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

Mon Oct 1 07:37:54 PDT 2012

By the same token, he's not exactly out of money.

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Adam Bonin <adam at boninlaw.com> wrote:

> 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****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *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/467122639977387
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> You know *that great positive ad*<http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsecure.actblue.com%2Fcontribute%2Fpage%2Fpositivead&h=VAQGS6n8e&s=1> 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)****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121001/e1d40df3/attachment.html>