“Misreading” is really generous because it implies a good-faith mistake lol
No, especially since they immediately follow THE ACTUAL TEXT OF THE LAW & are laid next to the text of other statutes & caselaw on this very point about how anti-electioneering statutes work. I write for people who read entire articles.
-
-
I read the entire article Dan. And since I have to teach law students how to read statutes, I feel pretty confident that providing the text of a bill to the general public doesn't necessarily allow them to understand it--especially when followed by descriptions that differ.
-
It looks like
@jadler1969 may have signed off or stopped engaging, but I'd be curious whether *he* thought your article would mislead the average NRO reader. And fwiw, I've spent the past couple weeks having to explain the text of the bill to reporters and nonlawyers on Twitter. - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The article is objectively misleading the reader into thinking that the law is textually against electioneering. Even though you now admit the text forbids *all* handouts and have shifted to a slippery argument about aims/intent.
-
A good faith rewrite of the piece would acknowledge that Biden is correct, but argue that it is worth the loss of rights to maximally prevent the potential harm of stealth campaigning. But that wouldn't let you get the dunk.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.