[EL] Campaign finance reform and social choice

[Joe La Rue]

Samuel,

Good question. No, I don't really mean to say that one should only be able
to use money he has worked to earn. Certainly, I think the currenty
Kennedys, who inherited much of their money from the efforts of Joe
Kennedy, have a right to use it for speech if they want. I, however, didn't
inherit money -- so I was thinking about it relative to my situation. Any
money that I would spend for speech is money that I've had to work hard for
to earn. And it just seems to me that government has no business telling
me, or you, or the Kennedys, that we can't use our money to speak
out against government, or to speak out in favor of government for that
matter.
Joe
___________________
*Joseph E. La Rue*
cell: 513.509.6494
email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
and destroy all copies of the original message.



On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Samuel Bagenstos <sbagen at gmail.com> wrote:

> I hate to intrude on this discussion, for many reasons.  But I'm wondering
> what work the phrase "that I worked hard for" does in Joe's argument here.
>  Joe, do you mean to say that if you didn't work hard for your money that
> we can stop you from using it to finance your speech?  That if other people
> worked harder for less money it would be appropriate to amplify their
> voices at your expense?  Or maybe that we can limit speech financed by
> investment income but not that financed by wages?  Just curious.
>
> Samuel R. Bagenstos
> Professor of Law
> University of Michigan Law School
> 625 S. State St.
> Ann Arbor, MI  48109
> sambagen at umich.edu
> http://web.law.umich.edu/_FacultyBioPage/facultybiopagenew.asp?ID=411
> http://disabilitylaw.blogspot.com/
> Twitter: @sbagen
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 3, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Joe La Rue wrote:
>
> Hit send before I meant to. Sorry. Wanted to add this:
>
> I think the Founders would be aghast at the efforts of some to restrict
> speech. I can earn money, but you and the other reformers want me to only
> be able to use a small part of it to speak words that I want to say. As the
> Ninth Circuit recognized in *Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce v. Long
> Beach*, 603 F.3d 684, 686 (9th Cir. 2010), "more speech" often means
> "more money." Yet you and other reformers would have government tell me I
> can't spend my money, that I worked hard for, in order to engage in speech
> I want to engage in. You would limit what I can say in criticism of one
> candidate, or in support of another.
>
> I'm offended by that and think the Founders would be aghast at it.
>
>
> Joe
> ___________________
> *Joseph E. La Rue*
> cell: 513.509.6494
> email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments,
> is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law.
> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
> e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Joe La Rue <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Joseph, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> *Actually, I thought we fought the revolution to replace government by
>> the landed gentry and the ecclesiastical institutions of the monarchy with
>> governing institutions accountable to every citizen on a per-person basis
>> (i.e., not accountable in proportion to their real estate holdings or other
>> wealth, or to the quality of their faith, but equally accountable to every
>> citizen).*
>>
>> Actually, you thought wrong. In the early years of the Republic, the
>> various states determined who could vote. While there were some exceptions,
>> generally they restrictred suffrage to white males who owned property.
>> While it is true that black slaves were not considered citizens of the
>> Republic, in some places free blacks were. And in all places, white women
>> were considered citizens. Yet these citizens could not vote. Thus, your
>> thought that the Revolution was to make government "equally accountable to
>> every citizen" is wrong. In reality, it was "the landed gentry" who had
>> "real estate holdings" and "wealth" who continued to dominate government in
>> the early days of the Republic. They were the ones who could vote, and they
>> were the ones who were elected to serve (consider the vast landholdings of
>> Washington and Jefferson, for example).
>>
>> Further, the American Colonists were not subject to "ecclesiastical
>> institutions," and it is doubtful (at least to me) that they fought the
>> Revolution to be free of such. Certainly, once the Revolution was won, the
>> Founders recognized the danger of a federal, state church. That is no doubt
>> why the First Amendment was crafted: the Founders wanted to keep government
>> out of the churches, and did not want a state church such as England had.
>> But I seriously doubt that was a motivating factor for *fighting *the
>> Revolution.
>>
>> Additionally, in the early days of the Republic and well into the modern
>> era, some states had requirements that those who served in government
>> profess faith in God. While that has been ruled unconstitutional as a
>> violation of the First Amendment, it is simply wrong to state that the
>> Founders
>> fought the Revolution without thought to the faith of the men who would
>> govern the Republic. The "quality of their faith" was actually very
>> important to many in the Founding generation, as well as subsequent
>> generations.
>>
>> Finally, you said:
>> **
>>
>> *one of our major political parties is now dedicated to undermining
>> those democratically accountable institutions under the assumption that
>> hamstringing the elected government will leave us all less governed.*
>>
>>
>> In response, I can only say, "Oh, please." Republicans don't want to
>> undermine democratically accountable institutions. I think an argument
>> could better be made that the current President is undermining them with
>> the appointment of his many and assundry czars, most of whom hold positions
>> that should have required Senate confirmation.
>>
>> Joe
>> ___________________
>> *Joseph E. La Rue*
>> cell: 513.509.6494
>> email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
>>
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments,
>> is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
>> confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law.
>> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
>> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
>> e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Joseph Birkenstock <
>> jbirkenstock at capdale.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, I thought we fought the revolution to replace government by
>>> the landed gentry and the ecclesiastical institutions of the monarchy with
>>> governing institutions accountable to every citizen on a per-person basis
>>> (i.e., not accountable in proportion to their real estate holdings or other
>>> wealth, or to the quality of their faith, but equally accountable to every
>>> citizen).
>>>
>>> Of course, one of our major political parties is now dedicated to
>>> undermining those democratically accountable institutions under the
>>> assumption that hamstringing the elected government will leave us all less
>>> governed.  Strikes me as either comically short-sighted, or as just a
>>> canard for the redistribution of governing power back to the gentry and to
>>> the church, but what do I know...
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> Joseph M. Birkenstock, Esq.
>>> Caplin & Drysdale, Chtd.
>>> One Thomas Circle, NW
>>> Washington, DC 20005
>>> (202) 862-7836
>>> www.capdale.com/jbirkenstock
>>> *also admitted to practice in CA
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu on behalf of Joe La
>>> Rue
>>> Sent: Thu 5/3/2012 10:22 AM
>>> To: JBoppjr at aol.com
>>> Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> Subject: Re: [EL] Campaign finance reform and social choice
>>>
>>>
>>> Jim, I am surprised you don't understand. It's BAD for people to work
>>> hard, earn money, and then do whatever they want with it - especially if
>>> they want to use it to speak about things that really matter, like who we
>>> should elect to govern us.  Better for the government to tell us what to do
>>> with the money we earn. I mean, can you imagine the HORROR that would ensue
>>> if rich people were actually free to spend their own money on the speech
>>> they want to engage in? After all, we fought a revolution so government
>>> could control us and tell us what do do with our own property. Oh, wait ...
>>>
>>> On May 3, 2012, at 9:41 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        Dan, thank you for your response.  I have a comment regarding 2
>>> of your points:
>>>
>>>        (1) "I expected a more reasoned argument from Mr. Bopp."
>>>
>>>            I set out my reasoning in my comment before I ask you this
>>> question.  My reasoning was also set out in previous comments on this
>>> thread.
>>>
>>>          Again, my point was that you were saying that it is a problem
>>> that rich people support candidates who agree with them.  If it is a
>>> problem when contributors support candidates who agree with them, and it is
>>> a problem when a contributor supports a candidate who disagrees with him or
>>> her in order to influence the candidates vote (quid-pro-quo) then no one
>>> can support any candidate without it being a problem.  You then cannot
>>> conduct elections at all without these "problems.".  So my questions was:
>>>  what system do you support?
>>>
>>>        (2) "How about "insurgent" candidates even in the Democratic and
>>> Republic primaries who have not already been selected by the big-money
>>> donors?"
>>>
>>>        First, there are many "insurgent" candidates supported by big
>>> contributors, but under the campaign finance contribution limits it is hard
>>> for them to do it and thus become know. Stewart Mott's support of Gene
>>> McCarthy is one example before contribution limits, and the rich folks who
>>> gave to Super PACs supporting Santorum and Gingrich are others.
>>>
>>>        But you ask the question in a way that means that I can never
>>> give an answer acceptable to you.  You say tell me about "insurgents" "who
>>> have not already been selected by the big-money donors."  Well that means
>>> that as soon as a big-money donor contributes -- the example is eliminated.
>>> There are never any insurgents, who are selected for support by at least
>>> one-money donor, who is also not selected for support by at least one-money
>>> donor.
>>>
>>>        Jim
>>>
>>>        In a message dated 5/3/2012 1:10:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>>> dan at meek.net writes:
>>>
>>>                Returning to Mr. Bopp's reply to me:
>>>
>>>
>>>                        "It appears that you just don't like the way
>>> democratic elections work. What system do you prefer, a monarchy?"
>>>
>>>
>>>                I expected a more reasoned argument from Mr. Bopp.
>>>  Elections are more "democratic" when there are reasonable limits on
>>> political contributions and independent expenditures and when the
>>> identities of the contributors and independent expenders are disclosed.
>>>  Mr. Bopp seems to believe that the only "democratic" election is one in
>>> which voters can be swayed by campaigns funded by unlimited contributions
>>> and expenditures.  I am not sure whether he thinks the sources of those
>>> funds should be disclosed.
>>>
>>>
>>>                        "Furthermore, there are huge providers of money
>>> behind every political party, every ideology and almost every candidate I
>>> can think of.  So no matter who wins there are rich people behind them.
>>>  There is no such thing as only people of average means behind one
>>> candidate and only rich people behind another."
>>>
>>>
>>>                No, there are not huge providers of money behind
>>> political parties/candidates besides the general election candidates of the
>>> 2 major parties.  Can Mr. Bopp really think of Green candidates with huge
>>> providers of money?  How about non-affiliated candidates?  How about
>>> "insurgent" candidates even in the Democratic and Republic primaries who
>>> have not already been selected by the big-money donors?  His thinking seems
>>> to be limited to only the general election nominees of the 2 major parties
>>> and nothing else.  But those elections are typically between two
>>> candidates, each of whom has already been selected by the large
>>> contributors and/or expenders.
>>>
>>>
>>>                        "If you look at the overall demographics of
>>> voting in the U.S. The Democrats are predominately supported by (1) the
>>> very rich and (2) the very poor. So if your theory is that the rich line up
>>> against the poor, it is actually flat wrong."
>>>
>>>
>>>                Of course, that is not my theory and is not relevant to
>>> my statement.  Further, both the Democrats and the Republicans are
>>> predominantly supported by corporations and wealthy individuals, while the
>>> Democrats also receive most of the monetary support from unions.  The
>>> Republicans use part of this money to persuade low-income "Christian
>>> conservatives" to vote for them, while the Democrats use part of this money
>>> persuade other low-income folks to vote for them.  The result is election
>>> of candidates selected by the big contributors and independent expenders.
>>>
>>>                Poor folks make virtually no monetary political
>>> contributions.  I recently read that 94% of Americans make zero political
>>> contributions, while 99.5% contribute less than $200.  In Oregon, under a
>>> regime of no enforcement of limits on political contributions, over 87% of
>>> the funds contributed to campaigns in 2010 came in amounts of $500 or more
>>> per contribution.  Poor folks are not using money to select the candidates
>>> who win.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dan Meek
>>> dan at meek.net
>>>        10949 S.W. 4th Ave
>>> Portland, OR 97219       503-293-9021
>>> 866-926-9646 fax
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>                On 5/2/2012 10:52 AM, Milyo, Jeffrey D. wrote:
>>>
>>>                        Overstatement? Well, I never!
>>>
>>>                        Dan makes a good point that the claim about
>>> public interest is unnecessary, but being told you are partly correct is
>>> sort of like being only mostly dead... Ken M.'s response is correct and
>>> sufficient as a response, but in the custom of this company, I'll expound
>>> further:
>>>
>>>                        Dan is correct that there are special cases
>>> (e.g., the median voter theorem) in which it may make sense to speak of a
>>> "public interest" (I would argue even those cases); but as a general
>>> proposition, definitely not...
>>>
>>>                        In general and in the abstract (absent
>>> institutional constraints) majority rule processes are intransitive
>>> (unpredictable); further, even when institutions constrain majority rule to
>>> some equilibrium outcome, there are in general, multiple equilibria.
>>>  Further, pure majority rule is but one process, and different collective
>>> choice rules (institutions) can lead to different outcomes even holding
>>> constant individual preferences.  That is the basis for my claim that the
>>> most important lesson from social choice theory in the last 50 years is
>>> that *in general* the concept of a public interest is nonsense...  (and I
>>> thought was being understated; I really think it is the most important
>>> lesson from social choice *ever*... see all of the crimes against humanity
>>> committed for some supposed greater good).
>>>
>>>                        As for the claim that because there is some
>>> correlation between democracy and what I called "good outcomes," there must
>>> be a notion of the public interest that defines "good outcomes"... I only
>>> mean that when some scholars hold up some outcomes as desirable, you may
>>> well find some correlation... but if you want to say that this implies
>>> there exists a consensual public interest to prevent famine or reduce
>>> infant mortality, I guess I could go along with it that far... (although
>>> some current and historical governments might disagree).  I'll look forward
>>> to the evidence that campaign finance reforms prevent famines or improve
>>> life expectancy... But if you mean something more fine-grained by "public
>>> interest", that's nonsense -- on stilts.
>>>
>>>
>>>                        Jeff
>>>
>>>                        -----Original Message-----
>>>                        From: Lowenstein, Daniel [mailto:
>>> lowenstein at law.ucla.edu]
>>>                        Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 11:31 AM
>>>                        To: Milyo, Jeffrey D.; Kurt Walters;
>>> JBoppjr at aol.com; dan at meek.net
>>>                        Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>>                        Subject: RE: [EL] Campaign finance reform and
>>> social choice
>>>
>>>                                  Prudence suggests caution before taking
>>> issue with Jeff Milyo, but caution be damned, it is an overstatement for
>>> him to say "50 years of social choice theory have taught us ... that there
>>> is no such thing as 'the' public interest."  Indeed, it was precisely 50
>>> years ago that one of the three or four most important founders of social
>>> choice theory, Anthony Downs, published an article in Social Research
>>> entitled "The Public Interest: Its Meaning in a Democracy."  Jeff's 50-year
>>> period embraces the 40-year life span of an influential journal, in which
>>> major social choice theorists such as Downs and Mancur Olson frequently
>>> published, entitled "The Public Interest."  Jeff's own message claims that
>>> "there are some broad correlations between democracy and good national
>>> outcomes."  What can he mean by "good national outcomes" other than
>>> outcomes that are in the public interest?  Indeed, outcomes that are in
>>> "the" public interest.
>>>
>>>                                   Jeff does not need to base his
>>> argument on such a falsely strong premise.  The plausible view of Downs and
>>> many, many others is that while there is a public interest that can advance
>>> or decline, many and probably most of the matters that make up day-to-day
>>> political struggles either pit one legitimate interest against another and
>>> therefore cannot be resolved by applying the concept of the public
>>> interest, or affect the public interest so obliquely and uncertainly, that
>>> as a practical matter, again, it is not helpful or at least not decisive to
>>> analyze in terms of the public interest.  That is a sufficient premise for
>>> the argument Jeff makes in his message.
>>>
>>>                                     Best,
>>>
>>>                                     Daniel H. Lowenstein
>>>                                     Director, Center for the Liberal
>>> Arts and Free Institutions (CLAFI)
>>>                                     UCLA Law School
>>>                                     405 Hilgard
>>>                                     Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
>>>                                     310-825-5148
>>>
>>>
>>>                        ________________________________
>>>                        From:
>>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
>>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Milyo,
>>> Jeffrey D. [milyoj at missouri.edu]
>>>                        Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 8:25 AM
>>>                        To: Kurt Walters; JBoppjr at aol.com; dan at meek.net
>>>                        Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>>                        Subject: Re: [EL] Campaign finance reform and
>>> social choice
>>>
>>>                        The "home of the brave" debate has morphed into
>>> an argument that is more a disagreement based on different premises about
>>> how democracy "works" ...  (Kurt W. is romantic; Jim B. is enlightened...)
>>>
>>>                        If the last 50 years of social choice theory have
>>> taught us anything, it's that there is no such thing as "the" public
>>> interest; it is a fundamentally nonsensical concept.  Once we move away
>>> from the Romantic fantasy that it is possible to construct a set of
>>> institutions that implement a General Will, the argument for reform becomes
>>> a little more challenging... It is not sufficient to just claim that money
>>> perverts democracy and this or that regulation is obviously better simply
>>> because it reduces the flow of money into campaigns and lobbying.  So
>>> (putting aside the constitutional constraints on reform), it is necessary
>>> to evaluate how reforms actually work in practice, not just assert that any
>>> impediment to some special interest influence is necessarily an improvement.
>>>
>>>                        Democracy is a set of procedures that describe
>>> the rules of the game by which special interests duke it out; that's it:
>>>  no theoretical reason to think you get good, wise or sensible policy out
>>> of such a process (although thankfully, there are some broad correlations
>>> between democracy and good national outcomes).  Hindering some special
>>> interests, or blocking one route that special interests influence politics
>>> have theoretically ambiguous implications for outcomes.
>>>
>>>                        So not only isn't it obvious what regulations
>>> accomplish in practice; in fact, many empirical studies do not bear out the
>>> world-view of reformers regarding the influential and pernicious role of
>>> money in American politics.  But if
>>>
>>>        _______________________________________________
>>>        Law-election mailing list
>>>        Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>>        http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>
>>>
>>> <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
>>> To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,
>>> we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise,
>>> any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
>>> attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
>>> cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
>>> penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii)  promoting,
>>> marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
>>> matter addressed herein.
>>>
>>> This message is for the use of the intended recipient only.  It is
>>> from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
>>> confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
>>> copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
>>> prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please
>>> advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
>>> by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
>>> <-->
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120503/2e2f5b97/attachment.html>