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

[Doug Hess]

Given the costs of campaigning...which (adjusted) are more than they
were 40 years ago...it is no wonder that people are suspicious of
where the money comes from and what it does. Are the costs (or average
expenditure) still rising?

Also, this idyllic image of "ma and pa" running for Congress or a
school board that oversees millions of dollars, is a bit silly to me.
If you want to oversee that kind of thing, surely you can oversee
staff for a campaign fund. But I am open to real analysis of what
these costs are (hours, dollars, etc.). Any real data anybody?

Doug


On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net> wrote:
> You’ve touched a nerve. We have “reformed” our way into a time when one
> cannot run an election campaign of any size, or a PAC, or conduct activities
> of a state or local political party or club without the cost of a
> professional treasurer and an attorney on retainer. At the same time we are
> placing limits on the amounts of contributions and the permissible
> expenditures in campaign without allowing for these “overhead” items to come
> from a separate account. Gone is the day when a volunteer can be the
> treasurer of a campaign for a friend if the campaign is of any consequential
> size. On top of that, we have created a thicket of regulations and
> requirements that differ from state to state and from jurisdiction to
> jurisdiction within a state, thus making it virtually impossible for a
> campaign and/or a candidate to avoid violations without the services of an
> elections attorney who is watching over every facet of the campaign. And all
> in aide of stamping out the perception of corruption. Tell me, is the
> perception any less now than when we started the “reforms” some 40 years
> ago?
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Doug
> Hess
> Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 9:42 AM
> To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws -
> ThePuebloChieftai...