[EL] Super PACs and the Presidency

[Mark Schmitt]

Steve, I realize that you have said you won't respond further to this
thread you started, but I'll bring in Mr. Foster Friess himself to reply:

"'You have no idea of the financial structuring of a lot of these outside
groups in terms of how much went to the actual delivery of a message,'
Friess said, 'versus how many dollars were taken off as fees to the people
running them.'"



Mark Schmitt
Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute <http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/>
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: mschmitt9



On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com>wrote:

> Never liked the "restaurants near a highway" argument in undergraduate
> economics courses. Dismissing Hayek because my economics professor couldn't
> conceive of a Zagat Restaurant Guide (and its equivalent in any market) was
> always non-starter for me.
>
> And I think you'll see the same thing here. Not only will Friess and
> Adelson hear reports by word of mouth as to who was effective and who
> wasn't, remember that each receipt and disbursement of these Super PACs is
> reported.
>
> By the way, when you reply with some form of "but Friess and Adelson will
> be totally in the dark with regard to c4 spending," I won't be answering
> soon. I have other things to turn to.
>
> All the best,
>
> Steve
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> "Any Super PAC seen lining its pockets rather than winning will be
>> punished by those dreaded markets the left tends to discount in other
>> spheres."
>>
>> I don't discount markets; I think markets are awesome. However, markets
>> with asymmetric information are not likely to be that efficient. The donors
>> to SuperPACs typically aren't sophisticated enough to know whether they are
>> being ripped off or not. And in every cycle, there seem to be new big
>> donors. So it's the equivalent of the restaurants near a big tourist hotel
>> (like in Woodley Park in DC) that don't have to be very good because their
>> customers are unlikely to return anyway, and they'll have new ones next
>> weekend. Consultants managed to rip off campaigns on media buys for years
>> and years before 2008; mega-donors like Adelson are easier marks.
>>
>> Mark Schmitt
>> Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute<http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/>
>> 202/246-2350
>> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
>> twitter: mschmitt9
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Good morning, Mark,
>>>
>>> I do agree that this election appears to have turned on voter
>>> mobilization efforts. The Democrats got exactly what they needed, where
>>> they needed it, and nothing more until the California returns came in. Very
>>> different from the 2008 general election. I think the degree of that will
>>> be understood in time.
>>>
>>> I've also surmised for years (without knowing quite how to confirm) that
>>> the Left is better at mobilization not because they have less money but
>>> because they have more persons, actual individuals, in their coalition to
>>> work maps, drive vans, and walk people to the polls -- and have had for a
>>> number of cycles now.
>>>
>>> Ground game funded by Super PACs and c4s is entirely new to the Right.
>>> And I have often thought that Republicans run ads because they don't know
>>> whom to finance to knock on doors. A study is needed there to see whether I
>>> am right about that as well. Republican party-oriented Victory programs are
>>> effective enough, and their micro-targeting data is good. But that model
>>> needs to be transmitted to outside groups motivated to use them, and to
>>> multiply exponentially the efforts of the party committee or the Republican
>>> party committee will be swamped.
>>>
>>> As to your second point, which is far less charitable, I've heard the
>>> stories over the years of mail shops putting all their receipts into
>>> salaries and overhead.
>>>
>>> But I believe the people running newly minted Super PACs and expanded
>>> c4s desperately want to win elections. This is true for ideological
>>> reasons: no one can say Steven Law didn't have what it took to have become
>>> a Wall-Street trader rather than a policy operative. But it is true for
>>> that base reason you ascribe to the Right's failure: Any Super PAC seen
>>> lining its pockets rather than winning will be punished by those dreaded
>>> markets the left tends to discount in other spheres.
>>>
>>> Again, I believe the Right runs the ad war because it doesn't know whom
>>> to finance for large scale ground game. Ads over the air are meant to *
>>> find* a coalition the Left has already found and can fund directly:
>>> people willing to get off the couch.  Who are the labor unions of the
>>> Right... or other such coalitions?  You can tell from this post that I
>>> don't know.
>>>
>>> But I would imagine that the Drew Ryuns and Matt Kibbes of the world are
>>> awaking this morning to figure it out. Let's let the Super PACs work awhile.
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> I will add one more point: If, as some pundits were suggesting last
>>> night, markets, individual liberty and speech rights are an "aging,
>>> white-male thing" that Republicans should rethink -- because, after all,
>>> what "the folks" really want from their politicians is *stuff* -- we
>>> are all doomed, each of us. These principles are universal; the natural
>>> right of all men and women. I hope "diversity" doesn't come to equal
>>> statism, as I fear it might in the near term.
>>>
>>> Immigration does need rethinking. You saw that tension in speeches at
>>> the RNC last September -- and I saw, on Twitter, that Jeb Bush and Clint
>>> Bolick have begun with a new book.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree with that point, Steve, and always have.
>>>>
>>>> I would suggest, however, that one reason that the pro-Romney SuperPACs
>>>> and c(4)'s had less impact than some expected is that they seem to have put
>>>> all their money on broadcast media and to a lesser extent robocalls and
>>>> mail. What if some of the money had been put toward voter mobilization
>>>> efforts, targetted at key likely-Romney constituencies? Much of the
>>>> Democratic non-campaign spending takes this form.
>>>>
>>>> Why didn't that happen? My guess is that it's a combination of two
>>>> things: Rich donors want something they can see, like an ad that they
>>>> imagine will reveal that Kenyan socialist for what he is and destroy him,
>>>> rather than the amorphous idea that some people are out there getting
>>>> people to vote. And second, the operatives who created the SuperPACs and
>>>> c(4)'s are getting very, very rich off of media-buying commissions (richer
>>>> than they would get if they were actually working for the campaign, which
>>>> followed Obama's lead from 2008 in cracking down on commissions), and had
>>>> no interest in giving that up. Hence, as pointed out in another thread,
>>>> they were essentially burning off money on national ad buys in the last
>>>> week.
>>>>
>>>> If it weren't for greed, Citizens United and SpeechNow might have had
>>>> more impact.
>>>>
>>>> Mark Schmitt
>>>> Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute<http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/>
>>>> 202/246-2350
>>>> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
>>>> twitter: mschmitt9
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> To those who read this e-mail as predicting a Romney win, fair enough:
>>>>> If that is the way you read it, I was incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> But as to my main point (and one directed at an election law list) --
>>>>> to not blame the Super PACs; they were never the President's problem -- I
>>>>> stand by it. There were always plenty of independent players and funds
>>>>> supporting Team Obama.
>>>>>
>>>>> I still believe the President ebbed in his reelection effort -- and no
>>>>> one doubts that today's race was close; too close for a well-liked
>>>>> incumbent -- because of an Obama agenda of what I called earlier today and
>>>>> continue to call "out-sized collectivism."
>>>>>
>>>>> Congratulations to the compliance team and strategists at Perkins Coie,
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Should, by this time tomorrow, President Obama fail to win
>>>>>> re-election, as now seems the case, many will point to a point made by
>>>>>> *Politico* on August 20th of this year:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obama has himself to blame for what has, arguably, been the greatest
>>>>>> unforced error of his political career: his team's failure to adequately
>>>>>> form a strategy to deal with the avalanche of unregulated cash raining down
>>>>>> on him from GOP and Romney-allied Super PACs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As one who started blogging against the FEC political-committee
>>>>>> regulations that would kill the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and six other
>>>>>> notable organizations on the Right and Left, and as one who worked on some
>>>>>> of the cases that would bring Americans the "Super PAC" -- and there were
>>>>>> four or five cases responsible, not just two -- it is tempting to want to
>>>>>> echo emphatically the *Politico* commentary: *You're darn right.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the commentary doesn't hold. While I understand the role of freed
>>>>>> speech in this election, and the importance of increasingly alternative
>>>>>> committees speaking in an increasing alternative media, I recognize that
>>>>>> the real reason the President ebbs in his reelection effort is his
>>>>>> inability to cloak an out-sized collectivism in American garb.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one could pull that off. It is regrettable he tried,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Stephen M. Hoersting
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79867.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Stephen M. Hoersting
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Stephen M. Hoersting
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Stephen M. Hoersting
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121109/d9fc3d96/attachment.html>