[EL] Super PACs and the Presidency

Fri Nov 9 09:18:51 PST 2012

Well, if that's what Mr. Friess said that is something I will have to
credit and consider. Good find, Mark. (Send a link, if you don't mind, when
you can).

But, let me promise you: There will be plenty of data as to "who did what"
and "who was where" in 2012. By the 2014 cycle, Mr. Friess will have a very
good idea of whom or what to support next. Intra-party carping alone will
ensure that. If Pepsi is pretty sure Coke's new formula has failed...

***

You know, everyone against SuperPACs from the outset -- form Eliza to you
to others -- is presuming the race would have been the same without the
Super PACs in it. I don't think that is *at all* the case. Same for the
presence of alternative media.

I think this election would have been much more a blowout without anyone
speaking about Obama's record. The criticism of Super PACs from the right
is that they did not adequately finance ground game and pulled punches with
their on-air advertising.

Given that turnout overall was less than in 2008, yet Obama's victory
margin in 2012 was far less than it was in 2008, is a pretty good place to
start investigating this hypothesis.

Best,

Steve

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121109/7517ae77/attachment.html>