[EL] Check out TALLAHASSEE: Support mounts to allow unlimited political c...
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Thu Jan 17 14:43:13 PST 2013
I have never talked to Prof McDonald so it is surprising that he is so
certain about what I think.
For those interested in my views, I have been quoted repeatedly in the
press that I agree with disclosure for political actors, candidate, pacs
and political parties (in the case of political parties when they engage in
election related speech) at a level where the disclosure provides
meaningful information to voters, including their donors.
Further, I am in favor of disclosure of speech that is unambiguously
campaign related, such as express advocacy, again at a level where the
disclosure provides meaningful information to voters. This includes
contributors where they give money to a multipurpose group for that purpose.
I have not seen any studies that demonstrate at what level of
contribution or spending triggers public interest but I am certain it is more than
$200.
Finally, there are two disclosure regimes, a one-time event driven
report and comprehensive reporting of all a groups contributions and
expenditures. Comprehensive disclosure is only warranted for political actors and
groups whose major purpose is the election or nomination of candidates.
Otherwise, for multipurpose groups, a one-time event driven report, like the
one the Court in Citizens United upheld, suffices.
And while I was Co-Chairman of the Subcommittee on Restoring
Constitutional Government of the RNC Platform Committee, I did not write the whole
paragraph on campaign finance. I did write this:
> "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."
Thanks for your interest in my views, Prof McDonald. I hope this
clarifies them for you. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 1/17/2013 5:10:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
BSmith at law.capital.edu writes:
Whatever.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 17, 2013, at 2:23 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
_______________________________________________
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/20130117/7a95b6e3/attachment.html>
View list directory