Following up on this post about Friday’s Valpo conference, they will be live blogging the action all day at http://blogs.valpo.edu/moneypolitics/.
Delaware chancery court ruling. section 220. shareholder access to corporation records. new york state was shareholder in Qualcomm. case settled. good topic for a law review article, i'm hearing at the post-CLE reception. speculating about whether ban on corporation contributions to candidates will stand.
discussion of other states such as cal fppc.
3rd use of "post-McCutcheon" era, on his slides.
congress - not going to do anything.
executive order on pay to pay - went away after criticism.
SEC- not going forward on new regulation of shareholder disclosure.
admits other side is winning court cases. finished, questions?
i asked him about how schumer's office, behind the scenes, dealt with issues of constitutionality of the disclaimer provisions of the disclose act, in light of talley and mcintyre. he said they were aware of the issue, felt they were on solid ground (apparent reference to mcconnell v fec, CU.). his response seemed tactical, what can we get away with, rather than any sense of an ethical obligation to act constitutionally. but maybe that's just my bias reading into it. 4 other questions from audience. we are on break now. just went and shook hands with brad smith. he was friendly, i kept it short, i'm not a good mingler. see also http://electionlawblog.org/?p=59949 post-McCutcheon Brad Smith in WSJ.
I keep trying to pay for this thing, because I didn't preregister, and they are saying call back Monday.
It's the opposite problem as at the IndyBar election CLE where they sent me a bill for twice what they said it would cost. 30 CLEs down, 20 to go before I apply to be re-admitted. They have the fans on now.
Next speaker, Liz Kennedy? is here by video link, skype, because she broke her foot or something. Bopp moving to the desk. Paul S Ryan looks like Jason Stratham.
role of the court. elevates first amendment above other values.
McCutcheon will add 1 billion per election cycle, she estimates.
"political speech does not exist in a vacuum" -my attention span is fading,
note to self i will need to read the breyer dissent, although it's long and i don't care for it. still to do before monday: update last brief with some mccutcheon quotes.
confidence in congress at lowest rate ever. non-voters give government corruption as reason for not bothering to vote. 10% of americans are confident of congress. she's ending now.
unstable untested 5-4 majority. compares to dred scot. , Bopp is up, talking superpacs, he said mconnell but i think he meant mccutcheon. also mentions citizens united. "simple"
the 1% and the bottom 25% vote democrat, the middle class votes gop.
today's program is being videotaped, so there should be some way to get and stream it?
"gratitude is not corruption". still bopp. "could prohibit newspaper editorials" celebrity endorsement is or isn't corruption. discussing co-ordination by joint fund raising by candidates. i am skeptical of this part.
will i be awake enough to drive home safely? slept part of 2-5 am. this post has been linked at electionlawblog.com.
paul ryan is saying that being a lawyer involves learning to count to five.
2002 bcra, soft money, increased aggregate limit to $123,200, up from $95,000 after inflation index.
campaign legal center filed amicus at the district court.
object lesson: early amici can be highly effective, even if ultimately wrong. ( as determined by 5)
standard of review: they (CLC) were worried that the court might seriously change the standard. instead, they just tweaked it a little. court mostly punted on the standard issue. said it did not meet either standard.
the case is not just about the result, it's the process. Bopp is smiling and slightly shaking his head.
a candidate, using 3 federal party committees and 50 state party committees, can now ask donors for $1 million each. we can expect this to happen. "post-McCutcheon." Question: is "Post-McCutcheon" common, proper, hybrid, or what? gtbear at gmail. now 4:05 pm. we are 36 minutes over time and he's still going. reception to follow, to 4:30. he may be winding up? yes. he's saying people with deep pockets will be shaken down.
brad smith is asking a question. citing the brief and saying he's wrong,and maybe dishonest to the court. "monsters under beds". breyer's long appendix borrows from the clc brief. "the constitution is only what 5 members of the supreme court say it is." - in one sense that's true, in another sense that's a corrupt statement.
bopp is geting a bit high pitched, defending the right of unions and other groups to pool funds. he' sounding a bit patronizing here, but he's basically right on lots of the details.
drinks to follow. i will put away my computer so this concludes the liveblog.
floyd abrams on mccutcheon at scotusblog:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/symposium-opposing-more-speech-a-disturbing-recurring-reality/Maybe he'd be the right person to bring a challenge to stand by your ad, if I could find a plaintiff.
this panel is called the court the constitution, the crisis of confidence in american democracy. demos, i forget who they are.part of "reform". so that's the title of liz's part, not the whole thing. she thinks the court is all wrong. chipper and cheerful. graphs and charts. impact of largest donors.
0.4% of americans make a disclosed contribution, over $200. 2/3 of the 1% are donors.
connecticutt congressman spends his time talking about bankers' problems than about bartenders' problems, because he talks to those with money. so it changes the agenda of what congress does.
rise of the 1%. problem of regulatory capture by the rich.
her point, an interesting one, is that money buys power, and the 1% can oppress the rest, not directly with their money, but indirectly by using wealth to get political power and using the political power to
her point, an interesting one, is that money buys power, and the 1% can oppress the rest, not directly with their money, but indirectly by using wealth to get political power and using the political power to
oppress people. why did my font just change? fixed.
buckley v valeo. problem with corrupting influence of large contributions.
shifting definitions of compelling interests, corruption and appearance of corruption.
find who disagrees with you, make their speech illegal. he points out how the enemies of citizens united want to put rules back on corporations, but not unions. because it's partisan and content non-neutral. [he has a pending cert petition on this issue, notes scotusblog.]
backstory on mccutcheon. RNC chair (riece? probus or something?) came to Bopp, said these limits are a problem. my guess is they then constructed the case as a test case. Bopp had won 12 cases. Sean McCutcheon had already asked for an FEC advisory opinion. so they got together. mccutcheon called him. so no barratry issue, he's just the go to guy for these things. McCucheon got his own lawyer once it went to s court. rnc paid for it (Bopp's participation.). he's discussing how the regulation regime has changed since buckley v valeo 1976. this is part of what persuaded the s ct. no longer the same justification for the limit.
"liberal agenda, standing in way of."
replay as a cle elsewhere?
vermont case sorrell as example of same kind of thing.
"collective speech". he is attacking the perspective of the previous speaker.
does the government decide what the will of the people is? this is echoed in the roberts opinion.
he mentions pol pot and totalitarian states. freedom v government. "pernicous".
ordered liberty, breyer book. criticized.
here is a short musical tutorial on how to count to five. pentatonix.
no quid pro quo corruption the record of mcconnell. but a link between money and access.
no record in McCutcheon, unlike McConnell which had 100,000 pages.
access is not corruption. ryan says the reason CU is different than McConnell is just because the conservatives picked up a 5th vote, alito.
that amicus was cited in the district court. that's rare. they also filed an amicus at the supreme court, cited by breyer's dissent, obliquely referenced by plurality.
hypothetical: aside from overt bribery, is there anything this court won't strike down?
he thinks disclosure will hold up, but i intend to prove him wrong, eventually.
he points out you can add leadership pacs, and get in two more millions. Bopp: "I'm really glad we taped this."
bickering at this point. oh! we're not an hour over, i forgot about the time zone change.
bopp says money isn't speech. gives example of right to travel. money enables speech.
the intro speaker is asking a question about canada and britain.
"you get thrown in jail for passing out a pamphlet, i know a guy it happened to. we fought a war against those sobs" (this is a cheerful colloquy. people are packing up and rustling seats.) Bopp is explaining parliament.
had a nice chat later with Brad Smith after he'd read this post.
buckley v valeo. problem with corrupting influence of large contributions.
shifting definitions of compelling interests, corruption and appearance of corruption.
find who disagrees with you, make their speech illegal. he points out how the enemies of citizens united want to put rules back on corporations, but not unions. because it's partisan and content non-neutral. [he has a pending cert petition on this issue, notes scotusblog.]
backstory on mccutcheon. RNC chair (riece? probus or something?) came to Bopp, said these limits are a problem. my guess is they then constructed the case as a test case. Bopp had won 12 cases. Sean McCutcheon had already asked for an FEC advisory opinion. so they got together. mccutcheon called him. so no barratry issue, he's just the go to guy for these things. McCucheon got his own lawyer once it went to s court. rnc paid for it (Bopp's participation.). he's discussing how the regulation regime has changed since buckley v valeo 1976. this is part of what persuaded the s ct. no longer the same justification for the limit.
"liberal agenda, standing in way of."
replay as a cle elsewhere?
vermont case sorrell as example of same kind of thing.
"collective speech". he is attacking the perspective of the previous speaker.
does the government decide what the will of the people is? this is echoed in the roberts opinion.
he mentions pol pot and totalitarian states. freedom v government. "pernicous".
ordered liberty, breyer book. criticized.
here is a short musical tutorial on how to count to five. pentatonix.
no quid pro quo corruption the record of mcconnell. but a link between money and access.
no record in McCutcheon, unlike McConnell which had 100,000 pages.
access is not corruption. ryan says the reason CU is different than McConnell is just because the conservatives picked up a 5th vote, alito.
that amicus was cited in the district court. that's rare. they also filed an amicus at the supreme court, cited by breyer's dissent, obliquely referenced by plurality.
hypothetical: aside from overt bribery, is there anything this court won't strike down?
he thinks disclosure will hold up, but i intend to prove him wrong, eventually.
he points out you can add leadership pacs, and get in two more millions. Bopp: "I'm really glad we taped this."
bickering at this point. oh! we're not an hour over, i forgot about the time zone change.
bopp says money isn't speech. gives example of right to travel. money enables speech.
the intro speaker is asking a question about canada and britain.
"you get thrown in jail for passing out a pamphlet, i know a guy it happened to. we fought a war against those sobs" (this is a cheerful colloquy. people are packing up and rustling seats.) Bopp is explaining parliament.
had a nice chat later with Brad Smith after he'd read this post.
