[EL] Fortune 500 election-related contributions
Trevor Potter
tpotter at capdale.com
Mon Jul 9 11:12:52 PDT 2012
Unfortunately, this summary does not break out c6 spending. Is sub-data for just that category--trade associations-available?
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 9, 2012, at 1:48 PM, "Craig Holman" <holman at aol.com> wrote:
>
> Colleagues:
>
>
> Spending by outside groups on electioneering communications and independent expenditures increased 427% in the 2010 congressional elections over the 2006 congressional elections. Presumably -- though it is uncertain given the lack of disclosure -- most of this increase in spending came from the new corporate sources of campaign money provided by the Citizens United decision.
>
>
> An analysis of the figures is attached.
>
>
>
>
> Craig Holman, Ph.D.
> Government Affairs Lobbyist
> Public Citizen
> 215 Pennsylvania Avenue SE
> Washington, D.C. 20003
> T-(202) 454-5182
> C-(202) 905-7413
> F-(202) 547-7392
> Holman at aol.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com>
> To: Kelner, Robert <rkelner at cov.com>
> Cc: law-election <law-election at uci.edu>
> Sent: Mon, Jul 9, 2012 1:38 pm
> Subject: Re: [EL] Fortune 500 election-related contributions
>
>
> 1) Pre-BCRA corporations seeking non-disclosure while influencing elections could still spend through c4s and c 6s . The reality is that they were more interested in influencing sitting officeholders and legislation, which is why they gave to the national party committees, usually at the behest of officeholders (Congressional leaders and the President). Sometimes they gave to BOTH parties, because the game was buying influence, or paying what a corporate exec called " extortion money"-- not in buying election results.
> 2) HAVE c6 expenditures for political ads gone up since 2008? That is by definition corporate money...and should be ascertainable.
> Trevor
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 9, 2012, at 1:30 PM, "Kelner, Robert" <rkelner at cov.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> I’ll make one more comment, and then will desist. Both academics and the media have a tendency to make broad claims about the pernicious effects of CU, but then to defend against counterarguments by pointing to the lack of disclosed data supporting those arguments. But where is the data to support the view that there was a material surge in corporate spending? There is none. Because current disclosure regimes do not require such data to be disclosed, the CRP chart that you sent is useless for addressing the level of corporate election spending. The fact is that neither side in this debate has good data to point to. And as I noted, that wasn’t always so. Pre-BCRA, there was lots of data about corporate spending. It was in the political parties’ “soft money” disclosure reports to the FEC -- which BCRA did away with….
>
>
> Robert K. Kelner
> COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
> 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
> Washington, DC 20004
> phone: (202) 662-5503
> fax: (202) 778-5503
> 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.
>
> From: Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu]
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 1:12 PM
> To: Kelner, Robert
> Cc: 'law-election at uci.edu'
> Subject: Re: [EL] Fortune 500 election-related contributions
>
>
> 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
> fax: (202) 778-5503
> 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.
>
> From: Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu]
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 12:32 PM
> To: Kelner, Robert
> Cc: 'law-election at uci.edu'
> Subject: Re: [EL] Fortune 500 election-related contributions
>
>
> As I understand it---and please correct me if I'm wrong because you are much closer to how these groups actually operate---before CU, you did not see c4s engaging in much election-related activity, so money going into c4s from corporations did not fund such ads.
>
> See this chart from the Center for Responsive Politics:
>
> <image001.png>
>
> On 7/9/12 9:26 AM, Kelner, Robert wrote:
>
> Yes, but the whole line of discussion, to which I was responding, was about how much of this new spending is from Fortune 500 companies. It would be a fallacy to assume that overall increased spending means a significant surge in Fortune 500 spending. There was lots of election year Fortune 500 and corporate spending on c4s and c6s before CU.
>
>
> From: Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu]
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 12:18 PM
> To: Kelner, Robert
> Cc: 'law-election at uci.edu' <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Fortune 500 election-related contributions
>
>
> Agreed that it is hard to measure the extent to which it is corporate because of bad disclosure laws, but there is no question that outside spending is going way up this election, both relative to candidate/party spending and in absolute, inflation, adjusted numbers.
>
> On 7/9/12 9:08 AM, Kelner, Robert wrote:
>
> I would add that a critical threshold question here is how different (if at all) corporate donation patterns are during this election cycle as compared to prior cycles. It is almost impossible to analyze this question empirically because of the lack of publicly available data. And BCRA made that challenge even harder by forcing so much corporate money outside the disclosed world of the political parties. But it is certainly the case that Fortune 500 companies spent large sums on undisclosed election year donations to c4s and c6s prior to CU. Just as they do after CU. It is still far from clear that CU has fundamentally changed that dynamic or the scale of such spending.
>
>
> From: Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu]
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 11:59 AM
> To: law-election at uci.edu <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: [EL] Fortune 500 election-related contributions
>
>
> On Fortune 500 contributions, I predicted soon after CU that it would only blossom if it could be done through committees without full disclosure. We don't have a picture of how much of this corporate money for election-related activities is going through c4s, c6s (such as the Chamber), and the like, but the recent inadvertent revelations by Aetna suggest the amount of corporate funding is significant.
>
>
>
>
> On 7/9/12 8:45 AM, Smith, Brad wrote:
>
>
>
> Re Eliza's column: as Rick notes, the money quote is:
>
>
>
> "it’s time to set the record straight. No matter how you slice it, corporations are spending unprecedented sums in this campaign.”
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, Eliza's column proves no such thing. See http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2012/07/09/are-corporations-spending-unprecedented-sums-setting-the-record-straight/. But I was most pleased to see her also admit that “There’s plenty of room for disagreement over whether unrestricted political money helps or hurts campaigns... ." I'm not sure I've ever seen that concession from Eliza before.
>
>
>
> In any case, the goal of Citizens United was to allow greater spending, specifically by corporations. We would be shocked if that were not occur (especially if we only talk express advocacy to the general public, because, after all, that was illegal from 1947-2010). What I think is equally clear is that the bogeymen of the reform community - large, Fortune 500 companies - have been bit players. Which is also what we thought.
>
>
>
> Bradley A. Smith
> Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
> Professor of Law
> Capital University Law School
> 303 E. Broad St.
> Columbus, OH 43215
> 614.236.6317
> http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
>
>
>
>
>
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Rick Hasen [rhasen at law.uci.edu]
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 10:31 AM
> To: law-election at UCI.edu
> Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/9/12
>
>
> “Florida’s System Failure; The state’s effort to purge its voting rolls of noncitizens is still in chaos.”
>
> Posted on July 9, 2012 7:27 am by Rick Hasen
>
> Important Dave Wiegel Slate column.
>
> <image002.png>
>
>
> Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars | Comments Off
>
>
> Jeffrey Rosen on Blogification of the Judiciary
>
> Posted on July 9, 2012 7:19 am by Rick Hasen
>
> Rosen. “It’s not just lower court judges on the right who now ridicule Supreme Court precedents — judges on the left are equally assertive. Consider the recent Montana campaign finance case, which the Supreme Court reversed.”
>
> <image002.png>
>
>
> Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court | Comments Off
>
>
> “Rules of the Game: Debate Over Corporate Spending Spans Parallel Universes”
>
> Posted on July 9, 2012 7:14 am by Rick Hasen
>
> Eliza: “There’s plenty of room for disagreement over whether unrestricted political money helps or hurts campaigns and whether fixes such as full disclosure would work. But when starting points differ so wildly, it’s time to set the record straight. No matter how you slice it, corporations are spending unprecedented sums in this campaign.”
>
> <image002.png>
>
>
> Posted in campaign finance, tax law and election law | Comments Off
>
>
> “Making Sense of Chief Justice Roberts’ Opinion”
>
> Posted on July 9, 2012 7:08 am by Rick Hasen
>
> Jonathan Adler makes a lot of sense: “I can’t speak to how the Chief Justice interacted with his colleagues on the Court during the deliberations in NFIB v. Sebelius, or to whether he truly flip-flopped on the mandate or (as Mark Tushnet suggests) he had been the “least persuaded” of the anti-mandate arguments at the initial conference and eventually concluded that it could be upheld. I do, however, think many of the Chief Justice’s critics have failed to recognize how this opinion fits with what we’ve seen from the Chief in his first several years of the Court. Specifically, I believe we can explain Roberts’ vote in a way that is quite consistent with his behavior in other cases and that does not require ascribing political motives to him. While I am not persuaded by Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion, I believe it squares with his overall jurisprudential approach for reasons I first noted here and here, and will elaborate upon in this post….A second example can be found in Jeff Toobin’s behind-the-scenes account of Citizens United. There, Toobin reports, the Chief drafted an opinion that would have stretched the statute to exclude covering CU’s video, thereby avoiding the larger First Amendment question. While some academics and attorneys had advocated this result, few tried to argue that this outcome was dictated by the statutory text. In CU, as in NFIB, it turned out Roberts was the only one willing to accept this approach. The other conservatives were persuaded by Justice Kennedy to swing for the fences, and the Court’s liberals thought a saving construction was unnecessary to uphold the statute. After reargument, Roberts joined the Kennedy’s opinion invalidating the restrictions, but it appears not to have been his preferred course of action.”
> Jonathan also mentions the Chief’s opinion in WRTL II. I’d add NAMUDNO, and this makes me think that it was Roberts, not Kennedy, who pushed for avoiding the constitutional issue in NAMUDNO as to whether section 5 of the Voting Rights Act would stand.
> But for reasons I’ve expressed here, I don’t expect the Chief to continue to take that position when the issue returns to SCOTUS next term.
>
> <image002.png>
>
>
> Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court, Voting Rights Act | Comments Off
>
>
> “Protesters raise cloud of sand as Romney raises $3 million in N.Y.”
>
> Posted on July 9, 2012 7:05 am by Rick Hasen
>
> Well worth the read for the choice quotes.
>
> <image002.png>
>
>
> Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off
>
>
> “States’ voter ID laws could disenfranchise thousands in 2012″
>
> Posted on July 9, 2012 6:59 am by Rick Hasen
>
> AP reports.
>
> <image002.png>
>
>
> Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars, voter id | Comments Off
>
>
> “Urgency Reigns At Vote-Focused NAACP Convention”
>
> Posted on July 9, 2012 6:56 am by Rick Hasen
>
> The Root comments on this NPR report.
>
> <image002.png>
>
>
> Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars, voter id | Comments Off
>
>
> “Report on Anchorage Ballot Problems Highlights Importance of Turnout to Election Planning”
>
> Posted on July 9, 2012 6:50 am by Rick Hasen
>
> A Chapinblog.
>
> <image002.png>
>
>
> Posted in election administration | Comments Off
>
>
> Important Campaign Finance Story in The Hill with Misleading Lede
>
> Posted on July 9, 2012 6:49 am by Rick Hasen
>
> The article, “Outside groups switch election tactics to keep their donors secret,” begins: “Outside groups are going to extra lengths to keep their donors secret, worrying that public disclosure could open up their supporters to harassment.”
> The Hill has bought into the unsupported harassment nonsense. Better lede would have said “publicly claiming to worry that public disclosure could open up their supporters to harassment.”
> Still, the article is worth reading to look at the lengths corporations and others will go to to have speech, but no accountability.
>
> <image002.png>
>
>
> Posted in campaign finance, tax law and election law | Comments Off
>
>
> Redistricting Resource: Maps, Maps, Maps
>
> Posted on July 8, 2012 11:19 pm by Justin Levitt
>
> Also, another redistricting-related announcement. PDFs, ESRI shapefiles, and Google maps of all of the new federal and state redistricting lines, along with links to state pages with more data about the new districts, are now available here. (All, that is, except the states that aren’t yet done, and Rhode Island, which hasn’t yet made shapefiles publicly available.) For those looking to do research on the new lines before the Census turns around new data products, this collection of files should help.
>
> <image002.png>
>
>
> Posted in redistricting | Comments Off
>
>
> 175th (and 176th) Redistricting Lawsuit Filed
>
> Posted on July 8, 2012 11:14 pm by Justin Levitt
>
> That’s right — 40 states have now seen 176 lawsuits affecting redistricting this cycle … so far. Numbers 173-176 were filed challenging the newest Pennsylvania state maps late last week. Details on all of the litigation so far, here.
> Last cycle, there were 149 cases filed, and 150 cases the cycle before … which makes this cycle the most litigious in at least the last 30 years. And we’re not done yet.
>
> <image002.png>
>
>
> Posted in redistricting | Comments Off
>
>
> “Texas Photo-ID Law Vetted for Voter Bias in U.S. Trial”
>
> Posted on July 8, 2012 9:35 pm by Rick Hasen
>
> Bloomberg Businessweek reports.
>
> <image002.png>
>
>
> Posted in Department of Justice, election administration, The Voting Wars, voter id | Comments Off
>
>
> “Editorial: Walking a fine line on voter ID issue”
>
> Posted on July 8, 2012 8:39 pm by Rick Hasen
>
> Star-Tribune editorial: “The much-debated voter ID amendment is a potential minefield for Minnesota’s top elections official. Secretary of State Mark Ritchie’s opposition to the proposed changes in election law has been well-known for years. Yet now that the Legislature has put the issue on the ballot for voters, his office must be sure that the referendum is carried out fairly and impartially.”
>
> <image002.png>
>
>
> Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars, voter id | Comments Off
>
>
> The Second Jan Crawford Inside Dirt on SCOTUS is More Shocking than the First
>
> Posted on July 8, 2012 8:28 pm by Rick Hasen
>
> It was surprising enough to read Jan Crawford’s article last week detailing how the Chief Justice switched his vote in the health care case, much to the dismay of his Republican colleagues. The article set off a a firestorm of sorts among Court watchers about the rare leak of internal Court deliberations in real time.
> It was clear from the first article that the other conservative Justices were angry with Roberts. But what explains the new story from Crawford? Entitled Discord at Supreme Court is Deep, and Personal, the sole point of the additional leaks to Crawford appears to be to emphasize the nature of the anger of the other Supreme Court Justices at Roberts. Is the point to intimidate? As I‘ve said, I find it hard to believe that the Chief Justice could be intimidated by anyone to do anything but vote his conscience. If the point is to signal to the Chief that he had better get into line if he wants future cooperation from the other Justices, that seems like an idle threat—they need his vote to get anything done.
> Instead it looks like one or more Justices who remain emotional, and cannot move on—at least not yet. Or else, why talk to Crawford yet again?
> UPDATE: More thoughts from Orin Kerr.
>
> <image002.png>
>
>
> Posted in Supreme Court | Comments Off
>
>
> “Democrats to ask for curbs on donor-shielding groups”
>
> Posted on July 8, 2012 8:14 pm by Rick Hasen
>
> NYT: “The Democratic Party’s Senate campaign arm will file a formal complaint Monday, July 9, with the Federal Election Commission against three of the Republicans’ biggest campaign groups, accusing them of willful violations of federal election law and asking that their electioneering be stopped. The complaint by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee against Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, Americans for Prosperity and the 60 Plus Association begins a new phase in the Democrats’ struggle to keep pace with Republicans since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling. That decision cleared the way for unlimited campaign donations to a new breed of super PACs from corporations, unions and wealthy contributors.”
>
> <image002.png>
>
>
> Posted in campaign finance, tax law and election law | Comments Off
>
>
> Hunter Case Finally Over in Hamilton County, Ohio
>
> Posted on July 8, 2012 8:07 pm by Rick Hasen
>
> Good news for the parties that it is over. But there are some great uncertainties over how wrong precinct ballots cast in Ohio because of pollworker error should be counted. Ohio Sec. of State Husted faces conflicting edicts from the state Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit. An appeal might have helped to sort this out.
> This is the case Ned Foley had called the “most significant application” of Bush v. Gore.
> I talk about this litigation in some detail in Chapter 5 of The Voting Wars.
>
> <image002.png>
>
>
> Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars | Comments Off
>
>
> “Foes of Voter ID Laws Find Ways to Mute Their Impact”
>
> Posted on July 8, 2012 11:32 am by Rick Hasen
>
> National Journal reports.
>
> <image002.png>
>
>
> Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars, voter id | Comments Off
>
>
> “Meet the hanging chad of 2012″
>
> Posted on July 8, 2012 11:15 am by Rick Hasen
>
> Nate Persily nominates absentee ballots.
>
> <image002.png>
>
>
> Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars | Comments Off
>
> A Great Overview of the Marks-Aspen Battle over Ballot Transparency
>
> Posted on July 8, 2012 11:09 am by Rick Hasen
>
> Here, in the Aspen Daily News.
>
> <image002.png>
>
>
> Posted in election administration | Comments Off
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->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 anyattachments) was not intended or written to be used, andcannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-relatedpenalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting,marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-relatedmatter addressed herein. This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It isfrom a law firm and may contain information that is privileged andconfidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,copying, future distribution, or use of this communication isprohibited. If you have received this communication in error, pleaseadvise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communicationby fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.<-->
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> <Citizens-United-one year later.pdf>
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
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.
<-->
View list directory