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

[Joe La Rue]

Indeed, the phrase "any restrictions or conditions" is broad enough to
include disclosure, among many other restrictions the reform community
favors. However, the phrase must be read in context: "We oppose any
restrictions or conditions *that would discourage Americans from exercising
their constitutional right to enter the political fray or limit their
commitment to their ideals*." (emphasis added). I stand by what I've said:
the Jim Bopp I worked for was never an enemy of all disclosure. Jim only
opposed low disclosure levels that chilled political speech and association
while serving no informational interest, or disclosure in highly
politicized cases (such as same-sex "marriage") that resulted in death
threats, vandalism, and such. The Platform Statement can certainly be read
as consistent with that view.

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 12:20 PM, Michael McDonald <mmcdon at gmu.edu> wrote:

> Here is the plank of the 2012 Republican Party platform authored by Jim:
>
> The rights of citizenship do not stop at the ballot
> box. They include the free speech right to devote one's
> resources to whatever cause or candidate one supports.
> We oppose any restrictions or conditions that
> would discourage Americans from exercising their
> constitutional right to enter the political fray or limit
> their commitment to their ideals. As a result, we support
> repeal of the remaining sections of McCain-
> Feingold, support either raising or repealing contribution
> limits, and oppose passage of the DISCLOSE Act
> or any similar legislation designed to vitiate the
> Supreme Court's recent decisions protecting political
> speech in Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election
> Commission and Citizens United v. Federal Election
> Commission. (p.12)
>
> http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf
>
> The phrase "any restrictions or conditions" would clearly preclude
> disclosure, since disclosure is a condition.
>
> I am not calling out Jim as a hypocrite. I do not believe that Jim supports
> disclosure. While Joe and Brad say that Jim believes disclosure is
> acceptable at some level, his stance against any disclosure is there in the
> Republican Party platform. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is my prior belief,
> so I can't be calling Jim a hypocrite as Brad claims. What I am calling Jim
> out for is providing only half the story. It would be significant if Jim
> publicly states he is willing to accept disclosure in exchange for
> unlimited
> contribution limits, particularly whatever limits are to be found in this
> Florida proposal or disclosure at a general threshold level.
>
> ============
> 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: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Smith,
> Brad
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:10 PM
> To: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Check out TALLAHASSEE: Support mounts to allow unlimited
> political contributi
>
> Michael here seems to be conflating two issues. One is disclosure of
> contributions to candidates and parties. Jim's post, apparently endorsing
> the initiative in Florida, suggests that he is open to that, and indeed
> that
> is the position of Senator McConnell and pretty much all people in the
> pro-freedom camp. There is nothing new here except the willingness of
> reformers to actually consider that possibility.
>
> The issue here has indeed been, if anything, one of the level for
> reporting.
> What I personally would agree to would depend on the nature of the full
> compromise. At a minimum, I tend to think that reporting shouldn't be
> required for anything under $750, which is roughly the current $200 federal
> limit adjusted for inflation. I'd like it to be higher, but I could
> compromise on a lower number if the deal was worth it. There. Now, Michael,
> what's your threshold? $1? $25? What's your bottom line negotiating
> position? Does $750 work for you? It might, by the way, be noted that the
> pro-freedom side has offered some exchange here for literally decades, but
> has always been rebuffed, both rhetorically and in votes in Congress. So
> this is real progress in Florida.
>
> Meanwhile, the issue in recent years has not been disclosure and
> contributions to campaigns so much as the compelled disclosure of
> membership
> in or support for organizations that do not have political activity as a
> primary purpose. Here, the pro-regulatory camp offers no compromise. They
> simply want more disclosure. They offer nothing in return, except that
> which, through their own intransigence, they already lost in court. No
> disclosure laws have been weakened since Citizen United and SpeechNow.org.
> Reformers could probably have had a reasonable legislative compromise but
> they rejected any talk of it - even $1 in corporate or union independent
> expenditures was illegal, and had to stay that way. Note that Michael has
> confused this issue with the issue above in some of the quotes he has
> pulled
> from past posts. Furthermore, it is not illogical to raise examples of
> harassment even if one would be willing to accept such risks - the point
> may
> simply be to point out to the harassme  nt-deniers that it does take place,
> is a real costs, and should lead us to undertake a serious cost/benefit
> analysis.
>
> We have, at least at the Center for Competitive Politics, offered some
> ideas
> for addressing the concerns of the pro-regulation lobby in a reasonable
> fashion, but I've seen no interest in discussing any of them from the
> regulators.
>
> In any case, there is no reason for Michael's sarcasm and thinly veiled
> accusations of hypocrisy.
>
> 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 12:38 PM
> To: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Check out TALLAHASSEE: Support mounts to allow unlimited
> political contributi
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e6ea6957/attachment.html>