[EL] Fortune 500 election-related contributions

[Marty Lederman]

I see.  I think.  Is this right?:  Because WRtL was nominally only a
statutory construction decision, then in the period between WRtL and CU, if
a corporation wanted to spend treasury funds for *non-*express advocacy --
the only kind of advocacy anyone actually wants to use these days -- it
could freely do so in its own name, or by funding a (c)(4) not registered
with the FEC.  But it could not, pre-CU, achieve the same thing by funding
an FEC-registered committee (which it might prefer to do . . . why?  less
disclosure than w/r/t committees that are not FEC-registered?).

If this is correct -- and please forgive me if I still have it wrong --
then the "floodgate" CU opened, over and above what was permitted by WRTL,
was to allow treasury funds to be used to fund *FEC-registered* PACs.  And
this, in turn, dramatically increased the amount of such funds that were
expended -- presumably because corporations were reluctant to fund ads when
only the first two options were available post-WRtL.  If that's the case,
why was the addition of this third option such a sea-change?


On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  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> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> 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/20120709/52c3b87a/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/20120709/52c3b87a/attachment.png>
-------------- 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/20120709/52c3b87a/attachment-0001.png>