[EL] Check out N.Y. Lawmakers Charged in Plot to Buy Spot onMayoral B...
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Wed Apr 3 14:30:51 PDT 2013
I agree that money for personal use is more valuable that money that can
only be used for a candidates campaign. So this suggests the deal point is
higher if it is a campaign contribution, than a personal bribe.
Interestingly, up to 1980, federal campaign contributions could be used for persona
use, but now that is no longer true. This is another reason why the current
federal limits, which have not even caught up to inflation, are too low.
But regarding "gratitude" as a basis for alleged "quid-pro-quo"
corruption: (1) the Court has expressly rejected that in Citizens United, and (2)
it would mean that nearly everything that is done is support a candidate
leads to corruption since most candidate are grateful for that support. This
is just an argument to outlaw public elections as inertly corrupt. Jim
Bopp
In a message dated 4/3/2013 5:08:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tpotter at capdale.com writes:
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; 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
- 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/20130403/819479ae/attachment.html>
View list directory