[EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws - ThePuebloChieftai...
Mike Altschule
mikealtschule at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 11 14:20:09 PDT 2011
I will apologize in advance, by admitting that I haven't been following this thread closely. Are you saying that the average Joe Blow/Six Pack you mention below, who were discouraged from speaking because of the undue burden of forming and legally maintaining a PAC will, in light of CU, decide to take on the burden to form and legally maintain a corporation for the same First Amendment purpose?
Mike Altschule
________________________________
From: "JBoppjr at aol.com" <JBoppjr at aol.com>
To: tpotter at capdale.com; BSmith at law.capital.edu
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws - ThePuebloChieftai...
But, Trevor, you did not respond to two points (1) that PACs are
difficult to administer and require, as you say, "sophisticated" advice.
As a result, they must be HUGE and 'sophisticaed operations," which precludes
the average person or group of persons to get together on their own to do
this. Result, fatcat corporations can afford to have them, but the
average person cannot. (2) This talk about PACs is irrelevant.
I was comparing your average Stephan Colbert to your average Joe Six
Pack. Colbert has the money, he just spends it, and he files a one
page FEC report. Two Joe Blows have to set up a PAC. Much different and
much more burdensome. Game, set, match to your fatcat clients, Trevor. Jim
Bopp
In a message dated 8/11/2011 4:51:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tpotter at capdale.com writes:
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
>>>>
>>>> “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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>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.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Law-election
mailing
list
>Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
_______________________________________________
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/20110811/42207662/attachment.html>
View list directory