the issues with you know, trying to prohibit the additional elements that you mentioned with underinclusion is, in practice that could be a very difficult thing to do. the nice thing about florida's rule is it's fairly bright lined, it's easily administerable, there's a lot less work going into enforcing it. and i think in terms of the personal solicitation, i think ed made a good point that it is more effective to have your principal ask. and i think particularly when the principal is a judge there's an element of coercion that whether intended or not is felt by donors. and in some of these cases that have come up at other levels there have been business groups that have weighed in and said one of the reasons they support the personal solicitation ban is it's much easier to say no to a campaign manager than it is to a judge. and i think that -- and one other thing that i think that is interesting for is that one reason many campaign finance restrictions are struck down is that the court is suspicious that they're not really about getting rid of corruption. that they're in practice incumben

think that one of the issues with trying to prohibit the additional elements you mentioned with underinclusion is in practice that could be a very difficult thing to do. the nice thing about florida's rule is it is fairly bright lined, there is a lot less work going into enforcing it. i think that in terms of the personal solicitation ed made a really good point that it is more effective to have your principal ask and i think particularly when the principal is a judge there is an element of coercion that, whether intended or not, is felt by donors. in some cases that have come up at other levels there have been business groups that waited and said one reason they support the personal solicitation ban is it is easier to say no to a campaign manager than it is to a judge. i think that -- one other thing i think is interesting is that one reason many campaign finance restrictions are struck down is the court is suspicious that they are not really about getting rid of construction. this they are in practice incumbent protection and this is an interesting provision where certainly a non judgejudge

the issues with, you know trying to prohibit the additional elements that you mentioned with underinclusion was in practice that could be a very difficult thing to do. the nice thing about florida's rule is it's fairly bright lined, it's easily administerable, there's a lot less work going into enforcing it. in terms of the personal solicitation, i think ed made a good point that it is more effective to have your principal ask. and i think particularly when the principal is a judge, there's an element of coercion that whether intended, or not, is felt by donors. and in some of these cases that have come up at other levels, there have been business groups that have weighed in and said one of the reasons they support the personal solicitation ban is it's much easier to say no to a campaign manager than it is to a judge. and i think that and one other thing that i think that is interesting is that one reason many campaign finance restrictions are struck down is that the court is suspicious that they're not really about getting rid of corruption. that they're in practice incumbent protection. a

i can see the court saying this is underinclusive. then, if we say, the one_to_one letter, that's like a personal solicitation. if we condemn not, what about a letter to five people? it seems to me that we make the initial concession, you have a real problem in determining how to make this not over or underinclusive. >> i don't think so, justice. i think the court in other contexts has drawn a line between britain creek patient and oral communication. in the lawyer solicitation process, for example. the court has drawn that distinction. i think there is a reasonable distinction that says that whatever the rule may be, written communication is fundamentally different if the interest that the government is asserting his coercion. >> what if i write something down on a tablet and handed to you? is that written? >> i think i would say in person. the question here is __ in all of the context that we are talking about here, the interest is whether the person solicited is being coerced. >> give us the three interesting start off saying were

and as to being underinclusive i think it's similar to what this court found in discovery network when there the town wanted to prohibit 62 news racks and then allow 1500-2000 news racks to remain this court said that was underinclusive and would fail just on that. here the town is allowing an unlimited number of political signs but then prohibiting just a few other signs. >> thank you. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. >> the house gavels in today at noon eastern for general speeches. at 2:00 members will consider a resolution condemning the recent terrorist attacks in paris. no votes are scheduled today with the house expected to adjourn late in the afternoon in preparation of the president's state of the union address tonight. .. the state of the union address live on c-span c-span2, c-span radio. and c-span.org. >> live now to the u.s. chamber of commerce in washington d.c. expecting remarks to start shortly by senator orrin hatch. the new chair of the finance committee. he is expected to announce his committee's agenda for the year. how they will deal with enlightment

i can just see the court having to say well, this is i guess, underinclusive. and then if we say well, the one-on-one letter, that's almost like a personal solicitation, we can ban that, then what about a letter to five people? we're off to the races. >> i think -- >> it just seems to me when you make the initial concession, you have a real problem in determining how to make this not over or underinclusive. >> i don't think so justice kennedy. i think the court in other contexts is has certainly drawn a line between written communications and oral communications in the lawyer solicitation context, for example. the court has dawn that distinction. -- drawn that distinction. so i think there is a reasonable distinction that it says whatever the rule might be, written communications are fundamentally different if the enter that the -- if the interest that the government is asserting is coercion. >> which is it? if we meet somewhere and i take out a tablet and write something down and hand it to you is that written or oral? >> well i guess i would say in person, yo

would agree with you that when it comes to whether or not the regulation is overinclusive or underinclusive it's got severe problems. i don't think you need do nothing because the judges are the most persuasive money getters. that's the problem that florida is trying to solve. >> i suggest that if florida had a rule they put the hammer on all the places where you say it doesn't now. your client would be in theme posture that your client is in that none of those should be tolerated under the first amendment. i felt one of the interesting things about today's argument was justice scalia's repeated references to dignity. back in old fashion america we used to think dignity was worth something. it mattered that the people that we placed in office or other positions of trust could be seen in that way. of these dignity hashis case but in the field in . dignity has been crushed aside as having no consequence of stake. it isn't sort of what the thank you notes or good, bad or indifferent. it's whether you createder which individualalk into the courthouse and not worry in ways they shouldn't have to

when it comes to whether or not the regulation is overinclusive, underinclusive, i don't think it canve constitutional scrutiny, but i don't think that you need to do nothing simply because the judges themselves are the most persuasive money-getters. i mean i think that's the problem that florida is at least trying to solve. >> i suggest that if florida had a rule that put the hammer down on all the places where you say it doesn't now your client would be in the same posture that your client was in today, which is arguing that none of those should be tolerated under the first amendment. i thought one of the interesting things about today's argument was justice scalia's repeated references to dignity. and back in old-fashioned america, we used to think dignity was worth something. that it mattered. that the people that we placed in office, or in other positions of trust, could be seen in that way. in most of this litigation, dignity has been not just this case, but in the field in general, dignity has been brushed aside as having no consequence of any value. and indeed, in most of thes

and how do you think the court is going -- how do we think the court is going to look at this underinclusive this issue? >> there are states that do go for the. there are states that prohibit their judges from even loading to contribute to their campaigns. i think one of the issues with trying to predict the additional elements that you mentioned with under inclusion is in practice that could be a very difficult thing to do. the nice thing about florida's rule is it's fairly bright line can easily administer well. there's a lot less work going into enforcing it. at the content is just a personal solicitation, i think ed made a really good point that it is more effective to have your principle ask, and i think particularly with the principle is a judge there is an element of coercion whether intended or not is felt by to pick and a some cases that come up at other levels, there have been business groups that have weighed in and said one of the reasons they support the personal solicitation ban is it's much easier to say no to a campaign manager than it is to judge. and one other thing i think