[EL] Lowenstein's Integrity

Wed Apr 18 11:30:03 PDT 2012

I think the list owes a debt to Dan Lowenstein for bringing up the matter
so forthrightly.

Dan writes, "it is not surprising that the great majority of people on this
list have been uninterested in this matter."  It is true.

I think there are multiple reasons for this, leaving aside the ideological
disinterest that may be attributed to some on the left.

First, there is an instrumentalism in reform.  This surprises no one.  As
Cleta Mitchell once put it, baseball fans who want the mound raised three
inches *favor* pitchers...Full stop.  Mark Schmitt has written that, “[L]iberal
activists turned from other issues to … questions of process[.]  After
several years on Capitol Hill working on education, urban development,
welfare reform, and taxes, I became convinced that we were spinning our
wheels….  [C]ampaign finance would be the reform that made all other
reforms possible.”

Second, is the matter of c3 organizations.  Any c3 that would explore this
matter now would worry, I would hope incorrectly and unnecessarily , that
they would risk an investigation from the IRS on the matter of
"participating or intervening" in the 2012 election.

Third, any young buck (or doe) at a university who would pursue the facts
in pursuit of tenure would likely forfeit tenure in the process.  (Don't
say you don't know what I mean).  Any professor who held tenure already
would make hallway conversations uncomfortable at the height of her career,
and diminish her chances of visiting anywhere interesting.

Fourth, is the matter of facts -- which, I gather PowerLine has.  Even the
FEC may not be willing or able to get to the bottom this.  After all -- and
this is a point I once heard made at lunch -- what is a "material"
violation worthy of pursuing on *$750M* in campaign funds raised?  Is it
$1M in potentially foreign funds?  $2M?

Fifth is this point -- one I am not eager to make, but recognize needs
making nonetheless:  Anyone who surmises enough to investigate whether
there is, indeed, a problem with a powerful player's fundraising practices
doesn't want to be seen taking on any player confident in his power to the
point he who would *consider* engaging in such fundraising practices.  I
think there is analog here to the editorial regarding ALEC matter published
in today's WSJ.  Really: Who wants to tangle with a Media Matters or Color
of Change when anyone who would tangle with them can surmise the way the
game is played by Media Matters or Color of Change?  Easier to pull out
your money and hope others are working the problem, or that it simply goes
away.

Plaudits again to Dan Lowenstein, Ed Still and PowerLine,

Steve Hoersting

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Lowenstein, Daniel <lowenstein at law.ucla.edu
> wrote:

>            That the Obama online fundraising system is set up to easily
> facilitate violation of campaign finance laws has been pretty thoroughly
> documented by Power Line.  See:
>
>
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/dubious-donations-2012-edition.php
>
>
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/dubious-donations-illustrated.php
>
>
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/dubious-donations-illustrated-bin-laden-edition.php
>
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/dubious-donations-contd.php
>
>
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/dubious-donations-illustrated-illegal-contributor-edition.php
>
>            I don't know for a fact whether the Obama people had to
> override defaults to employ a system so lax, but it seems likely, given how
> unusual their system is.  Furthermore, there was similar documentation of
> the same problem with Obama's 2008 online fundraising.  So even if the
> campaign did no overriding, it can surely be charged with knowledge that it
> is facilitating illegal contributions (whether because the contributions
> themselves are illegal because they exceed limits, come from foreign
> sources, etc., or because they will not be properly reported).
>
>            Given the unfortunate rise of partisanship in election law, it
> is not surprising that the great majority of people on this list have been
> uninterested in this matter, which would surely be raising a storm if it
> were, say, the Romney online fundraising that were in question.  But I have
> been surprised that the smaller number of Republican voices on this
> listserv have not raised the issue.  Kudos, by the way, to Ed Still for
> looking into it in a disinterested manner.
>
>             Best,
>
>             Daniel H. Lowenstein
>             Director, Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions
> (CLAFI)
>             UCLA Law School
>             405 Hilgard
>             Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
>             310-825-5148
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Edward Still [
> still at votelaw.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 8:36 AM
> To: law-election at UCI.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 4/18/12
>
> I just made a contribution to Obama under part of my legal name that does
> not match my credit card name. "Your donation was successful," the site
> told me.
>
> So, is the last name enough to clear the credit card validation check?
>
> Edward Still
> Edward Still Law Firm LLC
> 130 Wildwood Parkway, Suite 108, PMB 304
> Birmingham AL 35209
> 205-320-2882 (voice & fax)
>   still at votelaw.com<mailto:still at votelaw.com>
>  www.votelaw.com/blog<http://www.votelaw.com/blog>
>  www.edwardstill.com<http://www.edwardstill.com/>
>  www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill<http://www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill><
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:
> rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
>
> A Reader Complaint About Obama Campaign’s Credit Card Policies<
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=33091>
> Posted on April 17, 2012 3:15 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=33091> by
> Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> A regular reader (who also regularly disagrees with me) sends along the
> following comment:
>
> Rick, I’m a bit curious: Is it that you don’t believe the story about
> Obama’s credit card processing software being set to accept donations under
> names and addresses that don’t match the card used? (You should, I tested
> it myself. You could prove it yourself with a few minutes effort.) Or is it
> that you just don’t give a damn? This matter is very troubling to me: A
> major candidate for President, already holding the office, is, for the
> second time, deliberately (It required over-riding default settings.)
> managing his collection of donations in such a way as to facilitate
> violations of campaign finance laws. You know, the guy who’s job
> description is “seeing the law faithfully executed”? And the media won’t
> bother to report it, and people who make a big fuss about these sorts of
> laws just blow it off. I might think some of these laws foolish, and some
> of them even unconstitutional, but deliberate lawlessness on the part of
> candidates for public office ought to be worth reporting, and caring about.
>
> >From what I’ve seen of campaigns and audit, I have a hard time believing
> that the Obama campaign (or any other presidential campaign) which I have
> seen has been taking steps to affirmatively encourage taking illegal
> donations (either from foreign sources, or other prohibited sources).  But
> I thought I would post this because I do receive fairly frequent complaints
> on this issue.  (I should add that I have not verified that the software
> has been set in any special way, or that this can facilitate fraud.)  And
> if there is something worth investigating, now the word is “out there” and
> people can investigate.
>
> <
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D33091&title=A%20Reader%20Complaint%20About%20Obama%20Campaign%E2%80%99s%20Credit%20Card%20Policies&description=
> >
> Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<
> http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12> | Comments Off
> “<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=33088>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120418/761a71a5/attachment.html>