intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email to an intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law