Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Defending the indefensible:
http://www.salon.com/2014/08/27/principles_be_damned_how_campaign_finance_reform_just_got_crushed_in_a_liberal_state/
The California bill is overtly unconstitutional, and SIEU is right to oppose it, although probably for the wrong reasons.
It's not a disclosure bill, it's a disclaimer bill. The article's author might not know the difference, but I know Rick Hasen does.
The California bill is modeled after the DISCLOSE act, version I, which was withdrawn in part because it was unconstitutional. Some savvy congresspeople are probably now aware that McCain-Feingold was a setback for the reform faction, because it led directly to WRTL I and II and Citizens United and David and a few other such cases. What benefit would there be to passing DISCLOSE I and having it stuck down by the courts, in a way that could spell trouble for stand by your ad and other remaining unconstitutional parts of McCain-Feingold?
Citizens United upheld a disclaimer statute, but only as to corporations,and the California bill is not so limited. Talley v California settled this issue 54 years ago, but California keeps trying, and has lost - I can no longer cite all these cases off the top of my head, but there was Drake, Canon City, Bonjiorni, and Schuster, for example. Schuster is still controlling as to the California constitution, as far as I know.
The most recent case on California's unconstitutional disclaimer statutes was, it'll come to me, Griset. That case went back on forth a few times. Daniel Griset won on the merits, citing McIntyre v Ohio, but was then reversed on procedural grounds at the state Supreme Court, which I guess would have been in 2004.
In the unlikely event that I could find California co-counsel and a client, I'd be happy to file suit against this Act if it passes.
http://www.salon.com/2014/08/27/principles_be_damned_how_campaign_finance_reform_just_got_crushed_in_a_liberal_state/
SEIU, Other Unions Seeking to Block Campaign Disclosure Law in California
The California bill is overtly unconstitutional, and SIEU is right to oppose it, although probably for the wrong reasons.
It's not a disclosure bill, it's a disclaimer bill. The article's author might not know the difference, but I know Rick Hasen does.
The California bill is modeled after the DISCLOSE act, version I, which was withdrawn in part because it was unconstitutional. Some savvy congresspeople are probably now aware that McCain-Feingold was a setback for the reform faction, because it led directly to WRTL I and II and Citizens United and David and a few other such cases. What benefit would there be to passing DISCLOSE I and having it stuck down by the courts, in a way that could spell trouble for stand by your ad and other remaining unconstitutional parts of McCain-Feingold?
Citizens United upheld a disclaimer statute, but only as to corporations,and the California bill is not so limited. Talley v California settled this issue 54 years ago, but California keeps trying, and has lost - I can no longer cite all these cases off the top of my head, but there was Drake, Canon City, Bonjiorni, and Schuster, for example. Schuster is still controlling as to the California constitution, as far as I know.
The most recent case on California's unconstitutional disclaimer statutes was, it'll come to me, Griset. That case went back on forth a few times. Daniel Griset won on the merits, citing McIntyre v Ohio, but was then reversed on procedural grounds at the state Supreme Court, which I guess would have been in 2004.
In the unlikely event that I could find California co-counsel and a client, I'd be happy to file suit against this Act if it passes.
Comments:
Post a Comment
