Mandatory Disclosure: Sham Issue Advocacy, and Buckley v. Valeo: A Response to Professor Hasen
![handle is hein.journals/uclalr48 and id is 299 raw text is: MANDATORY DISCLOSURE, SHAM ISSUE ADVOCACY,
AND BUCKLEY V. VALEO: A RESPONSE
TO PROFESSOR HASEN
Lillian R. BeVier
Professor Lillian BeVier argues that Professor Richard Hasen's case for
mandatory disclosure of independent expenditures for what he terms sham issue
advocacy distorts Buckley v. Valeo's meaning with regard to the location of
First Amendment boundaries: Buckley v. Valeo did not hold that the First
Amendment offers less protection to election-related speech than to other political
speech. Nor did Buckley v. Valeo say that disclosure of expenditures on independ-
ent issue advocacy would have the same potential to prevent corruption as would
disclosure of contributions.
IN TRO DU CTIO N ............................................................................................................. 285
I. BUCKLEYV. VALEO: A SYNOPSIS .......................................................................... 288
II. PROFESSOR HASEN'S CENTRAL FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIM: ANALYSIS
A N D R EJO IN DER ..................................................................................................... 293
III. PROFESSOR HASEN'S GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST
A NALYSIS: SOME SKEPTICISM ................................................................................ 300
C O N C LU SIO N ................................................................................................................ 304
INTRODUCTION
Professor Richard Hasen believes as a matter of policy that the case
for disclosure of sham issue advocacy is surprisingly complex.' He worries
that anything but a rule allowing disclosure of sham issue advocacy will
seriously hamper [the] meaningful campaign finance regulation that he
favors.' The surprisingly complex case for disclosure of contributions and
expenditures funding sham issue advocacy to which the title of his Article
refers, however, neither develops the connection between such disclosure and
meaningful campaign finance regulation nor defends regulation as a policy
* Henry & Grace Doherty Charitable Foundation Professor, University of Virginia Law
School. J.D., Stanford Law School, 1965; B.A., Smith College, 1961.
1. Richard L. Hasen, The Surprisingly Complex Case for Disclosure of Contributions and
Expenditures Funding Sham Issue Advocacy, 48 UCLA L. REV. 265, 283 (2000).
2. Id. at 269.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/uclalr48&div=18&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Mandatory Disclosure: Sham Issue Advocacy, and Buckley v. Valeo: A Response to Professor Hasen
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most