[EL] Fortune 500 election-related contributions

[Marty Lederman]

Thanks, Rick.  My assumption, however, is that all or virtually all of the
spending in question has *not* been used for advertising in the form of
"magic words."  Accordingly, that spending could have been used after WRtL,
even if CU had come out the other way, right?  And if I understand your
post correctly, to the extent there has been an uptick in "magic words"
independent expenditures, it might well be because they are subject to
lesser disclosure rules than ECs, and not to CU.

Is this correct?

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  I think the answer to this is complicated by the fact that there is now a
> fuller disclosure regime for electioneering communications than for
> independent expenditures (an ironic result of the van Hollen decision).
> But given the close timing of the two cases I don't think there's any way
> to tease out what kind of spending WRTL II would have unleashed without
> CU.  You can see from the chart I sent around earlier that ECs were way up
> in 2008 compared to 2004 (that is, in the period between WRTL and CU) but
> that ECs/IEs are way up over 2008 as well.
>
>
> On 7/9/2012 10:55 AM, Marty Lederman wrote:
>
> If I may repeat a question I've asked before (to which I have yet to see
> any answer -- perhaps I'm the only one who's interested!):
>
> To the extent spending has materially increased or changed in nature in
> these past two or so election cycles, how much of the change can be chalked
> up to Wisconsin Right to Life rather than to CU?
>
> That is to say:  Is an appreciable amount of the spending about which
> you're all debating being expended for "magic words" advertising, or could
> all or almost all of it have been spent after WRtL, even if CU had come out
> the other way?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>>  It would be nice if we could have some data to back up such assertions
>> either way.  Based on the data we have (see below), it sure does look like
>> CU changed the extent of outside spending---corporate or not.
>> On 7/9/2012 10:01 AM, Kelner, Robert wrote:
>>
>>  Lloyd Mayer’s response to Rick’s question below is exactly right.
>> There was lots and lots of pre-CU c4 and c6 election-related activity (in
>> the lay sense of that term), and a good chunk of it was corporate funded.
>> I don’t think that is or was exactly a state secret.  I am hardly the first
>> person to make this point.  And acknowledging that history is critical to
>> avoid misleading claims that CU somehow changed the way the world works.
>> It did not.
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert K. Kelner
>> COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
>> 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
>> Washington, DC 20004
>> phone: (202) 662-5503 <%28202%29%20662-5503>
>> fax: (202) 778-5503 <%28202%29%20778-5503>
>> rkelner at cov.com
>>
>> This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is
>> confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,
>> please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has
>> been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your
>> system. Thank you for your cooperation.
>>
>>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.htmlhttp://electionlawblog.org
> Pre-order The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTvwww.thevotingwars.com
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120709/94560134/attachment.html>