[EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws - ThePuebloChieftai...
Trevor Potter
tpotter at capdale.com
Thu Aug 11 16:08:49 PDT 2011
since Buckley, the system has been as Jim describes it-wealthy individuals can make independent expenditures of their own funds and file one report per independent expenditure-gwhile roups of individuals acting together are a committee and must file as some. However, I do not believe I need all the fingers of one hand to count the wealthy individuals who took that option. They don't run ads saying "paid for by ritchie rich". They give to political committees , or other groups, that then run ads-or they form their own groups. Just like lesser resourced individuals.
Now it is true that wealth makes it easier to hire professionals to form such committees, as it does to do other things in life. However, I would be very surprised if Jim Bopp of the RNC was advocating socialism and the redistribution of wealth so all American have equal resources to form and administer committees-or even supporting public funding so the average citizen could have his or her money used in aggregate to enable candudates to speak louder...
Sent by Good Messaging (www.good.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: JBoppjr at aol.com [mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 05:03 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: Trevor Potter; BSmith at law.capital.edu
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
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_
(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_
(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_ (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.
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
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.
View list directory