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

Thu Jan 17 11:11:03 PST 2013

I would note that Florida is already one of a minority of states with no lower threshold for individualized disclosure.  Candidates are currently required to disclose the name and address of all contributors, regardless of the amount of the contribution.

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Joe La Rue
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:51 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

$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<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:703-993-4191> (office)
e-mail:  mmcdon at gmu.edu<mailto:mmcdon at gmu.edu>
web:     http://elections.gmu.edu
twitter: @ElectProject
From: Joe La Rue [mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:25 PM
To: mmcdon at gmu.edu<mailto:mmcdon at gmu.edu>
Cc: law-election at uci.edu<mailto: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<tel:480.272.2715>
email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:703-993-4191> (office)
e-mail:  mmcdon at gmu.edu<mailto:mmcdon at gmu.edu>
web:     http://elections.gmu.edu
twitter: @ElectProject

-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, Brad [mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:03 AM
To: mmcdon at gmu.edu<mailto:mmcdon at gmu.edu>; law-election at uci.edu<mailto: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<tel:614.236.6317>
http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx

________________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
[law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] on behalf of Michael
McDonald [mmcdon at gmu.edu<mailto:mmcdon at gmu.edu>]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 9:23 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu<mailto: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<tel:703-993-4191> (office)
e-mail:  mmcdon at gmu.edu<mailto: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>
[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: Thursday, January 17, 2013 7:08 AM
To: rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>; law-election at uci.edu<mailto: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<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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130117/1ae721e6/attachment.html>