[EL] Check out Unions ready to send volunteers out for Obama | Fox News

[Michael McDonald]

In numerous past exchanges, we have heard from Jim Bopp and others that
anonymity is the overriding factor for opposing campaign finance regulation,
so that a person could not be subject to harassment. Yet, in this example a
union volunteer’s speech has no anonymity. I am heartened that we may
finally have gotten past the harassment argument that treats money
differently than other forms of speech.

A concern for the supporters of campaign finance regulation is corrupting
influence of money. I think Jim makes a valid point that we should have a
discussion if in-kind donations should be considered similar to monetary
donations for their corrupting influence and subject to disclosure.
Certainly, I believe that the money that the unions have contributed to
organizing the canvassing effort should be disclosed (has it not?) if
supporting the campaign and not, say, targeted at issues to increase union
membership. But the organizing is not an in-kind contribution from a
volunteer, although it seems like it is being conflated with it. 

If we are to say that an in-kind contribution originating from canvassing
should be disclosed, then that raises some interesting questions. First, I
am not convinced that door-to-door canvassing by a volunteer should be given
a monetary value equal to a paid staffer since in the latter instance
someone has to be induced to do something that they would not otherwise do,
but I am willing to stipulate it has value to a campaign.  If as a volunteer
I knock on a door but no one is home, does that count as an in-kind
contribution to the campaign? Does the time walking from door to door count?
I.e., is it the act of speaking that counts or should all activities that
lead to the speech count? If I speak to my neighbor over the fence or
discuss politics at a poker game, should that trigger disclosure? Should we
limit the speech to canvassing, or should it include activities like writing
an e-mail or a blog comment? How are we to monitor such activities for
compliance with disclosure, especially in light of the Obama campaign
releasing their canvassing app that requires minimal contact between the
campaign and volunteer? And what specific speech should be disclosed, should
it be only those that invoke the magic words asking for a vote? It strikes
me that the minimal monetary value of volunteering balanced against these
questions should weigh in favor of not disclosing volunteer canvassing.
However, I do think there should be a threshold of volunteer activity that
should lead to disclosure, such as an expert volunteering their specialized
skills to aid a campaign.

============
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor, George Mason University
Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution

                             Mailing address:
(o) 703-993-4191             George Mason University
(f) 703-993-1399             Dept. of Public and International Affairs
mmcdon at gmu.edu               4400 University Drive - 3F4
http://elections.gmu.edu     Fairfax, VA 22030-4444

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 11, 2012 3:31 PM
To: Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu; joseph.e.larue at gmail.com;
jerald.lentini at gmail.com
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Unions ready to send volunteers out for Obama |
Fox News

    Even at $10 an hour, we are talking about one days value at
$36,000,000.  If they spend 3 Saturdays doing this, we are up to almost $100
million.  "Reformers" were apoplectic when one casino owner gave $10 million
to a Super PAC, not $100 million to a candidate.  No press releases from
"watch dog" Fred.  No editorials in the NYTimes.  Interesting.
 
    Even if the union members do it for free, the union leadership has
organized this and it would not happen if they had not. Furthermore, as I
understand the articles, the union used union employees to do the
organizing. Obama will certainly give the union leadership credit for this
-- which "reformers" would call "corruption" if done by a corporatio -- and
they would be calling the people involved criminals. But nothing but
silence. Jim
 
In a message dated 8/11/2012 1:01:35 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu writes:
Is the union paying the workers for their canvassing work?

Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law



From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Joe La
Rue
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 9:29 AM
To: Jerald Lentini
Cc: JBoppjr at aol.com; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out Unions ready to send volunteers out for Obama |
Fox News

I find it funny that Jerald, in arguing about the value of the contribution,
has proved Jim's point. A union sending its members to campaign for a
candidate is a valuable in-kind contribution. But most reformers won't see
that as a problem, as Jerald just demonstrated. But let a corporation make a
contribution up to the regular, noncorrupting contribution limits, and the
sky will fall.

On Aug 11, 2012, at 7:38 AM, Jerald Lentini <jerald.lentini at gmail.com>
wrote:
Believe it or not, Jim, my intent in criticizing your comment was to point
out its lack of foundation and merit, not to "chill your speech." Or is
criticism from private parties inherently chilling now, too?
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 10:03 AM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
One of my assumptions was that this was just for one day's work.  I now see
from this
Click here: Labor chief Trumka vows stronger ground game for elections -
Washington Times  that it is much more than that.
 
No, I don't know what the going rate for canvassers is.  Maybe someone on
the list serve can provide that info.  In any event, we are talking about
100s of millions of dollars for this effort.
 
And, JR, I know that your name calling is intended to chill my speech (boy,
we have seen a lot of that coming from the left these days) but, sorry, it
just won't work.  Jim Bopp
 
In a message dated 8/11/2012 9:29:00 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jerald.lentini at gmail.com writes:
Jim, all else aside, do you really think the value of an in-kind
contribution is what the person's normal hourly rate doing something
completely different would be, and not the value of the service actually
rendered?

Unless you think a canvassing program that happens outside business hours
should be valued as an in-kind contribution of what the volunteers would
make doing their regular jobs (which are most likely a little more taxing
than knocking on doors), then your snark makes no sense. 

-JR


On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 9:09 AM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
    AFL-CIO to send out 3 or 400,000 volunteers to help Obama.  See
 
Click here: Unions ready to send volunteers out for Obama | Fox News 
 
    I have always been curious why the "reformers" only focus only on
money.  This sure seems like a very valuable contribution to the Obama
campaign to me (if this is coordinated, but I cannot figure that out. Anyway
the "reformers" say it doesn't matter -- corruption either way).  Many of
these volunteers make 30, 40 or 50 dollars an hour, so this is a 144 million
dollar contribution to the Obama campaign. 400,000 x 8 x 40 = $144,000,000.
 
    And the "reformer" scream bloody murder over contributions from
corporations of a few thousand.  Jim Bopp

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election




-- 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
and destroy all copies of the original message.




-- 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
and destroy all copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election