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

Fri Nov 2 11:31:47 PDT 2012

"But they can't both be true."

Not really. I've suggested 1) that there was a lot of hysteria about Citizens United that came from overlooking the diminishing returns of ever higher spending; and 2) that, however, there are reasons to spend money on the presidential race that have little to do with the immediate race. Republican campaigning for President in California is of little value for 2012, but could be of long term value, both for the Republican Party and for better government generally.

I think that can both be true, and indeed I think both are true.

Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
  Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 East Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 236-6317
bsmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu>
http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp

From: will.moore.law at gmail.com [mailto:will.moore.law at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Will Moore
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 12:05 PM
To: Smith, Brad
Cc: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] The New Socialism - Super-PACs Stealing From Rich People

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<http://www.themoorefirm.net>
(858) 210-7999 | wmoore at themoorefirm.net<mailto:wmoore at themoorefirm.net>

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 7:02 AM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu<mailto: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<tel:614.236.6317>

http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx

________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] on behalf of Will Moore [wmoore at themoorefirm.net<mailto: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<http://www.themoorefirm.net>
(858) 210-7999<tel:%28858%29%20210-7999> | wmoore at themoorefirm.net<mailto:wmoore at themoorefirm.net>

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto: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/20121102/2548dcd7/attachment.html>