Not funding from "any source whatever:" a quick reply to Bauer

Published on May 12, 2008 12:25 PM
by Steve Hoersting

 Bob Bauer comments on our posts on "major purpose."

He makes one very large misstatement that, if true, would make us very erroneous.  We are quite surprised that Mr. Bauer made it, and hope he has time to correct it.

He says that our posts seek to extend protection to corporate express advocacy or its functional equivalent.  We make no such statement.

We are saying that a proper understanding of major purpose would protect corporate issue advocacy.  We say that a proper understanding would also protect independent express advocacy by unincorporated organizations that use individual funds.  This first should remind Mr. Bauer of ads protected by the Court in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life.  The second should remind him of a logical extension of MCFL.

We say repeatedly "protection for organizations that pose no threat of corruption."  This has always meant no corporate or union funding for express advocacy.  We're not out to protect corporate express advocacy with our last two posts.  We're well aware of the Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce line of cases, right up through and including WRTL II.

The issues are difficult enough without this very large misstatement of our position.