He is one of the attorneys leading the charge to get the courts to overturn campaign finance laws - generally based on the idea that they violate free speech rights. He was mentioned in the post below on the Supreme Court's refusal to hear a case challenging Iowa's campaign finance laws. He was also involved in the McCutcheon decision. In class today we considered his being an example of an interest group - or policy advocate - using the courts as their preferred way of changing public policy.
Folks like this are responsible for many changes in public policy.
- Here's the Wikipedia on him.
Folks like this are responsible for many changes in public policy.
- Here's the Wikipedia on him.
On campaign finance, Bopp worked as a legal advisor to Citizens United leading up to their victory in the Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.[7] Another of Bopp's initiatives was bringing a lawsuit challenging what he believes to be a low limit for reporting campaign donations and the open way in which information on such donations is shared in California.
According the Campaign Legal Center, Bopp filed 21 of the 31 lawsuits it associated with challenging campaign finance regulations. All told, Bopp has spent 30 years fighting limits on campaign spending and is credited with changing the political landscape of the 2012 election. According to the Center for Responsive Politics. “It’s safe to say that groups on the left and right have Jim Bopp to thank for their new-found freedom.”In an interview with PBS' Frontline in 2012, Bopp said he was defending a "basically absolute" interpretation of the right to political free speech under the First Amendment. As such, he said he is working to eliminate or significantly loosen campaign spending limits and to eliminate donor-name-reporting requirements.
Bopp represented Phil Thalheimer and Associated Builders & Contractors PAC versus City of San Diego.[11] According to how the case was viewed in Hawaii, provided a PAC made "solely independent expenditures ...the case foreclosed the argument that the State has a justifiable interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption in regulating independent expenditures"
