[EL] "A Note on Campaign Finance Reform: Limiting the Right to Make Campaign Finance Contributions without Violating the First Amendment"

David A. Holtzman David at HoltzmanLaw.com
Fri Aug 26 23:57:40 PDT 2011


The abstract says, "Extending the right to make contributions in a 
particular election to groups that do not have the right to vote in that 
election [] violates simple logic, since without the right of people to 
vote there would be no need for contributions."

"[S]imple logic," maybe.

But what of the felon, who wants to get the right to vote (or otherwise 
change the law) by getting supportive candidates elected?

What of the non-profit seeking to educate candidates and voters 
nationwide in order to elect USReps who promise to change a particular 
law, or stop a particular war?

What of the government worker or private worker or student in the 
district who lives outside the district but is affected by 
district-specific decisions like: what porkmarks will come to the 
district, how gov't contracts will affect the district, what the 
military will do there, what types of events the USRep will hold there, 
who the USRep will hire, how accessible the USRep will be?(Or should 
communication access to USReps be limited to CVAP residents of the 
district?)

What of stockholders in companies similarly affected?

What of people outside competitive districts who will lose out if a 
certain political party gets a majority in the House?

What of those seeking to knock a senior USRep from office to give their 
own district's USRep a better shot at becoming a committee chair?

What of legal noncitizen residents who are affected by the actions of 
USReps elected by districts drawn in consideration of a count of all 
residents -- supposedly so the USReps can represent all residents?

What of non-voting family of the candidates, who already have plenty of 
access and just want to help their kinfolk?

What of the orphan who's not yet old enough to vote?

What of volunteering for campaigns - same restriction?

- dah

p.s. Is it (the right to contribute, and hence associate) a right that 
can be extended?Or since it's universal to begin with, only constricted?




On 8/26/2011 8:57 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
> "A Note on Campaign Finance Reform: Limiting the Right to Make 
> Campaign Finance Contributions without Violating the First Amendment" 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=22297>
>
>
> Posted on August 26, 2011 12:36 pm 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=22297> by Rick Hasen 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> William Grigsby, Emeritus Professor in City and Regional Planning, 
> University of Pennsylvania, has writtenthis draft 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/grigsby-campaign-finance.pdf>, 
> which I have posted on my blog.  Here is the abstract:
>
>     The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal
>     Election Commission has made it possible for individuals who are
>     not eligible to vote in a particular federal election and for
>     organizations, who have no voting rights at all, to make unlimited
>     campaign contributions, expanding their pre-existing right to make
>     contributions with dollar caps.  These two groups of contributors
>     without the right to vote already outspend eligible voters in some
>     states by an order of magnitude. Citizens United will simply widen
>     the difference.  The dominant role of campaign contributors who
>     are not eligible voters has a serious corrupting effect on the
>     federal election system.  Since candidates and office-holders
>     properly listen to the views of all contributors, not just to the
>     views of eligible voters, the ballot speech of the eligibles is
>     substantially diluted, if not entirely overwhelmed, by the
>     money-speech of the non-eligibles.  This is true even with respect
>     to donors to independent-expenditure campaigns, since their
>     identity will almost immediately become known to candidates
>     through disclosure requirements.  Additionally, their uncapped
>     donations would in some cases be so large as to invite at least
>     the appearance of quid pro quo corruption.
>
>     Extending the right to make contributions in a particular election
>     to groups that do not have the right to vote in that election also
>     violates simple logic, since without the right of people to vote
>     there would be no need for contributions
>
>     Eligibility limits with respect to contributions speech should be
>     co-terminus with those for voting speech.  Since individuals join
>     together in organizations in order to make their voice more widely
>     and strongly heard, organizations should still be allowed to make
>     campaign contributions but only as conduits for donations by
>     persons who are eligible voters in the election whose outcome the
>     organizations are attempting to influence.
>
> Share 
> <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D22297&title=%E2%80%9CA%20Note%20on%20Campaign%20Finance%20Reform%3A%20Limiting%20the%20Right%20to%20Make%20Campaign%20Finance%20Contributions%20without%20Violating%20the%20First%20Amendment%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> | 
> Comments Off
>


> -- 
> David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
> david at holtzmanlaw.com
>
> Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be 
> confidential, for use only by intended recipients.  If you are not an 
> intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email 
> to an intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email 
> in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or 
> copying of this email is strictly prohibited.  If you have received 
> this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and discard 
> all copies.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110826/fcebb216/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110826/fcebb216/attachment.png>


View list directory