[EL] Quick Question on Super PACs/Briffault

[Marty Lederman]

Have been out of the loop on such questions for a while and was quickly
perusing Richard Briffault's article on "Super PACs," i.e., "independent
expenditure only" PACs, to see what all the fuss was about -- in
particular, what the difference is between 527s and Super PACs.  If I
understand Richard correctly, the principal difference appears to be that
Super PACs can engage in express advocacy.

Is that correct?  If so, why has it been an important development?  After
all, hadn't it long been the case that no one cared much about "magic
words," and that there was no evidence they had any greater impact than
non-express-advocacy?  (Why many of us thought WRtL, not Citizens United,
was the landmark case.)

Is that the major Super PAC development -- that all-of-a-sudden individuals
are making unlimited contributions to PACs *that engage in express advocacy*?
(I haven't seen a lot of "Vote for" ads lately -- but then again, it's
early and I don't live in a battleground state.)  If so, is there really a
huge demand for such advocacy, and is the resulting effect of such Super
PACs materially different from the effect of 527s?

Thanks in advance for any clarification.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120604/013729ca/attachment.html>