[EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws - ThePueblo Chieftai...
BZall at aol.com
BZall at aol.com
Thu Aug 11 12:55:44 PDT 2011
Sorry, I can't let the idea that "small donors have been able to pool
their contributions together through PACs to be heard" go without comment. As
one who has actually run small donor PACs, including, in the early days of
FECA, sitting at my kitchen table hand-labeling envelopes, that is like
saying, "well, anybody can build an automobile." Theoretically, yes, but in
reality? In this age of computerized systems for both cars and PACs?
The idea that Mom and Pop Bo Peep can sit down, pool their discretionary
income and "make themselves heard" is a nice theory. It doesn't work when the
regulatory agency does things like require accrual accounting even for
cash basis entities. _http://www.linkedin.com/jobs?viewJob=&jobId=1792831_
(http://www.linkedin.com/jobs?viewJob=&jobId=1792831) (ad for auto parts
dealers' PAC accountant: must know accrual"). I know that all the Bo Peeps are
quite familiar with accrual . . . Oh, maybe not.
And the best example of how that dog won't hunt? "CU and WRTL simply chose
not to use this vehicle available to their 'Little Bo Peeps'." Seriously?
Are you saying that CU and WRTL could have solicited the Bo Peeps and their
friends for political purposes BEFORE their Supreme Court cases?
But let the Supreme Court explain it:
PACs are burdensome alternatives; they are expensive to administer and
subject to extensive regulations. For example, every PAC must appoint a
treasurer, forward donations to the treasurer promptly, keep detailed records of
the identities of the persons making donations, preserve receipts for three
years, and file an organization statement and report changes to this
information within 10 days. See id., at 330–332 (quoting MCFL, 479 U. S., at 253–
254).
And that is just the beginning. PACs must file detailed monthly reports
with the FEC, which are due at different times depending on the type of
election that is about to occur:
“ ‘These reports must contain information regarding the amount of cash on
hand; the total amount of receipts, detailed by 10 different categories;
the identification of each political committee and candidate’s authorized or
affiliated committee making contributions, and any persons making loans,
providing rebates, refunds, dividends, or interest or any other offset to
operating expenditures in an aggregate amount over
$200; the total amount of all disbursements, detailed by 12 different
categories; the names of all authorized
or affiliated committees to whom expenditures aggregating over $200 have
been made; persons to whom
loan repayments or refunds have been made; the total sum of all
contributions, operating expenses, outstanding debts and obligations, and the
settlement terms of the retirement of any debt or obligation.’ ”
[McConnell], 540 U. S., at 331–332 (quoting MCFL, supra, at 253– 254).
PACs have to comply with these regulations just to speak. This might
explain why fewer than 2,000 of the
millions of corporations in this country have PACs. See Brief for Seven
Former Chairmen of FEC et al. as
Amici Curiae 11 (citing FEC, Summary of PAC Activity 1990–2006, online at
_http://www.fec.gov/press/press2007/20071009pac/sumhistory.pdf_
(http://www.fec.gov/press/press2007/20071009pac/sumhistory.pdf) ); IRS, Statistics of
Income:
2006, Corporation Income Tax Returns 2 (2009) (hereinafter Statistics of
Income) (5.8 million for-profit corporations filed 2006 tax returns).
Barnaby Zall
Of Counsel
Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani, LLP
11300 Rockville Pike, Suite 1200
Rockville, MD 20852
301-231-6943 (direct dial)
_www.wjlaw.com_ (http://www.wj/)
bzall at aol.com
_____________________________________________________________
U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice
Any U.S. federal tax advice included in this communication (including
any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding U.S. federal tax-related penalties
or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
tax-related matter addressed herein.
_____________________________________________________________
Confidentiality
The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is
intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally
privileged. It is not intended as legal advice, and may not be relied upon
or used as legal advice. Nor does this communication establish an attorney
client relationship between us. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original
message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank you.
______________________________________________________________
In a message dated 8/11/2011 3:19:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tpotter at capdale.com writes:
I hate to puncture all this air with facts, but donors (publicly disclosed
too, of course) to the Campaign Legal Center are 99 percent 501 c 3
foundations, prohibited from intervening in campaigns.....
As to the point of my post, though--that small donors have been able to
pool their contributions together through PACs to be heard for many years, and
CU and WRTL simply chose not to use this vehicle available to their
"Little Bo Peeps" --Jim has not a word to say in response, except to attempt to
change the subject....
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 11, 2011, at 2:55 PM, "_JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) "
<_JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) > wrote:
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_ (mailto: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)
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of _JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto: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_ (mailto: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_
(mailto: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_
(mailto: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/e9eccaaf/attachment.html>
View list directory