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

Thu Apr 4 05:48:39 PDT 2013

The problem is is that support for contribution limits requires government  
to set a "deal point", ie a specific limit, by trying to figure out where  
it might be and then setting contribution limits below that point. So both  
Trevor and benadler1 have given us more reasons why that is just an 
irrational  enterprise.  I agree.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 4/3/2013 6:58:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
benadler1 at gmail.com writes:

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_ 
(mailto: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_ (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_ (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,  (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) _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,  
(mailto:margaret.groarke at manhattan.edu) _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, < (mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com) 
_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
 (mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu) 
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_ (mailto: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_ (tel:718-862-7943) 

Fax:  _718-862-8044_ (tel: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
 (mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu) 
_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_ (mailto: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_ 
(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. <-->  

_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130404/cd27ebe0/attachment.html>