[EL] Questions regarding numbers

[JBoppjr at aol.com]

I will take a shot at your questions:
 
1. I'd like to know your take on this article:  
_http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2012-gop-primary-shaping-up-to-be-cheapest-race-in-years/2012/03
/09/gIQAbf8q7R_story.html_ 
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2012-gop-primary-shaping-up-to-be-cheapest-race-in-years/2012/03/09/gIQAbf8q7R_story.
html) 
 
Another "sky-is-falling" claim of the reformers proves false.  But it  is 
unfortunate that spending is less, even with the help of Super PACs. We do  
not spend enough on elections, so that voters still don't have enough  
information to make informed choices. 

2. Would you say that this  assertation from the post is true or false?:
"Nonetheless, even the monied  super PACs haven’t closed the gap in 
spending compared with 2008. The top six  GOP super PACs spent about $37 million on 
behalf of their favored presidential  candidates through January, according 
to Federal Election Commission  data."
 
It is true that the combination of candidate and super PAC spending on the  
Republican Presidential primary race is less than 4 years ago. But this  
does not count the Democrat spending in the Republican primaries that has been 
 substantial and probably should be counted also.

3. Does the fact  that super PACs don't have to disclose everything to the 
FEC change  anything?
 
In fact, Super PACs disclose everything they do. They are federal  PACs and 
report all their contributions and  all their expenditures over  $200.  But 
I understand why you are confused.  The reporting on super  PACs has been 
so shoddy and the reformers characterizations of super pacs so  distorted 
that one could think this.

4. Are SuperPACs a creation from  the 2010 citizen united decision or were 
there some superPACs before  then?

No, super pacs are not the creation of CU, and yes, there were  super pacs 
before CU.. The Fourth Circuit in 2008 recognized, in  North Carolina v. 
Leake, that independent expenditure-only PAC, ie  Super Pacs, could not 
constitutionally have contribution limits.   The Citizens United decision 
reiterated the key parts of prior  Supreme Court decisions upon which Leake's 
decision was based. We would  have Super PAC's without CU, but CU did add unlimited 
 corporate and labor union contributions to them.

Jim Bopp
 
 
In a message dated 3/16/2012 4:57:35 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
vallet.elisabeth at uqam.ca writes:

Hi
I have 2 questions regarding the current election  finances:

1. I'd like to know your take on this article:  
_http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2012-gop-primary-shaping-up-to-be-cheapest-race-in-years/2012/03
/09/gIQAbf8q7R_story.html_ 
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2012-gop-primary-shaping-up-to-be-cheapest-race-in-years/2012/03/09/gIQAbf8q7R_story.
html) 

2.  Would you say that this assertation from the post is true or  false?:
"Nonetheless, even the monied super PACs haven’t closed the gap in  
spending compared with 2008. The top six GOP super PACs spent about $37  million on 
behalf of their favored presidential candidates through January,  according 
to Federal Election Commission data."

3. Does the fact that  super PACs don't have to disclose everything to the 
FEC change  anything?


4. Are SuperPACs a creation from the 2010 citizen united  decision or were 
there some superPACs before  then?

Thanks
Élisabeth

Elisabeth Vallet
Raoul-Dandurand  Chair at the University of Quebec in Montreal  

_______________________________________________
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/20120316/ec109110/attachment.html>