[EL] "A Note on Campaign Finance Reform: Limiting the Right to Make Campa...

Sat Aug 27 06:33:35 PDT 2011

David asks:

"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?"

    There is two views of this.  "Reformers," just  like the King George 
III, Neapolitan, Caesar, Hitler and Pol Pot, believe, as  did all governments 
before ours, that citizens can only participate in the  government if they 
get the government's permission.  This is the premise of  this article.  Our 
First Amendment was written to reverse this premise --  that the natural 
state of things would be that people are free to participate in  the government 
without restriction. So freedom does not have to be  justified, but 
restrictions on freedom must be. Failing to grasp this  requirement of American law 
makes this article suitable for discussion  in Russia, but not the USA.  
Jim Bopp

In a message dated 8/27/2011 2:58:49 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
David at HoltzmanLaw.com writes:

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?

<!--[if  !supportLineBreak_NewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

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 written_ this 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.

(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=22297&title=“
A%20Note%20on%20Campaign%20Finance%20Reform:%20Limiting%20the%20Right%20to%20Make%20Campaign%20Finance%20Contributions%20without%20Violating%20t
he%20First%20Amendment”&description=) 

Posted in _campaign finance_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10)  | 
Comments Off  

-- 
David A. Holtzman,  M.P.H., J.D.
_david at holtzmanlaw.com_ (mailto: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. 

_______________________________________________
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/20110827/d0d42ec3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ELANoteo
Type: image/unknown
Size: 1520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110827/d0d42ec3/attachment.bin>