[EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws

Mon Aug 15 09:46:38 PDT 2011

FYI - Illinois has state developed, free software for campaign disclosure reporting (once downloaded, contributions and expenditures need only to be categorized and entered) and a very large portion of the disclosure matters before the State Board of Elections are related to non-filing or late reporting

-----Original Message-----
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 11:36 AM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Law-election Digest, Vol 4, Issue 13

Send Law-election mailing list submissions to
        law-election at department-lists.uci.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at
        law-election-owner at department-lists.uci.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Law-election digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Check out Study shows who breaks campaign     laws-
      ThePuebloChieftai... (Kathay Feng)
   2. Re: Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws (Larry Levine)
   3. Re: Check out Study shows who breaks      campaign        laws-
      ThePuebloChieftai... (Larry Levine)
   4. Re: Check out Study shows who breaks      campaign        laws-
      ThePuebloChieftai... (Scarberry, Mark)
   5. Re: Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws
      -ThePuebloChieftai... (Doug Hess)
   6. Re: Check out Study shows who     breaks  campaign        laws-
      ThePuebloChieftai... (Larry Levine)
   7. Re: Check out Study shows who breaks campaign     laws
      -ThePuebloChieftai... (Larry Levine)
   8. Re: Check out Study shows who breaks campaign     laws
      -ThePuebloChieftai... (James Woodruff)
   9. Re: Technology to facilitate compliance (Volokh, Eugene)
  10. Re: Check out Study shows who breaks campaign
      laws-ThePuebloChieftai... (Trevor Potter)
  11. Re: Technology to facilitate compliance (Smith, Brad)
  12. Re: Technology to facilitate compliance (Volokh, Eugene)
  13. Re: Technology to facilitate compliance (Larry Levine)
  14. Re: Technology to facilitate compliance (Vince Leibowitz)
  15. Re: Technology to facilitate compliance (Vince Leibowitz)
  16. Re: Technology to facilitate compliance (Smith, Brad)
  17. Re: Technology to facilitate compliance (bzall at aol.com)
  18. Re: Technology to facilitate compliance (Smith, Brad)
  19. Re: Technology to facilitate compliance (Derek Willis)
  20. Re: Technology to facilitate compliance (Larry Levine)
  21. Re: Technology to facilitate compliance (Larry Levine)
  22. Re: Technology to facilitate compliance (Smith, Brad)
  23. Re: Technology to facilitate compliance (Trevor Potter)
  24. Re: Technology to facilitate compliance (Trevor Potter)
  25. ELB News and Commentary 8/15/11 (Rick Hasen)
  26. Re: Technology to facilitate compliance (Vince Leibowitz)
  27. Re: Technology to facilitate compliance (Smith, Brad)
  28. Re: Technology to facilitate compliance (Smith, Brad)
  29. Re: Technology to facilitate compliance (Trevor Potter)
  30. Re: Technology to facilitate compliance (Trevor Potter)
  31. Re: Technology to facilitate compliance (Larry Levine)
  32. Re: Technology to facilitate compliance (Smith, Brad)
  33. Re: Technology to facilitate compliance (BZall at aol.com)
  34. Campaign rules used to suppress unpopular or minority views
      (Jon Roland)
  35. Re: Technology to facilitate compliance (Trevor Potter)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 14:58:18 -0400
From: "Kathay Feng" <KFeng at CommonCause.org>
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign     laws-
        ThePuebloChieftai...
To: "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>,
        <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>,
        <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Message-ID:
        <2086901858-1313348301-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-899876498- at b11.c8.bise6.blackberry>

Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="Windows-1252"

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 na?ve 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

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 12:17:18 -0700
From: "Larry Levine" <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws
To: <jon.roland at constitution.org>,
        <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Message-ID: <001101cc5ab6$c92bcb60$5b836220$@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The actual reporting part of the scheme is not where the problems lie,
although there is a cost involved in leasing the software needed to file
electronically. And more and more jurisdictions are requiring online
reporting. This becomes another overhead item, along with professional
treasurers and attorneys necessary to track the every changing requirements
for what is reportable and on what time schedule as well as the wide range
of other campaign regulations, including the type size for disclaimers on
printed material and where on the face of the material the disclaimer must
appear. We have gone far afield from the simple notion of disclosure to a
game of gotcha in which a seemingly endless stream of "reforms" change the
rules and add new ones from election cycle to election cycle.

Doug's notion that there is no such thing as a "ma and pa" candidacy for
something like school board couldn't be further from the truth. In small
school districts all across the nation people run for boards of education
seats that pay nothing more than a very small per diem for attending
meetings. They spend a couple of thousand dollars or less to campaign for
the office and they run the constant risk of tripping over rules and
regulations enacted in the name of eliminating the perception of corruption.

That, Doug, is what it's like out here in the real world of electoral
politics. As a political consultant I do a number of pro bono campaigns for
these small school district or city council seats. I see and deal with the
results of demagogic "reform's" year in and year out.

Larry

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Jon
Roland
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 11:24 AM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws

Of course, but all the pieces haven't been assembled yet.

For example, Texas has gone to electronic filing for state candidates that
avoids some of the issues involved in missing deadlines. In past election
cycles a finance report had to be filed for a period that ended on the
deadline date and had to be postmarked on that date, meaning one had to
suspend all donation acceptances and all expenditures for long enough to
prepare and mail the report. (Texas has since changed the period ending
dates to be several days before the filing deadlines.) I got dinged twice
for a final report that was mailed before 4:00 PM at the main post office
but apparently didn't get postmarked until the next day: once for a late
report and once for a missed period report that was also due that day, and
which the final report was intended to also be. I also missed one deadline
after electronic filing was available by a couple of days because I
misplaced my password for the reporting tool the State was using at the
time. (It has since gone to filing through a web page.) I have just ignored
those fines ever since. (All reports were zero contributions and zero
expenditures because I tell supporters to spend their own money and not tell
me about it.)

However, each jurisdiction has its own reporting format that requires some
manual work to fill in. The best tool I have found so far to facilitate this
is Piryx (see button below as an example), which enables easy loading of the
data into other accounting tools to do things like get period totals.

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.

Campaign finance rules are that only corruption rules.

On 08/14/2011 12:41 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:

Could some of these problems -- at least to filing -- be relieved with
automation

 <https://secure.piryx.com/donate/BZoPnnHu/Jon-Roland-for-U-S-Senate/jr-sen>
Donate
Now!

-- Jon

----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society               http://constitution.org
2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322           twitter.com/lex_rex
Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001  jon.roland at constitution.org
----------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110814/dcd0c94c/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 2433 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110814/dcd0c94c/attachment-0001.gif

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 12:23:10 -0700
From: "Larry Levine" <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Study shows who breaks      campaign        laws-
        ThePuebloChieftai...
To: "'Kathay Feng'" <kfeng at CommonCause.org>,    "'Volokh, Eugene'"
        <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>,
        <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>,
        <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Message-ID: <001701cc5ab7$9b41af70$d1c50e50$@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="iso-8859-1"

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 na?ve 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

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 12:31:43 -0700
From: "Scarberry, Mark" <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Study shows who breaks      campaign        laws-
        ThePuebloChieftai...
To: "law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu"
        <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>,
        "law-election at department-lists.uci.edu"
        <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Message-ID:
        <0C2E309B4F3A894F859CD79B9AB3279A11DA04E389 at LULI.pepperdine.ad.pepperdine.edu>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Isn't there something basically wrong under the 1st Amendment if those who engage in political speech are "the regulated community"? (This is not a criticism of Kathay; I suppose the term is accurate.)

Mark

Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
Malibu, CA 90263
(310) 506-4667

-----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 na?ve 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

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 15:55:51 -0400
From: Doug Hess <douglasrhess at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws
        -ThePuebloChieftai...
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Message-ID:
        <CAA76P+pTzrtt=SaFpVP4mM2U7iaDehAZ6wL9T4dF+eXuKeBqgQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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."

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:02:53 -0700
From: "Larry Levine" <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Study shows who     breaks  campaign        laws-
        ThePuebloChieftai...
To: "'Scarberry, Mark'" <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>,
        <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>,
        <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Message-ID: <002101cc5abd$2725f6e0$7571e4a0$@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="iso-8859-1"

We of the "regulated (slate mail) community" stepped forward last year and
offered to work with the California Fair Political Practices commission
staff and its task force on reforms in helping to identify and clean up some
areas of regulation that were in need of attention. We found that our input
helped the staff understand things better than they had or could have
without our perspective drawn from practical experience. Together, we honed
the regulatory changes to a point where there was agreement. We appeared
before the commission to support the changes presented by the task force
(and staff).
So far so good.
Now we enter into the legislative arena. One measure has cleared the state
senate and is pending in the assembly that does two things: it restates
things that already exist in the law, and it proposes new regulations that
are in clear contradiction to findings and decisions from two previous
federal court law suits. This was written and advanced with no consultation
with the "regulated community."
>From the "reform community" has come another stream of proposed statutes
that are either impractical, unrealistic, or also violate those same two
federal court decisions. All of these are coming with no consultation with
the "regulated community". They are borne of the innate suspicion on the
part of "reformers" of anyone who engages in the electoral processes either
as a candidate or a professional and from the ongoing pressure on the
"reform community" to justify its continued existence. Remember, many of
these "reformers" are themselves professionals insofar as their income would
cease if they did not continue to put forward new "reforms".
We of the "regulated community" have demonstrated our willingness to work
collaboratively with regulators. Too bad the "reformers" and too many
legislators don't share our desire.
Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of
Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 12:32 PM
To: 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...

Isn't there something basically wrong under the 1st Amendment if those who
engage in political speech are "the regulated community"? (This is not a
criticism of Kathay; I suppose the term is accurate.)

Mark

Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
Malibu, CA 90263
(310) 506-4667

-----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 na?ve 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

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:06:56 -0700
From: "Larry Levine" <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign     laws
        -ThePuebloChieftai...
To: "'Doug Hess'" <douglasrhess at gmail.com>,
        <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Message-ID: <002201cc5abd$b7ea0db0$27be2910$@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"

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

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 21:06:01 +0000
From: James Woodruff <jwoodruff at fcsl.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign     laws
        -ThePuebloChieftai...
To: Doug Hess <douglasrhess at gmail.com>,
        "law-election at department-lists.uci.edu"
        <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Message-ID:
        <DC42503F0CD35E42A7F33E670DC1DFCA0B8861E3 at FCSL-EX14-MB-N1.ad.fcsl.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Has anyone done a muti-jurisdictional survey of the administrative costs associated with regulatory compliance?

James J. Woodruff II, Esq.
Associate Professor of Lawyering Process
Florida Coastal School of Law
8787 Baypine Road
Jacksonville, FL  32256
(904) 256-1226
http://theartoflitigation.com/
jwoodruff at fcsl.edu

View my research on my SSRN Author page:
http://ssrn.com/author=1343708
________________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Doug Hess [douglasrhess at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 3:55 PM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Study shows who breaks campaign laws        -ThePuebloChieftai...