[EL] DC corruption and disclosure/intimidation

[Robbin Stewart]

So far all I know about the DC situation is what I read in the Washington
Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/11/three-on-dc-council-ask-mayor-gray-to-resign
. One of the things that struck my about the situation is that shadow
campaign probably put false disclaimers on their yard signs. But DC's
disclaimer rules are unconstitutional for the reasons set out in Talley and
Mcintyre, cases which are still good law after CU except as to
corporations. As far as I know the shadow campaign used Thompson's personal
funds rather than corporate. So there is standing and motive for somebody
to finally challenge DC's unconstitutional political speech restrictions.
It's not the perfect set of facts, but sometimes it takes somebody with a
lot of money to bring the cases that help keep things safe for the little
guy. (I'm not sure if DC can be sued under 1985 in the same way that a
municipality in a state can.)

As far as anecdotes about intimidation and retaliation go, a few personal
examples. Ever since I was in a boys state-type program as a teenager, I've
wanted to work with a state legislature. In 1993 I had an internship lined
up with the Missouri legislature. But I was outed as a Libertarian in a
newspaper photo,and a few days later I lost the internship as a result.

In 2000, I ran for judge in my county,and help recruit a slate of judge
candidates. It was very difficult to recruit candidates who practiced in
that county. We had to focus on people who were retired, or independently
wealthy, or who lived in county A but worked in county B, or who were
crazy. Sane employed lawyers did not want to risk running and losing to
judges who they would expect to be practicing in front of. In our county
getting nominated is tantamount to getting elected,and getting slated is
tantamount to getting nominated,and being chosen by the  county chairman is
tantamount to getting slated. So people don't want to be seen as crossing
the chair. This year we have one candidate, a guy who feels his job in the
prosecutor's office is safe. This is the first year since 2000 we've run
anyone for those offices. So in my experience, retaliation and intimidation
are the norm, not the exception.

  Today I was visiting my roommate's workplace at an electric car repair
shop,and hearing about today's visit from the city's business sign
censorship guy, telling him he couldn't put out signs explaining what
services he offers. At my office on the same street, I don't have any signs
out,and I don't get a lot of foot traffic.


On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com>wrote:

>  The rapid unraveling of DC's government, including Tuesday's revelation
> of a "shadow campaign" on behalf of Mayor Vincent Gray funded by city
> contractor Jeffrey Thompson offers an interesting case study in the
> questions about disclosure of large electoral expenditures and potential
> "retaliation" by government that Steve Hoersting, Brad Smith, and their
> friend the Senate Minority Leader have been talking about.
>
> According to the Post:
>
> >>Harris said Thompson<http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/home-office-of-dc-contractor-jeffrey-thompson-raided-by-federal-agents/2012/03/02/gIQAOgH4nR_story.html>opted to hide his campaign largesse in large part to avoid angering Fenty,
> whose administration his businesses relied on for contracts. The Medicaid
> deal held by his D.C. Chartered Health Plan is the city’s largest contract:
> It is worth more than $300 million yearly.
>
> “He did not want the sitting mayor to find out he was supporting his
> opponent,” Harris said. “If somehow the sitting mayor won, he would be in
> some serious contractual problems.”<<
>
> Harris (the Gray fundraiser who agreed to plead guilty Tuesday) may not be
> telling the truth, or accurately representing Thompson's fears, but let's
> assume she is. In theory, this should be a perfect example of exactly what
> Steve et al have been worrying about -- a businessperson fearing
> retaliation from government for expressing his political views. But I don't
> see the campaignfreedom.org blog rallying to the defense of Mr. Thompson.
>
> Perhaps that's because the better way to look at the story is that
> Thompson was not expressing political views so much as covering his bets.
> He has no views other than his interests in getting more government money.
> He expects to have more clout in a Gray administration (especially because
> that administration will feel more obligated to him), but does not want to
> jeopardize his partial success with the Fenty administration. So he makes
> his expenditures secretly, through Harris and other channels. (The
> implication of the articles is that he could have done the same thing
> openly, which I'm not sure is true.)
>
> Nondisclosure allowed Thompson to basically operate without expressing a
> political choice, by making contributions that he hoped would ensure access
> and influence no matter which candidate won. That seems to me a more
> generalizable explanation for corporations and individuals wanting to keep
> large expenditures undisclosed than is the "retaliation" story. And
> disclosure can provide a strong disincentive to this kind of corruption.
>
>
>
> --
> Mark Schmitt
> Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute
> 202/246-2350
> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
> twitter: @mschmitt9
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120712/4764cc81/attachment.html>