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

Wed Apr 3 14:27:21 PDT 2013

I think Trevor just created a novel legal standard for justifying campaign finance restrictions:  the “appearance of the possibility of corruption.”  Not just the “appearance of corruption,” but the appearance of even the possibility of corruption.

Is that like the “penumbras, formed by emanations” from the Bill of Rights cited in Griswold v. Connecticut?

Rob
Robert K. Kelner
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
phone: (202) 662-5503
fax: (202) 778-5503
rkelner at cov.com
This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Trevor Potter
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 5:08 PM
To: JBoppjr at aol.com
Cc: Kevin.Greenberg at flastergreenberg.com; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out N.Y. Lawmakers Charged in Plot to Buy Spot onMayoral B...

What Cunningham and Jefferson prove is that taking an illegal bribe--cash, for purely personal use, presumably not reported to the IRS, in explicit return for official action--has a cumulative price tag ( I do not know how many bribes are in those numbers for how many actions) of the amount Jim states. It seems obvious to me that comparing those numbers to contribution figures is comparing apples to oranges...first,because campaign contributions are legal, so there is little risk of going to jail if the candidate is smart enough to wink and nod through the quid pro quo, and second because the amount of money necessary to produce "gratitude" in an officeholder, or the appearance of the possibility of corruption to members of the public, may be far lower than that needed to induce an illegal act through a bribe.
Trevor Potter

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 3, 2013, at 4:57 PM, "JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>" <JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>> wrote:
Kevin, if one buys into the whole contribution limit thing, but only wants to do  what the Court in Buckley approved doing, then  one would set the contribution limit somewhat below the "deal point."  So, it the going rate for political favors among those that are susceptible to corruption is 100K, as the Jefferson/Cunningham examples suggest, then you would set the contribution limit significantly below that, say 75K.  But what is obvious, and really my only modest point, is that $2,600 is just way too low given the anecdotal evidence.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 4/3/2013 12:24:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Kevin.Greenberg at flastergreenberg.com<mailto:Kevin.Greenberg at flastergreenberg.com> writes:
Jim,

I’m really confused.  In your ideal world, would you set the law that you could “legally” “buy” an elected official by making the max level donation?

You keep pointing to Jefferson/Cunningham as evidence for a “deal point” around $100,000.  Presuming that it is true, for at least certain officials who might be predisposed to corruption, what does that tell us?

As the idea is to avoid corruption, we would need a donation level materially below the “deal point”.

A second corollary to your analysis would be a presumption that – again, for the subset of folks who have a $100K deal point and are amenable to corruption – is that they are already bought by the unlimited Citizen United-empowered spenders.  Is that your position?

Kevin

Kevin Greenberg
(215) 279-9912

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 11:56 AM
To: lminnite at gmail.com<mailto:lminnite at gmail.com>; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out N.Y. Lawmakers Charged in Plot to Buy Spot on Mayoral Ball...

Yes, I do understand what this case is about and my point remains that bribes in cases like this are helpful in determining what is the going rate, at least among some people, for money exchanged for political favors.  There are obviously differences that need to be understood in applying this analogy.  For instance, if campaign contributions cannot be used personally, then I would think that a candidate would insist on a larger campaign contribution than a personal one, like here. Another difference is that a candidate is the bribor and political party officials are the bribees.  This may or may not effect the going rate.

But the general point remains, looking at what it took here to bribe political party officials to provide a political favor, and at what it took to bribe Congressmen Jefferson ($99,000 in cold hard cash) and Cunningham (minimum $140,000), it is apparent that contribution limits are way below a large contribution that could tempt a candidate to sell his vote.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 4/3/2013 10:58:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, lminnite at gmail.com<mailto:lminnite at gmail.com> writes:
Mr. Bopp is completely confused about what this case is about.  It has nothing to do with campaign contribution limits for mayoral candidates.  If New York City had no limits at all for mayoral candidates, if New York City voters or corporations could give millions of dollars to Malcolm Smith or to the Republican Party, it would not have mattered here.  What's at issue are Republican Party ballot access rules and influence-peddling (more plainly put - bribery) to acquire the support of county leaders for yet another registered Democrat to run as their mayoral candidate.

On 4/3/2013 10:04 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:

    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<mailto: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 - <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/nyregion/state-senator-and-city-councilman-accused-of-trying-to-rig-mayors-race.html?hp&_r=0> NYTimes.com<http://NYTimes.com>

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
<~WRD000.jpg>

Error! Filename not specified.
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/>

_______________________________________________

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

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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

<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> 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. <-->
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130403/9b281c30/attachment.html>