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

[Doug Hess]

I wonder how much money these "average persons" (since somebody put "the
people" in scare quotes I figure "average person" should also be pointed out
as a bit of a fiction, too) can muster without being organized enough to
file papers and consult with an attorney now and then. Moreover, I wonder if
some of the groups paying fines actually decided that it just was not a big
deal to be better organized. I assume the penalty isn't criminal and the
fines come out of the general coffers of what your raised. Right?

Plenty of institutions take on small to moderate fines rather then get their
act in gear or follow a regulation that is thorny for them. This may not
seem completely rational, but in a hectic environment it might be more
sensible than it appears. Do the fines discourage them from operating next
year? (In fact, I recall the head of a PAC here in DC once saying to staff
who were worried about what behavior crossed the line: "Remember the
penalties are only civil, not criminal!" I assume that is true?)

Besides, that people can only make a PAC work by hiring professionals for X
hours a year only tells me that if they cannot get either well enough
organized or enough money to administer it at a minimum level, then the
amount they will raise or spend is very likely going to be trifling anyway.
Might as well just spend that on your own direct donations or writing
letters to the editor.

In the end, a more serious empirical question might be: What does it cost to
run the legal and administrative side of a smallish PAC?

My condo association handles the fees, assets, and management of a medium
sized building (25 units) with maybe a budget of $1,500 a month for a
management firm that takes care of all the accounting for us (plus a lot
else) and we spend maybe $3,000 to $5,000, I don't recall, for auditors each
year. I assume more complex filings takes the costs higher, but the other
fees could be lower, and I can't imagine the budget of a PAC being more
complex than that of a condo building.

Having said that, I could see a need for some elections for small informal
PAC-like entities that have a lower threshold of regulations. I think here
in DC there is such a thing for people running campaign funds (not PACs) for
neighborhood commissioners.  The paperwork and requirements are less, but
there is a cap (or there was in the 1990s).

P.S. The anecdote about people getting excited and then not carrying through
could be due to any number of things, not just regulations. Again....just
how much money did they want to raise/spend? What percent would need to be
spent on adhering to regs?

-Doug


From: JBoppjr at aol.com
To: tpotter at capdale.com, BSmith at law.capital.edu
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:03:29 EDT
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110814/1f340881/attachment.html>