[EL] Lowenstein's Integrity

Wed Apr 18 12:22:33 PDT 2012

       I prefer even "ELB News and Commentary" to this subject heading.  Especially if the subject threatens to invite close scrutiny!

             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: Steve Hoersting [hoersting at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:30 AM
To: Lowenstein, Daniel
Cc: Edward Still; law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Lowenstein's Integrity

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<mailto: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<tel:310-825-5148>

________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf Of Edward Still [still at votelaw.com<mailto: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<tel:205-320-2882> (voice & fax)
 still at votelaw.com<mailto:still at votelaw.com><mailto:still at votelaw.com<mailto:still at votelaw.com>>
 www.votelaw.com/blog<http://www.votelaw.com/blog><http://www.votelaw.com/blog>
 www.edwardstill.com<http://www.edwardstill.com><http://www.edwardstill.com/>
 www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill<http://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><mailto: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<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

--
Stephen M. Hoersting