Posted on 01/21/2010 9:08:09 AM PST by NativeNewYorker
...The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights....
(Excerpt) Read more at law.cornell.edu ...
Justice Thomas has his head screwed on straight for sure!
I agree with EVERY single word he wrote here.
So you agree with ‘and?’
I’m partial to ‘the,’ myself, and I definitely agree with ‘the.’
/sarc
Outstanding analysis, just as we could expect from Justice Thomas. It’s interesting that the Court thinks very serious obstacles to political speech are okay, while they think no slightest discouragement of abortion is acceptable.
"The success of such intimidation tactics has apparently spawned a cottage industry that uses forcibly disclosed donor information to pre-empt citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights. Before the 2008 Presidential election, a “newly formed nonprofit group . . . plann[ed] to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions.” Luo, Group Plans Campaign Against G.O.P. Donors, N. Y. Times, Aug. 8, 2008, p. A15. Its leader, “who described his effort as ‘going for the jugular,’ ” detailed the group’s plan to send a “warning letter . . . alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.” Ibid. These instances of retaliation sufficiently demonstrate why this Court should invalidate mandatory disclosure and reporting requirements. But amici present evidence of yet another reason to do so—the threat of retaliation from elected officials. As amici’s submissions make clear, this threat extends far beyond a single ballot proposition in California. For example, a candidate challenging an incumbent state attorney general reported that some members of the State’s business community feared donating to his campaign because they did not want to cross the incumbent; in his words, “ ‘I go to so many people and hear the same thing: “I sure hope you beat [the incumbent], but I can’t afford to have my name on your records. He might come after me next.” ’ ” Strassel, Challenging Spitzerism at the Polls, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 1, 2008, p. A11. The incumbent won reelection in 2008. My point is not to express any view on the merits of the political controversies I describe. Rather, it is to demonstrate— using real-world, recent examples—the fallacy in the Court’s conclusion that “[d]isclaimer and disclosure requirements . . . impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities, and do not prevent anyone from speaking.”
If Justice Thomas says “and,” I think it’s highly probable that I’ll agree with it ;-). And if Thomas Sowell says “the,” you can bet it’s correct!
I was just ribbing you, FRiend. I read the same stuff, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. I’m glad that we have justices who still believe that the Constitution means something.
Yes indeed! ;>)
I agree with all that and his punctuation and white space as well! Clearly and carefully reasoned.
I find it VERY troubling that a majority of the court apparently does not agree with Justice Thomas and us regarding the excerpt I posted above.
Very troubling indeed.
All Joe the Plumber did was ask a good question of a candidate and someone was pulling out his IRS files and everything else.
The left has no trouble with intimidation and stuff. Next time you get a letter published in the Washington Post they might pull your files and see if they can get you.
Thats the kind of thing that happens these days. Its not just NGO’s and media on the left that go after you.
Neither do Scalia, Alito, Kennedy, and Roberts, apparantly. That's Bigun's point, I think.
As do I, and as should we all. And we can expect intimidation that is tacitly sanctioned by the state to continue to grow: "But watch yourselves, for they will deliver you up to councils. You will be beaten in synagogues (read that "churches" as well). You will stand before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony to them" (Mark 13:9).
Shalom.
Thomas proves again that he is the BEST justice on the bench—by far.
I got that.
I’m partial to ‘the,’ myself, and I definitely agree with ‘the.’
/sarc
I don't know about "is." I guess it all depends on what the definition of the word "is," is.
Mark
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.