[EL] Paz Harassment

Thu Aug 29 17:03:21 PDT 2013

On point one, I'm sure that it's a consolation to a harassed person to know that they're not being harassed because they made a political contribution, but because the government forced them to reveal their name and home address because they made a political contribution. No doubt that is a comfort to Ms. Paz, just as it was to Gigi. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902264.html

I'm glad to see Mark's comments on point two, but given his comments on point three, it doesn't look like he brings much to the table, so I guess the old stale debates will go on.

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 Mark Schmitt [schmitt.mark at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 6:39 PM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Paz Harassment

I should resist, but three small points:

1. Ms. Paz is not being harassed for a political contribution she made five years ago. She's being harassed for her work as a mid-level public employee, which some people find fault with. Even if you still believe there is such a thing as "the IRS scandal," I think we can all agree that there are official means to review a public employee's performance, including the dozen congressional investigations. Harassment in this circumstance is absolutely wrong, for the same reason that it was wrong when someone tried to get Mr. VanderSloot's divorce record, if I remember that incident accurately. It's the harassment, not the disclosure.

2. As others have noted, there are plenty of public databases, easily accessible, that contain address information. There is no reason to focus on a database that does not provide address information.

That said, I think we should acknowledge that the very nature of disclosure changes somewhat when so much information is routinely available within seconds on the internet. For example, I know what everyone of my neighbors paid for their house and when they bought it. (Well, I've forgotten it, but I did know.) It's reasonable that home sales should be public information, but fifteen years ago, I would have had to spend an afternoon in some dusty registrar of records' office digging it out. Or, for example, congressional staff salaries have been disclosed for a long time. When I worked in the Senate, I remember a young employee who went down to the Secretary of the Senate's office, got the book, and figured out all the salaries in our office. No one else would bother -- he did it because he was a jerk, and the only person I've ever fired. (Not for that reason.) Now, it's all there on Legistorm -- you can look up a staffer's salary in 30 seconds before you meet with her -- but why?. I think it's worth having a conversation (not this stale conversation) across a whole range of issues about what really needs to be disclosed in an era when all disclosure is instant and universal. Raising the small-donation disclosure limit might reasonably be part of that.

3. I'm sure there's a deal to be made to raise the disclosure threshold in exchange for covering all contributions intended to influence an election. Right now we have a regime where medium donations are disclosed but large ones are not. I don't know what the number should be in that deal, but both issues should be on the table before anyone starts with numbers. I do know, however, that the number can't be $5,000 or $10,000. That's because that it would miss things like, the top fifteen executives of Vandalay Industries each giving $10,000 (or $9,999) to an incumbent senator the week before a key vote. There are a lot of transactions of that nature, and if the threshold were $10,000, we wouldn't see any of them. (We probably can't see many of them now.)

Mark Schmitt
Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute<http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/>
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: mschmitt9

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Scarberry, Mark <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu<mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>> wrote:
Wasn't there a congresswoman recently who left a voicemail for someone whose business was likely to be affected by her committee asking why he hadn't donated? Maybe we should know who has been asked for donations by incumbents.

Mark Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

_______________________________________________
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/20130830/10c0632f/attachment.html>