[EL] Slate column on soft money/more news

Tue Oct 25 18:00:40 PDT 2011

Just like the PC police, we need to keep updated on the latest redefinition 
 of "soft money." It means lack of contribution limits imposed by federal  
law, not whether it is regulated by federal law.  This is hard to keep  
track of!  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 10/25/2011 7:19:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
tpotter at capdale.com writes:

The failure to impose ANY contribution limits, and to allow corporate and  
labor funds means they are not "fully regulated" federal funds, and share 
many  of the characteristics of "soft money." Indeed, party soft money was 
also  "regulated"--it was required to be disclosed, but no more, just as 
SuperPac  funds are.

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 25, 2011, at 6:11 PM, "_JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) " 
<_JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) > wrote:

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_ (mailto: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
 (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) _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://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html) 
 (http://electionlawblog.org/) _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_ 
(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.

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

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/ccdbcc48/attachment.html>