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

Mon Oct 1 15:07:38 PDT 2012

As has already been noted, Super-PAC money, whatever else it does, has made some races more competitive when it comes in against an established incumbent.  This has
to be good on balance, as it is rare that a bad candidate can defeat an incumbent just getting some money -- it takes more than that.  what this kind of infusion of money buys
is a chance at being competitive.  The biggest disadvantage of Super-PAC money is that it is likely not to be as restrained as candidate money.  The candidate has to stand
behind his unfair and nasty ads and they can backfire.

If we repealed the contribution limits, most of the money now in Super-PACS would tend to flow to candidates.  The candidates would not be angels, but they would be more
careful and this would maybe elevate the tenor of campaigns a bit.  The other big effect it would have is, I believe, that candidates could raise more money faster and would be
able to allocate proportionately more of their time to other campaign activities.  I also would argue that it would probably tend to close the percentage gap between challengers
and incumbents.  and even where it doesn't, it will improve a challenger's chances.  If one is in a congressional race and is outspent 400K to 200K, that is a serious disadvantage.
800K to 400K is still a problem, but not as bad.  1.6M to 800K is even less serious, etc.  If one has enough for the scale of the race, the fact that the other candidate has more
isn't nearly the problem that not having enough to run a solid campaign is.  Almost all incumbents are adequately funded.  many challengers aren't.  Now, many races wouldn't be 
close with even funding -- and the funding race won't be close in those races -- but more of the potentially competitive races will not miss being competitive because of incumbent
fundraising advantage.  it will still figure, but have proportionately less effect.  

We could also then deregulate relatively small expenditures entirely, since there would be no incentive for candidates to find ways to spend indirectly.  Let a person or group spend up
to $5,000 or even $10,000 without having to register at all.  That way if a few citizens are irate about an issue in a campaign and want to give Candidate X hell, they can just go 
ahead and do it.  I would keep the foreign money rules and disclosure at least for significant contributions, so people have a chance to judge if unsavory multi-millionaire X
is trying to buy a race.  

________________________________
 From: Soren Dayton <soren.dayton at gmail.com>
To: Adam Bonin <adam at boninlaw.com> 
Cc: Election Law <law-election at uci.edu> 
Sent: Monday, October 1, 2012 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: [EL] More speech SuperPACS = less speech for candidates development

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 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
>

_______________________________________________
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/ec5ea6ee/attachment.html>