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

Sun Aug 14 13:06:56 PDT 2011

Agreed. The notion that a small Democratic club should need to maintain two
separate bank accounts and put up walls within its headquarters if it is
supporting both a federal candidate and state candidates is absurd.
Resolving this and other similar situations, however, would require a
merging of state and federal regulations that I fear will never happen.
Volunteer activism has been made more difficult by federal finance laws,
while the gates for big spending PACs have been opened wide. 
Larry

-----Original Message-----
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 12:56 PM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws
-ThePuebloChieftai...

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."
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election