[EL] Check out N.Y. Lawmakers Charged in Plot to Buy Spot onMayoral Ball...

Wed Apr 3 08:04:27 PDT 2013

I agree that many contribution limits are too low, and that as a general proposition we'd do better to index them for inflation.  But, that said, I wanted to raise a different point about the utility of contribution limits in the abstract, including the aggregate limits being litigated in McCutcheon.  

Perhaps it's because I work more with donors than with candidates these days, but for a while now the federal limits have looked more to me like extortion limits than contribution limits.  Meaning, I'm sure there are some donors who sincerely want to give more of their hard-earned money to specific public officials, but there are also lots of donors who are quite relieved to be able to "max out" (either or both with respect to a particular candidate or with respect to federal candidates, party committees, or PACs as a whole).  

And relieved to do so at a large-but-still-less-than-stratospheric level, since once they've coughed up their $2,600 per election they can truthfully tell a candidate "Look Joe, I'd love to give more if I could give it directly to Birkenstock for Grand Poobah, but unless you can promise me every dollar I give will be spent at your direction I'd really rather not give to parties or PACs and just hope it ends up helping you."  Might not be completely convincing to the candidate making the ask (for a joint fundraising committee, for example), but it's not like the candidate can disprove it and it allows the donor at least a facially reasonable pretext to start turning down further dunning opportunities at some point.  

But if there were no contribution limits, and to a large extent if there were no aggregate limits, that dynamic would change drastically.  Not only would the donor lose the use of the limits as a diplomatic way to put away his or her checkbook, but now the candidate could turn the game around: "Shame you can't see your way clear to sending another check, Mickey - turns out Daffy and Goofy each just wrote another hundred k.  You sure you don't want to keep up?" 

And that's what most confuses me about the conservative attack on contribution limits: skepticism of public officials and of the power entrusted to public officials is one of the best things I've learned from the conservative school of thought.  But the goal of reducing or eliminating limits on how much money these officials can solicit from their constituents seems to be in tension with that lesson, so I'm hoping Jim or anyone else from that point of view might address this concern: is there a workable way to keep the "extortion limit" function of the current contribution limits regime if the limits themselves are overturned, or am I misunderstanding whether conservatives see that function as a worthwhile policy goal in the first place?  

________________________________
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 on behalf of JBoppjr at aol.com
Sent: Wed 4/3/2013 10:04 AM
To: margaret.groarke at manhattan.edu
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out N.Y. Lawmakers Charged in Plot to Buy Spot onMayoral Ball...

You have hit on the other interesting point about  this.  NYC contribution 
limits for Mayor are $4,950 and less for other  offices. Each of the bribees 
demanded much more.  This seems to be further  anecdotal evidence that 
current contribution limits are too low. (See also  Congressmen Jefferson and 
Cunningham)  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 4/3/2013 9:58:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
margaret.groarke at manhattan.edu writes:

Au  contraire, we New Yorkers just want to make sure that bribing public 
officials  is affordable! The desire to get one's way shouldn't bankrupt a 
person.   

More seriously, the limits we have in NYS are really generous (I would be  
permitted to donate $41,000 to a gubernatorial candidate in the general  
election). And these allegations are about donations to parties, about which I  
don't have the rules handy. But a LOT of things need to change in  NY. 

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:01 AM, <_JBoppjr at aol.com_ (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) 
> wrote:

_Click here: N.Y. Lawmakers Charged in Plot to Buy Spot on  Mayoral Ballot 
- NYTimes.com_ 
(http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/nyregion/state-senator-and-city-councilman-accused-of-trying-to-rig-mayors-race.html?hp&_r=0)  

Thank goodness NYC has contribution limits.  It has sure fixed  the 
corruption problem there.  Jim  Bopp

_______________________________________________
Law-election  mailing list
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_ 
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu) 
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
Margaret Groarke  
Director, Core  Curriculum
Associate Professor,  Government

Riverdale, NY 10471
Phone: 718-862-7943
Fax: 718-862-8044
_margaret.groarke at manhattan.edu_ (mailto:name.name at manhattan.edu) 
_www.manhattan.edu_ (http://www.manhattan.edu/) 

<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
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.
<-->