[EL] The New Socialism - Super-PACs Stealing From Rich People

[Andy Kroll]

And here's the Amer Xroads presser on it:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 2, 2012

CONTACT: Jonathan Collegio
(202) 559-6424
jacollegio at americancrossroads.org

New American Crossroads Presidential Ad Airs on National TV with $4.5m Buy

WASHINGTON –American Crossroads today launched a TV ad that will air on
national network television for the final four days of the presidential
campaign.

The ad, “Debate” started today and will air through Monday, November 5 on
nationwide broadcast TV. American Crossroads made the buy on national
broadcast television as a way to simultaneously air the spot across all
swing states and generate better placement of the ad than is possible at
this point in highly saturated local media markets. The buy totals $4.5
million.

“Instead of turning around the economy, President Obama brought the country
a lot of debt and endless drama,” said Steven Law, president and CEO of
American Crossroads. “We need to turn a new page in this country by
electing Mitt Romney and bringing real recovery to America.”

American Crossroads is a non-profit 527 political organization dedicated to
renewing America’s commitment to individual liberty, limited government,
free enterprise and a strong national defense through informed and
effective political action. American Crossroads seeks to educate voters and
empower citizens to hold lawmakers and office-seekers accountable for where
they stand. Paid for by American Crossroads. Not authorized by any
candidate or candidate’s committee. www.americancrossroads.org


On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Will Moore <wmoore at themoorefirm.net> wrote:

> Brad,
>
> You've made two arguments here.  1) These ads are useless and that shows
> that campaign finance laws are silly because campaign money has diminishing
> marginal utility that is zero at a relatively low amount. So there's no
> harm to opening the system.  2) These ads are useful.
>
> Either could potentially be a useful argument.  But they can't both be
> true.  So which one do you find most persuasive?
>
> -Will
>
>
> William Moore
> *The Moore Firm - Business Law*
> 5755 Oberlin Dr., Suite 301, San Diego CA 92121 | www.themoorefirm.net
> (858) 210-7999 | wmoore at themoorefirm.net
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 7:02 AM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu>wrote:
>
>>  When Citizens United was decided, people including Russ Feingold would
>> say ridiculous things, including "the total net worth of U.S.
>> corporations was $23.5 trillion, and after tax profits were nearly $1
>> trillion. During the 2008 election cycle, Fortune 100 companies alone had
>> profits of $605 billion. That’s quite a war chest that may be soon
>> unleashed on our political system.”
>>
>>  As Will's comment illustrates, that's absurd. You can't do it. Indeed,
>> if Will is correct, then appears we're now spending just about the right
>> amount - with just a few days to go, the campaigners finally "ran out of
>> useful things to do with their money."
>>
>>  However, actually I think it is more complicated than that.
>>
>>  One of the bad things that campaign finance regulation has done is to
>> require centralized fund-raising and campaign systems, especially at the
>> presidential level. Between passage of the 1974 Amendments to FECA and
>> Citizens United and SpeechNow.org, it was extremely difficult to spend any
>> meaningful dollars, or even small amounts of money, outside of the national
>> party and the national campaign, in a presidential race - especially
>> because of the constraints imposed by tax funding (with its accompanying
>> spending limits) and coordination rules. As a result, presidential
>> elections adopted a top down command structure, with nothing wasted in
>> "uncompetitive" states. Prior to that time, much more money would be raised
>> and spent locally, outside the national campaign structure, even in states
>> that were not "competitive" in a particular election. The presidential
>> campaign was the motivating force and central event for state and local
>> party building.
>>
>>  The demise of local presidential campaigning has hurt local minority
>> parties, contributing to the increase in geographically polarized voting
>> areas.
>>
>>  California badly needs a competitive two-party system, and spending
>> some money around the most visible political campaign - the presidency - in
>> order to build support for the party in the state is probably a good thing
>> for the public, and in the long run a smart thing for the party.
>>
>>  *Bradley A. Smith*
>>
>> *Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault*
>>
>> *   Professor of Law*
>>
>> *Capital University Law School*
>>
>> *303 E. Broad St.*
>>
>> *Columbus, OH 43215*
>>
>> *614.236.6317*
>>
>> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx*
>>   ------------------------------
>> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Will Moore [
>> wmoore at themoorefirm.net]
>> *Sent:* Friday, November 02, 2012 9:05 AM
>> *To:* Election Law
>> *Subject:* [EL] The New Socialism - Super-PACs Stealing From Rich People
>>
>>  Saw 3 anti-Obama ads on the Channel 8 news in San Diego this morning
>> from American Crossroads and Restore Our Future. Again, these ran on Local
>> TV in San Diego.  California.
>>
>>  This means that they ran out of useful things to do with their money
>> before they ran out of money.
>>
>> If I was a rich, right-wing ideologue, I'd be asking for a refund. As it
>> is, I'm contemplating starting a conservative Super-PAC so I can steal
>> money from rich, right-wing ideologues - just like Karl Rove does.
>>
>> -Will
>>
>> William Moore
>> *The Moore Firm - Business Law*
>> 5755 Oberlin Dr., Suite 301, San Diego CA 92121 | www.themoorefirm.net
>> (858) 210-7999 | wmoore at themoorefirm.net
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121102/be8ff463/attachment.html>