[EL] Fortune 500 election-related contributions

[Marty Lederman]

Whoa!  If I'm reading those charts correctly (and I might not be), the vast
majority of such spending has been on independent expenditures, not
electioneering communications!  And yet in all this time, I don't think
I've seen a *single *ad that uses the magic words, i.e., that could not
have been characterized as an electioneering communication subject to
WRtL.  Is this simply a matter of self-chosen nomenclature, i.e., calling
ECs "independent expenditures" (perhaps for disclosure reasons)?  Or have I
simply missed a huge outpouring of "magic words" ads that corporations and
unions were just chomping at the bit to subsidize with treasury funds, even
post-WRtL, that have now been unleashed by virtue of CU?

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  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> 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.
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120709/64628fac/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/20120709/64628fac/attachment.png>
-------------- 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/20120709/64628fac/attachment-0001.png>