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

[Doug Hess]

RE: Eugene's ideas: This is a great idea and worth exploring,
especially if smaller organizations are allowed a simpler form or set
of regs to follow.

RE: Jon Roland's comments: "Evidence of disconnection from reality."
[???]   "The very people we should most want to make decisions about
large public expenditures are those who neither have nor can attract
much money. The amount of money available for good government is
negligible, especially for down-ballot positions."

1) I stated that I think different sorts of regulations could apply to
smaller PACs. I then kind of mixed things up by seguing into
candiddate campaign funds, but my point should have been clear:
perhaps there could be different regulations for smaller races. You
seemed to miss that.

2) If you are worried about people "who neither have nor can attract
much money" then....what is the problem? I assume you mean they cannot
attract much money. This may seem an obvious point, but  as I
requested below, give me some numbers, data, details. Just how much
does it cost to run a small PAC (or campaign, sorry for introducing
separate institution, but the points are similar, if you think
regulation should occur at all)? How much is that relative to what
people want to spend?

3) In a  later email, you write: "I estimate that it would not be
feasible or justified to engage professional services unless the
donations could be expected to exceed $500,000.00, which rules out
most down-ballot campaigns for any party and almost all campaigns for
minor party candidates." This is helpful and moves the policy argument
in a better direction. Can you explain why such a huge budget is
needed to just stay on top of reporting regulations (for which kind of
institution, too)? Thanks.

RE: Brad's comments:  Hmmm....Not sure how to respond to so much
hyperbole and over-the-top mischaracterization and simplification. But
I'll try. A few points:

1) I was (very clearly) speculating that hiring a lawyer or account to
provide help is not extra-ordinarily burdensome or unusually expensive
for an associational enterprise of moderate size. To say that I am
only allowing plutocrats to play the game seriously (wantonly) warps
the debate. See point 5 below, too.

2) If you have experience that contradicts the suggestion that the
regulations are not excessive, please provide some details; just how
much would it cost to help some group of X size to meet the law for
this or that project? I asked for some details or data...so clearly I
am open to considering it. Simply saying that it's true because it is
based on your experience but without even a bit of detail and that to
disagree with you is to accuse you of making it up it is not an
argument. (I'm not sure what it is: an oversensitive reaction to
public discussion?)

3) If the PAC is so small that hiring some management help wipes out
the funds, then I am wondering if there aren't lots of other things
they can do with that money to influence policy or politics that is
the equivalent. Having a PAC is a very specific sort of activity. A
very small PAC (one that can't afford a bit of lawyering or
accounting) likely could do very nearly the same thing without being a
PAC. Arguing that they MUST be able to run a tiny PAC with no
regulations is avoiding the issue: is anybody really being prevented
from participation in even a modest way by the regulations? Again, I
have asked if there was an empirical evidence or at least some details
that might help. E.g., are the groups that were fined in CO closing
shop? Do they just take the hit in fines each cycle and live with it?
Most importantly: Would the cost to avoid the fine have been small
compared to their budget and how much of a cost are we talking?  I
also stated that perhaps regulations for little funds or small
campaigns would be worth exploring. Avoiding the nuances of people's
points is not helpful.

4) The debate about the evidence of corruption is a seperate point. I
think it is reasonable for the public to want disclosure filings,
etc.; if you don't, then there is no point going further. But the
debate, it seems to me, is about the actual cost or harm of having
regulations, not the original necessity. That's a worthy topic, but
mixing it all up prevents orderly discussion of the policy. Think of
it this way: even if you think regulation is never fair, we do have
them...and they aren't going away, so discussing how they can be best
designed is worthwhile.  (Side note:

5)  I would request that you please stop making yourself out to be the
hero of the people and others (who you lump together rather sloppily
it looks like) the enemies. It adds nothing and it is tiresome.

-Doug

From: "Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
To: <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:36:51 -0400
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws
-ThePuebloChieftai...

Let 'em eat cake.

Doug's argument seems dangerously close to arguing, "hey, these small
time spenders don't matter anyway, so who cares."  Which, is
basically, Trevor's position, as I have come to understand it. It's
like anti-trust, man, hire an attorney. Meanwhile, they lecture others
about "plutocrats" taking over the system.

I think that one of the most devastating blows to the Clinton health
care bill, way back in '93-'94, came when Hillary Clinton was
confronted with a question about the bill's impact on small business,
and responded with something along the lines of, "I can't be
responsible for every undercapitalized entrepreneur in the country."

Doug then says, essentially, "and besides, these small timers are
probably just making it up when they talk about the problems of
dealing with regulation," and in doing so basically suggests that
those of us who have worked with people in this area are also just
making it up.

This strikes me as a purposely blind position, and one that takes a
narrow view of the potential richness of political life. It is exactly
the sort of top-down, "this is a game for big spenders" approach that
they purport to abhore.

It also sets up an interetsing dichotomy: we can't prove, really,
corruption from campaign contributions, so we must assume it exist. We
can't prove, really, how many people are truly discouraged from
participating due to regulation, so we must assume they do not exist.

In the end, though, it ought to be really simple: it should not be
against the law for Americans to engage in political activity.
Americans should not be required to register with their government
before spending a few thousand bucks (or even a few hundred) on
political activity, and they should not generally be required to
report their political activity to the government.

But some see the difficulties of the people, and say "let them eat cake."