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

Thu Aug 11 12:10:14 PDT 2011

One thing that is so overlooked, I think, is that money in politics typically speaks for many more people than the spender. When Ross Perot spent his own money to run for President, he gave voice to millions of Americans who felt that the deficit was a problem not being addressed in Washington, and that there was too much partisan posturing (does this sound familiar?). He may have been right or wrong, but he drowned no one out, corrupted no one; he gave millions of Americans a voice.

There sometimes seems to be a belief that "the people" will be better represented in political debate if private spending, and especially large spenders, are restricted. I don't think that is true. Indeed, quite the opposite, I believe that spending allows more voices and more views to be heard. I believe that the added views that are heard are more likely to be typical of, to resonate with, and to represent large numbers of people than the views of the non-money political elite - journalists, professors, large foundations, D.C. lawyers, politicians, certain celebrities, activist zealots, TV producers, to name a few,

When Steve Forbes, or Stewart Mott, or George Soros, or the Kochs, or others spend their money, they are giving voice to millions of Americans, and are at least as democratic as foundation-funded interest groups, the members of the defunct Journo-list, and big ticket DC lawyers who exercise outsized political influence.

Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 236-6317
http://www.law.capital.edu/Faculty/Bios/bsmith.asp

________________________________

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu on behalf of JBoppjr at aol.com
Sent: Thu 8/11/2011 2:55 PM
To: tpotter at capdale.com; rhasen at law.uci.edu
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws - ThePuebloChieftai...

    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 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
		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/ae78fd43/attachment.html>