[EL] More speech SuperPACS = less speech for candidates development

Mon Oct 1 07:20:47 PDT 2012

Given that Mr. Grayson self-financed $2.6M last time in 2008 and a
half-million dollars in 2010, I'm not sure that the contribution limits are
the problem.  It's okay, Sean, I'm sure you'll find more nails for your
hammer soon.

Adam C. Bonin
The Law Office of Adam C. Bonin
1900 Market Street, 4th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 864-8002 (w)
(215) 701-2321 (f)
(267) 242-5014 (c)

adam at boninlaw.com

http://www.boninlaw.com <http://www.boninlaw.com/> 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Sean
Parnell
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 10:07 AM
To: 'Dan Johnson'; 'David Mason'
Cc: 'Election Law'
Subject: Re: [EL] More speech SuperPACS = less speech for candidates
development

Mr. Grayson (I'll avoid calling him Congressman Grayson, since that might
run afoul of the fact checkers) would likely not be in this bind, being
short of the cash needed to run his ad (he doesn't say anything about spots
not being available, just not at the price he can afford/would prefer to
pay) if he wasn't bound by campaign contribution limits. To the extent that
candidates are priced out of being able to buy television (and it certainly
is a possibility), it's entirely the doing of a campaign finance system that
sharply limits the ability of candidates to raise funds for themselves, or
even coordinate closely with their own party beyond a relatively modest
amount.

I'm reminded of a quote, which I'm about to paraphrase quite badly, from Ayn
Rand: You can ignore reality, you cannot however ignore the consequences of
ignoring reality.

Also worth noting in light of the fact-checking discussion and possibly
alluded to by Ben Barr is that a good chunk of the SuperPAC money being
spent in Orlando and elsewhere in Florida is likely supporting or opposing
the U.S. Senate candidacy of an individual who has "lied" about his name for
pretty much his entire career in public life, as did his father - as well as
his great-grandfather, come to think about it (not sure about his
grandfather, though). 

Finally, thanks to all who provided me with information on the declining
marginal utility of political spending, I've passed it along to the
reporter.

Best,

Sean Parnell

President

Impact Policy Management, LLC

6411 Caleb Court

Alexandria, VA  22315

571-289-1374 (c)

sean at impactpolicymanagement.com

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Dan
Johnson
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 9:46 AM
To: David Mason
Cc: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] More speech SuperPACS = less speech for candidates
development

Dave and Michael,

Does the lowest unit rate apply to cable?

Thanks,

Dan

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:45 AM, David Mason <dmason12 at gmail.com> wrote:

Maybe Alan Grayson's fundraising pitch need a little fact-checking.

As a candidate he is eligible for lowest unit rate, on broadcast ads at
least.

This is a wonderful fundraising pitch ("only positive ad", really?) but not
a very useful point on campaign finance.

Dave

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Dan Johnson <dan at kchrlaw.com> wrote:

This is an interesting factual development.

One of the core arguments of ending limits on campaign expenditures has been
that buying more political advertisements is a good thing, as more speech
begets more speech.

One congressional challenger, Alan Grayson, posted yesterday that his
campaign commercial (the only positive one, he notes) is off the air,
because the avalanche of SuperPAC spending has tripled the rates for
television commercials, putting the price of speech on television beyond his
budget.

He (or his campaign) writes here:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/alan-grayson/we-are-off-the-air/4671226399773
87

You know
<http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsecure.actblue.com%2Fcontribu
te%2Fpage%2Fpositivead&h=VAQGS6n8e&s=1> that great positive ad for our
campaign that we showed you a couple of days ago? That breath of fresh air,
dispelling the stench of paid political advertising? 

It's off the air. We have assumed broadcast silence. 

Why? Because the Super PACs have spent $25.6 million on Orlando TV, and the
cost of TV spots here has tripled. 

---

Whether you happen to agree with Alan Grayson's message or not, this looks
like a clear example of a speech-chilling impact of unlimited campaign
expenditures. It's almost like a tax on speech, as the there is only so much
broadcast time to go around for political candidates, and the price has
dramatically risen.

Seems like this provides some evidence that unlimited expenditures aren't
unambiguously pro-speech. Limiting expenditures by some can have the effect
of permitting more speech by others - and now there's a growing factual
record to prove it.

Dan

-- 
Dan Johnson

Partner

Korey Cotter Heather Richardson LLC

Two First National Plaza

20 South Clark, Suite 500

Chicago, Illinois 60602

312.867.5377 (office)

312.933.4890 (mobile)

312.794.7064 (fax)

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
Dan Johnson

Partner

Korey Cotter Heather Richardson LLC

Two First National Plaza

20 South Clark, Suite 500

Chicago, Illinois 60602

312.867.5377 (office)

312.933.4890 (mobile)

312.794.7064 (fax)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121001/39b86eb5/attachment.html>