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

Mon Nov 5 07:38:58 PST 2012

I've heard from a few candidates for the state senate in Wisconsin who say
they can't get an ad on TV because there's no space. Hadn't thought about
down-ballot candidates unable to get on the air because of bigger groups
that can afford higher rates late in the campaign.

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

> Assuming these ads are "useless" and further assuming that they were
> individually chosen to air in noncompetitive areas because of a lack of
> available airtime, this proves that available airtime in areas that matter
> is already all purchased by others.  That has significant implications for
> political speech overall because now voices are being effectively silenced,
> yet Citizens United is supposedly all about "more speech."
>
> I wonder if supporters of Citizens United, with their strong advocacy of
> "more speech", are closely monitoring and sincerely concerned about any
> situations where the available media time has been all
> purchased/saturated.  Do they care to look closely to make sure that no
> voices are being silenced?
>
> Hopefully, the concern for which voices might be or are being excluded is
> both sincere, and not elided with the notion that it doesn't matter because
> there's probably no state action in the case where media time is all bought
> up.
>
> At least with the case of government gag order, one would have a clear
> cause of action, unlike the case when media time is bid up in price and
> bought out.
>
> Paul Lehto, J.D.
>
> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> P.O. Box 1
> Ishpeming, MI  49849
> lehto.paul at gmail.com
> 906-204-4965 (cell)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121105/e4b3d9cd/attachment.html>