[EL] Technology to facilitate compliance

Sun Aug 14 16:41:40 PDT 2011

                So - and again a naïve question - what, practically is the burden of compliance (especially as to disclosure) for small campaigns?  I'm not doubting that there is such a burden; I just want a better sense of what it is, and whether it can be mitigated.

                Eugene

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Smith, Brad
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 4:15 PM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Technology to facilitate compliance

The automation rule is the norm at the FEC, which provides free software, and in many if not most states. Many small campaigns, however, still have difficulties with using the software.

The technical filling of data, however, is not the real problem, though it does add to the costs and fears that people have. And believe me, people do have fears.

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

________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu on behalf of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Sun 8/14/2011 5:52 PM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Technology to facilitate compliance

        I agree entirely that the government should provide the software -- which will often be as simple as a Web page (with supporting software) hosted on the jurisdiction's election commission Web site, or perhaps a spreadsheet template that people could fill in and that the Web page could accept for batch uploads, plus perhaps some software to provide automatic schedule reminder e-mails to everyone who signs up.  But this is not rocket science; this would be a simple application of well-understood, routinely used technology.

        Indeed, I would think there should be a general principle, whether enacted in statute or just as a strongly accepted guideline -- let's call it the Automation Rule:  Every disclosure and reporting regulation imposed by election law must be accompanied with government-provided software, and that proper use of such software would fully discharge the user's legal obligations under the jurisdiction's election law.  Naturally, the software also has to be made easy to use, and it's hard to come up with a purely legal rule to make sure that it is easy enough to use.  But it seems to me that if the Automation Rule isn't an existing norm already, it should be.

        Eugene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-
> bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Levine
> Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 12:23 PM
> To: 'Kathay Feng'; Volokh, Eugene; law-election-bounces at department-
> lists.uci.edu; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws-
> ThePuebloChieftai...
>
> Transaction costs are just a very small part of the matter. It is the rules
> about what needs to be reported and upon what schedule that creates the
> traps. These rules often differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and change
> from election cycle to election cycle within the same jurisdiction. If the
> government is going to require automated (electronic) filing of
> contributions and expenditures, then the government should either provide
> the software and hardware needed to comply free of charge, or allow those
> costs to fall beyond the limits of spending on a campaign.
> The difficulty with so much of what we enact in the way of reporting reforms
> is that they may apply well to big statewide races or even to legislative
> races. But when you come down to a city council campaign in a town of just a
> few thousand people, or in a very small school district those requirements
> become burdensome.
> Larry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Kathay
> Feng
> Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 11:58 AM
> To: Volokh, Eugene; law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu;
> law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws-
> ThePuebloChieftai...
>
> Automation is certainly a practical solution that would help. In California,
> we had a bi- and non-partisan group of reformers, the regulated community,
> citizen groups and others that all agreed that greater automation would help
> with disclosure, and significantly lower transaction costs for both
> campaigns and the government.  The idea is still stuck in the mud, though.
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>
> Sender: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 10:41:53
> To:
> law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws
>       -       ThePuebloChieftai...
>
>       A naïve question:  Could some of these problems -- at least to
> filing -- be relieved with automation (and might they already be so
> relieved), especially with automation that the jurisdiction is willing to
> certify as sufficient?  For instance, I certainly sympathize with concerns
> about the burden of reporting contributions and expenditures, but what if
> State X, when it enacts some such disclosure restrictions, provides that the
> obligation is discharged if a campaign worker goes to a particular Web site
> and accurately enters all the data he's asked to enter?  Likewise, I take it
> that whatever software is used to gather credit card donations via the Web
> presumably already creates a data file that can just be sent to the election
> authorities to discharge the disclosure obligations.  Or am I missing
> something big here?
>
>       Eugene
>
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110814/60018922/attachment.html>