[EL] Slate column on soft money/more news

Tue Oct 25 16:11:05 PDT 2011

Opps, so sorry for my comment, but (1) it was not  my Advisory Opinion 
request, but the Dems, and (2) super pacs are fully  regulated by the feds, they 
just do not have contribution limits under federal  law, just like 
exploratory and draft committees.  The failure of federal  law to impose a 
contribution limit does not mean that they are not regulated by  federal law. Jim

In a message dated 10/25/2011 6:59:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
tpotter at capdale.com writes:

We've been around this ring before-ad nauseum-in connection with Jim's  
Advisory Opinion request last Summer, which made the same argument--and which  
the FEC rejected.  It is of course a misnomer to say that SuperPac funds  
are  "fully federally regulated" as they have no limitations as to size,  and 
allow sources of funds not otherwise permitted in federal elections.

Trevor Potter

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 25, 2011, at 5:34 PM, "_JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) " 
<_JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) > wrote:

Is all money some one doesn't like "soft  money?"  Money contributed to 
super PACs is fully federally regulated  so it is, in the slang, "hard money."  
Jim Bopp

In a message dated 10/25/2011 3:04:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu)  writes:

_“Super-Soft Money:  How Justice Kennedy paved the way for ‘SuperPACS’ and 
the return of soft  money’_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24611)  
Posted  on _October 25, 2011 12:02 pm_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24611)  by _Rick  Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)  

I have written _this Jurisprudence essay_ (http://slate.me/sun4y6)  for 
Slate. It  begins: 

Soft money is coming back to national politics, and in a big way. And  we 
can blame it all on a single sentence in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s  opinion 
in 2010’s controversial _Citizens United_ 
(http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf)  decision—a sentence  that was unnecessary to resolve 
the case.

In this election cycle, “_superPACs_ 
(http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/2011/1007/Election-101-Five-basics-about-super-PACs-and-2012-campaign-money
/What-is-a-super-PAC-and-how-is-it-different-from-an-ordinary-PAC) ” will 
likely _replace_ 
(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/us/politics/28donate.html?ref=politics)  political parties as a _conduit_ 
(http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/super-pacs-propublicas-guide-to-the-new-world-of-campaign-finance) 
 for large, often secret contributions,  allowing an end run around the 
$2,400 individual contribution limit and  the bar on corporate and labor 
contributions to federal  candidates.
Another snippet: 

Now _comes_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24567)  the  most _audacious_ 
(http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_43/Super-PACs-Multiply-Head-to-Hill-209545-1
.html?pos=olobh)  argument in this series so far. If all PACs  are 
Super-PACs, then the rules for these PACs should also apply to  “leadership PACs.” 
Leadership PACs are political committees that sitting  members of Congress 
(and others) set up to allow them to make  contributions to other candidates 
and spend money to support their  election. It is a way for a member of 
Congress to build  influence.

Sen. Mike Lee’s Leadership PAC, the Constitutional Conservatives Fund  PAC, 
_has just  asked_ (http://saos.nictusa.com/aodocs/1188172.pdf)  the Federal 
Election Commission for permission to collect  unlimited contributions from 
corporations, labor unions, and wealthy  individuals for independent 
spending to elect other candidates. The  SuperPAC’s lawyers argue that there’s no 
danger of corrupting these  other candidates, because its spending to help 
them get elected will be  independent of those candidates.

Even if we suspend disbelief and agree on this point, the request  ignores 
the greater danger: that the leader of the leadership  PAC will become, or 
appear, corrupt. Corporations or labor unions  (acting through other 
organizations to shield their identity from public  view) could give unlimited sums 
to an elected official’s leadership PAC,  which could then be used for the 
official to yield influence with  others.

There’s nothing to stop someone like Senate Minority Leader Mitch  
McConnell from effectively becoming the fundraising arm of the  Republican Party, 
funneling all the money through his leadership PAC.  The McCain-Feingold law 
barred political parties from collecting such  unlimited “soft money” 
contributions, and the Supreme Court in 2003 _upheld_ 
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1674.ZS.html)  that limit on the grounds that such unlimited  
fundraising by politicians could corrupt politicians or create the  
appearance of corruption.

_<share_save_171_16.png>_ 
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24611&title=“
Super-Soft%20Money:%20How%20Justice%20Kennedy%20paved%20the%20way%20for%20‘SuperPACS’
%20and%20the%20return%20of%20soft%20money’&description=) 

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

_“State voter ID  measure expected to see some changes in Senate”_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24608)  
Posted  on _October 25, 2011 7:53 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24608) 
 by _Rick  Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)  

_News_ (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11295/1184048-454-0.stm)   from Pa. 

_<share_save_171_16.png>_ 
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24608&title=“
State%20voter%20ID%20measure%20expected%20to%20see%20some%20changes%20in%20Senate”&description=) 

Posted in  _election  administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18) 
, _voter id_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9)   | Comments Off 

_Give the People  What They Want_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24606)  
Posted  on _October 25, 2011 7:52 am_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24606) 
 by _Rick  Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3)  

Dean Logan _will  try_ 
(http://www.governing.com/blogs/view/LAs-Elections-Overhaul-Could-Be-a-Model.html)  in L.A. (h/t _The  Kinks_ 
(http://www.amazon.com/Give-People-What-They-Want/dp/B00000IM7P) ) 

_<share_save_171_16.png>_ 
(http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24606&title=Give%20the%20People%20What%20They%20Want&des
cription=) 

Posted in  _election  administration_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18)  
|  Comments Off 
-- 
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and  Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite  1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 -  fax
_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) 
_http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html_ 
(http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html) 
_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/) 

_______________________________________________
Law-election  mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_ 
(mailto: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_ 
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu) 
_http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election_ 
(http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election) 

<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, 

we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, 

any tax advice contained in this communication (including any 

attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and 

cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related 

penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii)  promoting, 

marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related 

matter addressed herein. 

This message is for the use of the intended recipient only.  It is

from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and

confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,

copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is

prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please

advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication

by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111025/725b4fcb/attachment.html>