[EL] Truth to power?

Wed Feb 22 11:32:28 PST 2012

To what extent is there a greater or lesser “appearance of corruption” from independent political speech (even millions of dollars) by an individual or by a group of individuals joining together in a PAC or by a mixed group of individuals, corporations and unions joining together in a PAC.  The “too much money being spent” as a basis for finding an “appearance of corruption” is not limited to particular sources, or even audiences.  If a corporation or union spends many dollars to mobilize its eligible audience (even pre-Citizens United) to contribute time and treasure and works hard and publicly on behalf of a candidate, isn’t there a risk that the candidate will feel beholden to his supporters, and thereby create an appearance of corruption?

That there may be difficulties in proving “coordination” between a candidate and an “independent” speaker seems a weak foundation on which to base restricting political speech that is truly independent of a candidate.

The conclusion that spending enough money creates an appearance of corruption says as much or more about the character of candidates and elected officials than the spender.  If candidates and elected officials are so easily swayed from their duty to the public and to provide honest services, regulating how (much) money is spent on elections doesn’t even begin to address the real problem.  Instead, the focus on preserving the integrity of the electoral process would need to deal with the candidates and elected officials.  Would legislative findings that the risk of corruption increases with longevity in office provide the factual prerequisite for a compelling governmental interest to adopt term limits to avoid the appearance of corruption through entrenched power, or impose more stringent limits on incumbent contributions?

John J. White, Jr.
white at lfa-law.com<mailto:white at lfa-law.com>
(425) 822-9281 ext. 321
The contents of this message and any attachments may contain confidential information and be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine or other applicable protection.  If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, please notify the sender and promptly delete the message.  Thank you for your assistance.

Tax Advice Notice: IRS Circular 230 requires us to advise you that, if this communication or any attachment contains any tax advice, the advice is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties. A taxpayer may rely on professional advice to avoid federal tax penalties only if the advice is reflected in a comprehensive tax opinion that conforms to stringent requirements. Please contact us if you have any questions about Circular 230 or would like to discuss our preparation of an opinion that conforms to these IRS rules.

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 10:52 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu; BZall at aol.com
Subject: Re: [EL] Truth to power?

                Surely that can’t be enough:  I suppose that there might be an “appearance of corruption” when a newspaper endorses an elected official, given the possibility that such endorsements – which have in many times and places been extremely valuable – could well mask express or implied quid pro quo arrangements.  Indeed, to increase the appearance of corruption, imagine that the official is in a position to vote on newsrack legislation, or has oversight authority over the NLRB, which is considering some union complaints against the newspaper, or has authority over legislation that is of personal interest to the newspaper’s major shareholder; I take it that might create an “appearance of corruption” in many people’s minds.

But I assume that this wouldn’t suffice to allow a ban on endorsements (or on endorsements that cost less than $1000 to implement, or provide less than $1000 in benefit, or are published by corporate-owned newspapers), right?

                Eugene

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Edward Still
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 10:45 AM
To: JBoppjr at aol.com
Cc: law-election at uci.edu; BZall at aol.com
Subject: Re: [EL] Truth to power?

Isn't the proper question whether there is "appearance of corruption" when a donor gives to a Super PAC?

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>
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:17 PM, <JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>> wrote:
What is the evidence of any quid-pro-quo exchange between a donor to a super PAC and a candidate?  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 2/22/2012 12:05:46 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, jeffhauser at gmail.com<mailto:jeffhauser at gmail.com> writes:
Jim assumes that the set of all actual coordination/actual quid pro quos is identical to that which could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal setting, or under some other high evidentiary bar setting.

Once we acknowledge that not all actual coordination is knowable by third parties, including the government, this analysis falls apart.
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:59 AM, <JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>> wrote:
The Court has repeatedly said, since Buckley in 1976, including in McConnell, that independent spending does not give rise to the corruption concern that has justified contribution limits -- ie the danger of a quid-pro-quo exchange.  Since the spender and candidate do not discuss the independent expenditure, or it would be coordinated, a quid-pro-quo agreement is factually impossible. So "reformers" want to expand the definition of corruption to include gratitude --tat the candidate is grateful for the independent spending and will then change his positions to benefit the independent spender.  Or the candidate might give the spender "access," by meeting and talking to the spender about his or her concerns.  So as long as the Court is not willing to expand the definition of corruption to include "gratitude" or preferential "access," and they have said repeatedly that they are not,  then no corruption facts exist to be proved. There was nothing new in the decision of CU to this debate, other than to repeat again their position and to say that they continue to adhere to this view.

Of course, the real danger of corruption here is that the Court will bend to the popular clammer that CU was wrong and should be changed. This is a serious attack on the independence of the Court that would undermine the Court's legitimacy if they just flip-flopped on this, as the reformers are demanding.  And since these issues have been debated ad nauseum and decided by the Court repeatedly, why should the Court majority entertain yet another re-run? They don't agree with the reformer's position on this, because the Court majority believes that their position is required by the First Amendment, as have numerous Supreme Court majorities in the past 35 years. The reformers don't like it now and didn't like it then.  This is not a reason to replow this heavy replowed ground once again.  Jim

In a message dated 2/22/2012 11:35:28 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jbirkenstock at capdale.com<mailto:jbirkenstock at capdale.com> writes:
Well, Barnaby, at the risk of inviting anyone to draw a weapon (en sixte or otherwise) and flick it upward at Justice Scalia while he sonorously chants "Rule 47 applies to a pretrial motion...," allow me to retort.  (Partially agree, actually, and partially retort.)

We agree that Ginsberg and Breyer aren't on especially strong ground to advance that claim that *corporate* IE's as such are themselves the root of much current concern about superPACs, but I think that illustrates the overreach of CU as much as it illustrates Ginsberg's and Breyer's imprecision.  Kennedy's opinion didn't permit video-on-demand distribution of a corporate-funded 90 minute campaign ad on the basis that VOD is basically a private communication, or that the movie as a whole wasn't express advocacy, or that CU was a really engaging in a media function by creating and distributing its film, or any other narrower basis more appropriate to the case as litigated.

Instead, the CU majority held - in the absence of any actual record suitable to this kind of facial evaluation - that there are no applications of 441b sufficient to justify the constitutionality of the statute.  Regardless of the potential variations in "corporate" expenditures you address below: regardless of whether a corporation provided the money, or spent it, or both; and regardless of whether any corporation in that chain is a business corporation or an advocacy organization.

And, more to my point, regardless of whether the "independence" of the IE is of the "CU's movie about Hillary variety" or the "functionally single-candidate committee singled out for direct fundraising help by the benefitting candidate" variety.  It's true that 441b equally prohibited all of the above with respect to corporations, but in facially invalidating the statute without a record (or even much briefing) about whether a connected PAC is a "separate entity," for example, or whether "the advent of the Internet" would somehow actually "provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters," the CU court didn't just allow Citizens United to distribute its movie, it broadly concluded that independent expenditures by anyone simply pose no risk of regulable corruption.  Ever, in any circumstance.

So a complaint that Ginsberg and Breyer too quickly blur the distinctions between the "corporateness" of particular IE's on the one hand and the validity of anyone's concerns about whether "independent" expenditures give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption more generally is fair enough, but I still think it's an equally fair complaint against the opinion that opened the door to all of it.

Best,
Joe

P.S.  And sorry if I got lost anywhere in that recap at the top of this email, we Padawan learners tend to mix up the FRCP and the FRCrimP when confronted with too much sonorous chanting.

________________________________

From: BZall at aol.com<mailto:BZall at aol.com> [mailto:BZall at aol.com<mailto:BZall at aol.com>]
Sent: Wed 2/22/2012 8:53 AM
To: Joseph Birkenstock
Cc: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Truth to power?

[nods] Indeed. The litigator's eternal dilemma. And in response, a merciful Lady Justice, having peeped under her blindfold to see the anguish of those proposing issue resolution not tied to "obvious" facts, grimaced, raised her right hand, with her sword en sixte, and flicked it upward, drawing forth what we all know today as . . . Rule 12(b)(1). Inculcated in generations of DoJ padawan learners in the creche, surrounded by the ghosts of Swierkiewicz and his eternal enemy Sorema N.A., sonorously chanting "12(b)(1), . . . 12(b)(1) . . . 12(b)(1)," the cadaverous DoJedi Masters lean in to fiercely hiss "END this!" (And I speak as one who has stood at the podium as Justice Scalia (one of MY votes!) turns to his colleagues and says: "he wants to be here, but I don't think he has a right to be here.")

Still, . . . a real teachable moment here, and I'm not referring to the also-correct issue of facial challenges requiring an explanation for every constitutional use. Examine for a moment the purpose and undoubtedly-unintended effect of the rule requiring a factual basis in the context of the Montana concurrence. The facts in Western Tradition as laid out relate to corporations, as does the Montana Supreme Court challenge to Citizens United. Indeed, that was the constant attack on CU at the beginning, a reprise of Austin's anti-distortion rationale just struck down. And that is unquestionably what JBG means.

Yet, as today's front page story in the Washington Post demonstrates, the "huge money" is not coming from corporations. The corporate funding "unleashed" by CU amounts to only 23% of superPAC funding.  <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/super-pac-donors-revealed-who-are-the-power-players-in-the-gop-primary/2012/02/21/gIQAPU3BSR_story.html?hpid=z1> http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/corporations-are-sending-more-contributions-to-super-pacs/2012/02/02/gIQAL4dYlQ_story.html
Most of the "huge" money is coming from individuals. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/super-pac-donors-revealed-who-are-the-power-players-in-the-gop-primary/2012/02/21/gIQAPU3BSR_story.html?hpid=z1 Sheldon Adelson says he feels so strongly he might spend $100 million. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2012/02/21/billionaire-sheldon-adelson-says-he-might-give-100m-to-newt-gingrich-or-other-republican/ And, as has been discussed here, those individuals were free to spend before CU.

So let's take JBG at her words:

Montana's experience, and experience elsewhere since this Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U. S. ___ (2010), make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." Id., at ___ (slip op., at 42). A petition for certiorari will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates' allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.

Lady Justice's wisdom in requiring facts to illuminate the real issues presented may be a dilemma, but it is probably one that betters Justice. Justices Ginsburg and Breyer believe that the "huge sums" are "deployed" "by corporations" when they are actually given by individuals. I believe that it is wrong to claim that CU "held" that corporations are people. Whatever your position on that, two Justices have now endorsed the concept in reverse. They are not saying that corporations are people; they are saying that people are corporations.

Barnaby Zall
Of Counsel
Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani, LLP
Please note our new address:
10411 Motor City Dr., Suite 500
Bethesda, MD 20817
301-231-6943<tel:301-231-6943> (direct dial)
www.wjlaw.com<http://www.wjlaw.com/> <http://www.wj/>
bzall at aol.com<mailto:bzall at aol.com>

_____________________________________________________________
U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice

Any U.S. federal tax advice included in this communication (including
any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding U.S. federal tax-related penalties
or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
tax-related matter addressed herein.
_____________________________________________________________
Confidentiality

The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is
intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally
privileged. It is not intended as legal advice, and may not be relied upon
or used as legal advice. Nor does this communication establish an attorney
client relationship between us. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original
message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank you.
______________________________________________________________

In a message dated 2/21/2012 6:59:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, jbirkenstock at capdale.com<mailto:jbirkenstock at capdale.com> writes:

    True enough Barnaby, good point.  I had the impression that DOJ would have much preferred the Court to similarly require a factual record suitable to a facial challenge to 441b, once the Court un-stipulated that issue in CU itself, but I also think I see the reasoning behind idea that the Supreme Court isn't precluded from revisiting an issue "passed upon" by a lower court if the Supremes feel that issue is the one that should properly decide the case.

    But that said, I just think that state of affairs poses an excruciating problem for government lawyers - do they have to develop (and convince a district court judge to allow them to develop) a factual record sufficient to answer every conceivable constitutional argument in every case, even where the defendant/other litigant is willing to stipulate those issues away?  Just seems like they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
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.
<-->

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120222/ff2e1c20/attachment.html>