[EL] Fortune 500 election-related contributions

[Rick Hasen]

If I understand correctly, everything done by a Super PAC (and other 
political committees registered with the FEC) counts as an IE.  When 
done by a c4 and other outside groups not registered with the FEC, it is 
not an IE without express advocacy.

On 7/9/2012 11:46 AM, Marty Lederman wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>>     <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.
>>>
>>>
>

-- 
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/20120709/29e98531/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 10556 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120709/29e98531/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 10364 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120709/29e98531/attachment-0001.png>