[EL] Fortune 500 election-related contributions

Rick Hasen rhasen at law.uci.edu
Mon Jul 9 11:14:12 PDT 2012


There was an uptick even before the change in the disclosure rules from 
van Hollen.  Here's a chart from CRP data of outside spending on IEs 
over time:




Now here's the same chart, adding ECs on top of the IEs in the 
translucent color---very little additional:



On 7/9/2012 11:09 AM, Marty Lederman wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>>     <mailto: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 <tel:%28202%29%20662-5503>
>>>         fax: (202) 778-5503 <tel:%28202%29%20778-5503>
>>>         rkelner at cov.com <mailto: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 92697-8000
>     949.824.3072  <tel:949.824.3072>  - office
>     949.824.0495  <tel:949.824.0495>  - fax
>     rhasen at law.uci.edu  <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>     http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
>     http://electionlawblog.org
>     Pre-order The Voting Wars:http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
>     www.thevotingwars.com  <http://www.thevotingwars.com>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org
Pre-order The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
www.thevotingwars.com



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120709/d5b1b357/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cjiigcij.png
Type: image/png
Size: 10556 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120709/d5b1b357/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cifghhbg.png
Type: image/png
Size: 10364 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120709/d5b1b357/attachment-0001.png>


View list directory