[EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws - ThePueblo Chieftai...

Thu Aug 11 11:55:37 PDT 2011

What Trevor (always) forgets is that the fatcats  who fund his CLC can 
always spend their own money, both before Citizens  United and after. So before 
Citizens United, Daddy Warbucks could spend his  money to influence 
elections and, after CU, he can spend his money to influence  elections. The only 
change is that, before CU, Soros had to do so in his own  name and after he 
can give to a group who does it. I acknowledge that this is a  change, but it 
has no effect on the fact that either way, he is spending his  money to 
influence elections.

    But what about Little Bo Peep? Well before CU, she  didn't have enough 
money to spend to make a difference and when she gave some to  CU, to pool 
her resources with others of average means, CU could not spend  it to 
influence elections.  CU was prohibited.  But  after CU, now they can.

    So Trevor is mad about CU -- because now people of  average means can 
now compete with Trevor's wealthy benefactors.  About  time, I would say.  
Jim Bopp

    So the difference, before and after CU, the Sugar  Daddies can spend 
their money to influence elections, but only after CU could  people of average 
means by pooling their recourses in CU.

In a message dated 8/10/2011 3:17:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
tpotter at capdale.com writes:

For  many years people of average means pooled their funds and contributed “
small”  sums (in the greater scheme of things) to political parties and 
political  committees—PACS. Those parties and PACS pooled the funds and 
amplified the  voices of average citizens. Wisconsin Right to Life and Citizens 
United had  that option too, but they served as  stalking horses for other 
interests,  so they instead demanded the courts recognize a  constitutional 
right to  limitless participation in the political process through their 
treasury funds,  and corporate funds they received. 
So,  thanks to Mr. Bopp and others, we now have a world in which the big  
players—the corporations and billionaires-- have the same ability to 
influence  the system that the “citizens of average means” had before—but with far 
less  accountability and disclosure. A victory for the “average citizen”? 
Seems  Alice in Wonderland to me… 
Trevor  Potter 

From:  law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu  
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of  JBoppjr at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 2:45  PM
To: rhasen at law.uci.edu
Cc:  law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Study shows who  breaks campaign laws - 
ThePueblo Chieftai...

While  I don't know what "reformers" whisper in Rick's ear, "reformers" 
have  been quite open and candid that there is a great big list of people they  
want to shut up -- foreigners, the Wylie Brothers, all corporations, 
"outside  interests," Citizens United, Wisconsin Right to Life, "special 
interests," etc  etc etc. Most, but not all, of these are people of average means or 
made up of  people of average means. They have never said that that bothers 
them one  whit.  Jim Bopp

In a  message dated 8/10/2011 1:26:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
rhasen at law.uci.edu  writes:

Jim,

Do you really believe  reformers' goals are "to drive citizens of average 
means out of our  political system?"  That certainly does not match up with 
my experience  in talking to people who are strongly in favor of regulation.  
Usually  they express to me concerns about large money corrupting the 
system,  concerns about inequality/lack of a level playing field, or concerns 
about  the high costs of campaigns.  I cannot recall a single conversation  
over many years of speaking with reform-minded individuals who  ever--publicly 
or privately--expressed a desire to drive citizens of average  means out of 
our political system.

That's not to say that complex  laws cannot have this effect.  I believe 
they can, and that to the  extent that campaign finance laws do so, they need 
to be changed.  But  you suggest a motive for such laws which seems so off 
from reality that I'm  not sure if you are serious.

Rick

On  8/10/2011 10:19 AM, _JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com)  wrote:  

_Click  here: Study shows who breaks campaign laws - The Pueblo Chieftain: 
Local_ 
(http://www.chieftain.com/news/local/study-shows-who-breaks-campaign-laws/article_9cf187fc-c185-11e0-baff-001cc4c002e0.html?mode=story)   

“Our  office did a study and looked at who pays campaign finance fines, who 
 doesn’t, who violates the law a lot, things like that,” said Secretary of 
 State Scott Gessler. “And the bottom line is this: Volunteers and  
grass-roots groups are far more likely to run afoul of the law because the  law is 
so complex. Large, big-money groups are able to hire attorneys and  
accountants and pay very, very few fines.”

But  this is the purpose of campaign finance laws -- to drive citizens of  
average means out of our political system. Nice to see it is  working. The 
"reformers" will be very pleased, I am sure.  Jim  Bopp

--  
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School  of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA  92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) 
_http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html_ 
(http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html) 
_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/) 

_______________________________________________
Law-election  mailing  list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, 

we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, 

any tax advice contained in this communication (including any 

attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and 

cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related 

penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii)  promoting, 

marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related 

matter addressed herein. 

This message is for the use of the intended recipient only.  It is

from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and

confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,

copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is

prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please

advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication

by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.

_______________________________________________
Law-election  mailing  list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110811/e39c8edc/attachment.html>