In Wisconsin there is now an organized campaign to vandalize the products of companies that supported, or whose executives supported, the election of gov. Walker

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 David A. Holtzman
Sent: Sat 4/30/2011 2:29 AM
To: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
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.