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

[Ben Adler]

I agree with Trevor, and I would add that the notion of there being a
single "deal point" is bizarrely reductionist and out of touch with the
complex factors that influence legislating. How much do I have to pay a
state legislator to vote the way I want him to on a given bill? Well,
probably a lot less if he was already inclined to vote that way than if he
wasn't. Probably more if voting my way means going against his party's
leadership and more still if he's going against his constituents' wishes.
And how strongly his constituents feel, how strongly his party leader
feels, how powerful his party leader is, how vulnerable he is in his
re-election campaign, even--dare I make this crazy suggestion--what he
personally believes to be right, might all matter. Floor votes might cost
more than committee votes. High profile votes may cost more than
low-profile ones. If he can get X amount from a donor on the other side of
the issue, then I would have to exceed X to buy his vote, and so how much X
is, if there is an X at all, would matter. So many things could matter,
that the idea of a single deal point or going rate just doesn't make sense.


On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com> wrote:

> 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" <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 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] *On Behalf Of *
> 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 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>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>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>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 ****
>
>  ****
>
> *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>
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
> 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 <name.name at manhattan.edu>****
>
> www.manhattan.edu****
>
> ** **
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
> _______________________________________________****
>
> Law-election mailing list****
>
>  <Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu****
>
>  <http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>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****
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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. <-->
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130403/0fcd85aa/attachment.html>