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

Sun Aug 28 01:53:39 PDT 2011

So, I suppose anyone who wants to vote in an election gets to do so, since territorial, age, and citizenship restrictions would be invalid as the means by which the government seeks to control those who get to participate in government. Or is it only money that can't be restricted, while voters can be?   

***************
Susan Lerner
Executive Director
Common Cause/NY
t: 212-691-6421
c: 917-670-5670

-----Original Message-----
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu on behalf of JBoppjr at aol.com
Sent: Sat 8/27/2011 11:50 AM
To: bwright at demos.org; David at HoltzmanLaw.com; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] "A Note on Campaign Finance Reform: Limiting the Right toMake Campa...

Oh, yes, but did I mention Genghis Kahn, Attila Hun and Marie Antoinette.  Jim

In a message dated 8/27/2011 11:26:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bwright at demos.org writes:

		Ah, Godwin's law comes into play on the third post, but with a refreshing twist - not merely invoking Hitler (that is so 1990s), but also King George III, Pol Pot, Caesar and "Neapolitan" - yes, the well-known "Emperor of Ice Cream" (see Wallace Stevens).  A truly chilling point. 

	________________________________

		From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of JBoppjr at aol.com
	Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 9:34 AM
	To: David at HoltzmanLaw.com; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
	Subject: Re: [EL] "A Note on Campaign Finance Reform: Limiting the Right to Make Campa...

	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 !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
		<!--[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%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&descriptio> 

		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.

		_______________________________________________
		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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1551 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110828/3870721c/attachment.gif>