[EL] Check out TALLAHASSEE: Support mounts to allow unlimited political contributi

[Joe La Rue]

$25 is not hypothetical. Check out the disclosure requirements for
contributions in Washington state, for instance. Would you agree with me
that $25 serves no useful purpose and therefore should not survive
scrutiny? Answer me that, and then I'll answer your questions. Although, I
can only answer for myself -- I do not claim to speak for Jim.

Joe
___________________
*Joseph E. La Rue*
cell: 480.272.2715
email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
and destroy all copies of the original message.


On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Michael McDonald <mmcdon at gmu.edu> wrote:

> Please, no $25 hypothetical argument against small donations since whatever
> threshold is actually proposed can be attacked for being too low by raising
> the hypothetical bar. State the acceptable threshold. Is it $200? Is it $5
> million? $1 trillion? Would you like to index it to inflation? Specifics,
> please.
>
> ============
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
> Associate Professor
> George Mason University
> 4400 University Drive - 3F4
> Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
>
> 703-993-4191 (office)
> e-mail:  mmcdon at gmu.edu
> web:     http://elections.gmu.edu
> twitter: @ElectProject
>
> From: Joe La Rue [mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:25 PM
> To: mmcdon at gmu.edu
> Cc: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Check out TALLAHASSEE: Support mounts to allow unlimited
> political contributi
>
> Jim can (and I presume will) speak for himself. But I can tell you as
> someone who once worked for him that I never heard Jim say he opposed all
> disclosure. My perception of Jim is that he opposes disclosure at levels
> that make no sense and do not actually further the informational interest.
> That was the type of disclosure we attacked when I worked for him. The
> question for Jim (as it should be for everyone) is what level of
> contribution makes sense to be disclosed. Does anybody really have the time
> (or care!) to review disclosures of $25 to a campaign? Does the fact that
> my
> neighbor, who I don't like, gave $25 to a campaign really make me want to
> vote for the other guy? Or, does the huge volume of small disclosures make
> it more difficult for me to figure out who the big-money funders of
> campaigns (or independent expenditures) are?
>
>
> Joe
> ___________________
> Joseph E. La Rue
> cell: 480.272.2715
> email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
> for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
> and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any
> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
> are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
> and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Michael McDonald <mmcdon at gmu.edu> wrote:
> No, I was not implying that Jim is hypocritical since I thought it was
> common knowledge that Jim believes disclosure leads to harassment and
> worse.
> Through the power of e-mail archives, we have such gems from Jim in the
> last
> election as:
>
> 7/27/12 "Another Romney supporter harassed after Obama campaign posts a
> negative story about him on their campaign web site."
>
> And
>
> 7/25/12 "Romney donor bashed by Obama campaign now target of two federal
> audits | Fox News"
>
> After debating disclosure over the past year, I am truly surprised that I
> completely misunderstood Jim's position on disclosure. Disclosure is
> okay(!); the issue is just setting the right contribution amount for
> disclosure. But, I'm struggling to understand what level is the right
> amount
> since the second story that Jim graced us with is about Frank Vandersloot,
> whose company gave $1 million to a Romney SuperPAC and claimed to have
> raised between $2 to $5 million for the Romney campaign as a national
> finance co-chair.
>
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76899.html
>
> What I was thought I was doing was poking Jim for approving only half of
> the
> reform package and conveniently ignoring the part he doesn't agree with. A
> reform trajectory on campaign finance has been for reformers to be willing
> to give in on contribution limits if there would be disclosure, a deal that
> many conservatives agreed to at the time. Once the contribution limits were
> gone, the attack on disclosure commenced. But I'll play Brad's game: The
> Tallahassee newspaper story does not say what contribution limit would be
> subjected to disclosure...perhaps Brad and Jim would be willing to state
> for
> posterity what disclosure threshold they would be willing to accept in
> exchange for unlimited contribution limits.
>
> ============
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
> Associate Professor
> George Mason University
> 4400 University Drive - 3F4
> Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
>
> 703-993-4191 (office)
> e-mail:  mmcdon at gmu.edu
> web:     http://elections.gmu.edu
> twitter: @ElectProject
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Smith, Brad [mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:03 AM
> To: mmcdon at gmu.edu; law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: RE: [EL] Check out TALLAHASSEE: Support mounts to allow unlimited
> political contributi
>
> This is a point, not a question. Michael seems to imply, rather unsubtly,
> that Jim is being hypocritical here. Probably I should let Jim speak for
> himself, but I have never understood Jim to oppose the disclosure of
> campaign contributions to candidates and parties.
>
> I think there is a growing majority of those who seriously study the issue
> (i.e. academics, not the activists) that disclosure thresholds should be
> set
> higher than they have been, but that's another issue. I've not known Jim to
> oppose disclosure of contributions to candidates, as Michael suggests he
> does.
>
> 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 Michael
> McDonald [mmcdon at gmu.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 9:23 AM
> To: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Check out TALLAHASSEE: Support mounts to allow
> unlimited       political contributi
>
> Jim, I take it your positive comment means you also approve of their call
> unlimited contribution limits if there is within 24-hour on-line public
> disclosure.
>
> ============
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
> Associate Professor
> George Mason University
> 4400 University Drive - 3F4
> Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
>
> 703-993-4191 (office)
> e-mail:  mmcdon at gmu.edu
> web:     http://elections.gmu.edu
> twitter: @ElectProject
>
> 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: Thursday, January 17, 2013 7:08 AM
> To: rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: [EL] Check out TALLAHASSEE: Support mounts to allow unlimited
> political contributi
>
> Another state facing the reality that only by eliminating candidate
> contribution limits can there be real accountability and transparency.
> Interestingly, this time proposed by campaign finance reformers.  Jim Bopp
>
> Click here: TALLAHASSEE: Support mounts to allow unlimited political
> contributions in Florida - Florida - MiamiHerald.com#stor
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130117/08d8a6ea/attachment.html>