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

Wed Apr 3 11:32:11 PDT 2013

Jim, are you joking? I honestly can't tell. You do understand that the
bribes here were in direct payments, cash in envelopes, not campaign
contributions, right? So what does any of this have to do with campaign
contributions or the laws governing them? Are you suggesting that because
it requires a larger personal bribe than the maximum campaign contribution
that the campaign contributions are too low to buy politicians votes?
That's ridiculous! The two are unrelated. They are two completely different
kinds of money. The amount of money required to buy a politician's vote
with a legal contribution might be higher or lower than the amount required
to buy his vote with an illegal bribe. This case deals only with the former
and thus tells us nothing about the latter. Moreover, this case does not
deal primarily with bribing elected officials, or how they vote, it deals
with borough party chairs and signatures to allow a candidate on a ballot.
Maybe the (somewhat unusual) favor of allowing someone from the opposing
party on your party's ballot fetches a higher than normal price. Maybe
borough party chairs require larger bribes than mere state legislators. Or
maybe it's the reverse. Who knows? Certainly not you, based on nothing but
your half-assed assertion.

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:

>  One of the costs of big government will be an increase in rent-seeking
> and an increase in the "extortion" function by unethical officials. This
> doesn't mean we shouldn't have big government. We just have to recognize
> that it is one of the costs of big government, just like one cost of a
> particular program - social security - is loss of control of a significant
> portion of one's wages, and ability to save for one's future on one's own
> terms. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have it (though some might conclude that).
> Just means you want to be sure you're considering all the costs and all the
> benefits. Conversely, one cost of a strong First Amendment is putting up
> with lots of speech you'd rather not hear. Many of the checks put in place
> in our system of government to prevent rent-seeking and extortion have been
> eroded or in some cases all but abolished - federalism, bicameralism, the
> takings clause, and especially the doctrine of enumerated powers. These
> things may have been done for what was seen to be good reason, but
> nevertheless one cost was to erode checks on the abuse of power by
> officials and rent seeking by factions.
>
>  Liberals, who are more wedded to big government, naturally tend to seek
> to solve this problem by placing still more restrictions on freedom and
> giving more power to government. Conservatives, who are less wedded to big
> government, naturally tend to seek to solve this problem by reducing the
> size and power of government in other areas, rather than expanding it in
> this.
>
>  If you are skeptical of public officials, you will not generally want to
> increase their power, especially in a sensitive area that directly pertains
> to criticism of officials and efforts to replace them. That limits on
> contributions might be seen as an effort to limit their de facto power (by
> making it harder to extort) doesn't get us far, because it does so by
> increasing their de jure and de facto power in that key area of free
> speech. Practical consequences then come into play. The track record of
> government when given this new power is not very good. In fact, it is
> really bad. The fact that the arguments made by most regulatory advocates
> do not follow the argument Joe makes (some do, and it is clearly recognized
> by people on both sides of the debate, but let's not kid ourselves, that is
> not the basic pro-regulatory argument), but instead argue the need in order
> to protect government from the citizenry (rather than citizens from
> government) further makes conservatives extremely wary.
>
>  My own experience is that most potential donors aren't really swayed by
> the extortion threat, though some can be and are. This is one reason for
> being wary about excessive compulsory disclosure laws. But potential large
> donors are usually pretty successful people with ample experience in
> turning folks down. Donors do get tired up being hit up, and they can
> complain about it, and they might use the extortion line. I've heard it, to
> be sure. But it's much the same as the corrupting effect of contributions.
> It's not that it is never there, but it can be overstated. And usually, in
> my view, it is self-inflicted - once you've paid the Dane Geld, it's hard
> to get rid of the Dane. There are a lot of various scenarios here and
> nuances that I won't go into; we'll just say that the disease does not
> merit the harms inflicted by the cure. And if a cure is necessary, other
> cures or partial cures would be better.
>
>  Jess Unruh is quoted as having said, "If you can't drink a lobbyist's
> whiskey, take his money, sleep with his women and still vote against him in
> the morning, you don't belong in politics."
>
> Perhaps donors need to learn something along the same lines: If you can't
> take a lawmaker's earmarks, welcome him to your plant, dine with him at
> Lincoln or Jackson Day dinners, listen to his threats, and still tell him
> no, you don't belong in business.
>
>  Bradley A. Smith
> Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
>    Professor of Law
> Capital University Law School
> 303 E. Broad St.
> Columbus, OH 43215
> 614.236.6317
> http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
>
> ________________________________________
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Joseph
> Birkenstock [jbirkenstock at capdale.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 11:04 AM
> To: JBoppjr at aol.com; 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...
>
> 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.
> <-->
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130403/3cce3f6f/attachment.html>