[EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws - ThePuebloChieftai...
Trevor Potter
tpotter at capdale.com
Thu Aug 11 13:09:03 PDT 2011
My point was, and remains, that for years there were HUGE Pacs in
existence that played important roles in politics-and they did so
through aggregating the funds of small donors (in the case of labor
unions and the NRA and Pro-Life groups usually REALLY small average
donations). Political parties and their direct mail bases had the same
effect. These groups were very sophisticated operations which provided
an effective voice for their membership of "average people." So to say
that CU somehow allowed average people to speak for the first time
ignores historical record and turns reality on its head-CU allows
corporations to participate directly in elections for the first time:
individuals could already do that-on their own if billionaires like Ross
Perot, by banding together with others if average citizens.
From: Smith, Brad [mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:46 PM
To: Trevor Potter; JBoppjr at aol.com
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: RE: [EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws -
ThePuebloChieftai...
Ah, that explains why CLC has no political influence.
Seriously, it's really an important point I would make. Political
influence is exercised in so many ways, and most of those are restricted
to a relatively small elite, to which most of us on this list belong,
even if we may be near the bottom of that elite. It would be ridiculous
to say that CLC has no influence on public policy, simply because it
eschews direct electoral politics, or that the Foundations that fund it
don't wish to influence public policy.
Trevor says PACs are a satisfactory alternative for most small donors,
but most of the time that's just not true. The burdensome PAC regulation
and reporting requirements, the corresponding need for counsel, the
difficulties of getting PACs off the ground and raising substantial
enough funds to compete with large organizations and wealthy individuals
who can exercise influence in a host of ways, prevent a great deal of
speech. After I agreed to serve as counsel to Liberty Advertising in
2007, which did the Ron Paul Blimp
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3965657&page=1, I was
beseiged with calls from eager Ron Paul fans brimming with ideas for
political activities to help their candidate. Once I described the
regulatory system, and the burden of forming a PAC, virtually all
dropped the idea - some because the regulation and potential liability
was too much, some because they knew that they couldn't raise the
necessary funds in small contributions, and some from a combination of
both. (Sadly, this was pre-SpeechNow.org and the advent of "superPACs.")
The PACs most likely to be able to get around these problems were and
are those connected to large businesses and labor unions, largely
defeating Trevor's arguments that PACs are the avenue for "the little
guy."
I don't think you have to assume bad faith in the reformers to note that
few, if any, proposals to regulate reduce the political influence of
those making the proposals. Trevor's influence, for example, benefits
from a system in which participating in campaigns is relatively complex,
and spending unaccountable 501(c)(3) money to influence policy is
relatively easy. Not coincidentally, he advocates a system in which
participating in campaigns is relatively complex, but spending
unaccountable 501(c)(3) money is relatively esy. It's not that's he's
more evil or machiavellian than the rest of us, it's just human nature
to see your own sources of influence as legitimate in ways that "the
other guy's" are not.
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 Trevor
Potter
Sent: Thu 8/11/2011 3:17 PM
To: JBoppjr at aol.com
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws -
ThePuebloChieftai...
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" <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 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-law
s/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
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
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.
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110811/8cf2bb60/attachment.html>
View list directory