[EL] Paz Harassment

Fri Aug 30 08:59:11 PDT 2013

Sorry, my fault. I didn't realize that you could get the street address
directly from the database. I thought it required finding the actual pdf of
the candidate filing. I know the other databases, like OpenSecrets, don't
include address info, and the awful Huffington Post "Fundrace" site, which
in the early 2000s mapped all contributors, is long gone. That served no
useful public purpose, although it was always interesting to map my
neighborhood to see how many people gave to candidates of both parties. I
live near a lot of lobbyists, apparently.

Making address info less easily available to the public, along with
increasing the disclosure threshold as part of a broad disclosure reform,
seems like a change worth considering, even with all the many other ways to
google for an address.

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

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:

>  No, the FEC database reveals her street address. Again, I found it in 25
> seconds. Literally. I'll send it to you privately if you don't believe me.
>
>  Second, it has not been remotely "well established here that there's no
> reason to think that Ms. Paz's harassers got her address from data from her
> campaign contribution." Rather, it has been argued by some that it might
> be possible to get her address elsewhere. That's quite a different thing
> from "well established." Moreover, while the public availability of
> information may influence  the cost/benefit analysis of compulsory
> disclosure, it hardly resolves the question of whether the government
> should compel the disclosure of information making it easier to find the
> info needed to harass, or impossible for those who otherwise would take
> stronger steps to maintain their privacy.
>
>  And you're exactly right on your final point - indeed that was my
> point.  If all you've got to offer on top of the most expansive compulsory
> disclosure regime in history is a token increase in disclosure thresholds
> (you state it must be below $5000, in a manner suggesting you think it must
> be well below $5000) in exchange for substantial expansion of the
> disclosure regime elsewhere, you're just not bringing much to the table.
>
>  There is compromise to be had on campaign finance, on the disclosure
> issue and elsewhere, but the "reform" community will need to drop its rigid
> ideology and actually offer up something serious.
>
>   *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:* Friday, August 30, 2013 12:29 AM
>
> *To:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Paz Harassment
>
>   First, it's been well established here that there's no reason to think
> that Ms. Paz's harassers got her address from data from her campaign
> contribution, which reveals only that five years ago she lived somewhere in
> a municipality of 60,000 people. As far as I know, no searchable database
> of political contributions currently reveals street address information.
> Many other databases do.
>
>  On my point 3, if accepting your $10,000 threshold for *disclosure *is a
> prerequisite for "bringing something to the table," it won't be much of a
> table, will it?
>
> 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 8:03 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu>wrote:
>
>>  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> 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
>>> 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/20130830/4782c03c/attachment.html>