[EL] The Alderman Convinced Them - Did Chick-fil-ANeed Socialist Workers?

[Joseph Birkenstock]

Just backing up to this one real quick, since two things about this point truly fascinate me: (1) how much broad support there is for raising itemization thresholds, and (2) how that breadth of support actually makes it so much *less* likely that those thresholds will be raised anytime soon. 

I'm sure there's not unanimity on the issue on the right or the left (or on other ideological axes), but imagine for the sake of argument that a Republican sponsored a clean bill to raise the federal itemization threshold to $500 - while leaving the recordkeeping thresholds where they are.  Or, matter of fact, since according to the BLS, $200 in 1974 dollars matches the buying power of $934.60 today, let's raise the itemization threshold to $1,000. 

And since using a database is trivially easy today, as compared to 1974, let's accompany that increase in the itemization threshold with a categorized disclosure system, where candidates would replace the itemization of individual donors under $1,000 with additional reporting of aggregates by category, such as zip code, employer, and date received (each of which, you'll note, is a data field that any electronic filer is already populating).  I know I'd support either of those bills, and I think a lot of other Democrats would, too - perhaps even some with the power to cast votes in Congress... 

But we both know that won't happen, since in this environment the only policy changes worth pursuing are those brought about over our respective opponents' dead bodies.  Since everyone knows that President Obama (or Speaker Boehner, if you prefer) is the living embodiment of the greatest threat to American society since George the Third, how could a Republican possibly support a change in campaign finance laws supported by a Democrat, or vice-versa? 

So tell you what, Sean: you put together a lawsuit on behalf of some stereotypical righty group seeking to overturn the federal itemization threshold as applied to contributions under $500.  I'll file an amicus brief and/or seek to intervene on behalf of some stereotypical lefty group opposing it, we can each demagogue the hell out of each other's positions and motivations, and at the end we may even both get a change in campaign finance laws that we both think makes sense. 

Deal?


________________________________
Joseph M. Birkenstock, Esq.
Caplin & Drysdale, Chtd.
One Thomas Circle, NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 862-7836
www.capdale.com/jbirkenstock
*also admitted to practice in CA




-----Original Message-----
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 4:03 PM
To: Jeff Hauser; law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu; JBoppjr at aol.com
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] The Alderman Convinced Them - Did Chick-fil-ANeed Socialist Workers?

Well, for starters we can protect workers by not providing the public (and thus their employers) with ready-made lists of people (helpfully identified by place of employment) who support the "wrong" candidate or cause. Raising disclosure thresholds considerably would be a good place to start.

Sean Parnell

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Hauser <jeffhauser at gmail.com>
Sender: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:32:22
To: <JBoppjr at aol.com>
Cc: <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] The Alderman Convinced Them - Did Chick-fil-A Need
        Socialist Workers?

_______________________________________________
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




<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,
we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise,
any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii)  promoting,
marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
matter addressed herein. 
 
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only.  It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
<-->