[EL] Check out TALLAHASSEE: Support mounts to allow unlimited political c...
Steve Klein
stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com
Thu Jan 17 16:43:21 PST 2013
As a matter of law, there is a difference between contributions, independent expenditures and issue advocacy. With these come very different disclosure regimes.
So, there's more than a little room for nuance in the disclosure discussion.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 17, 2013, at 5:09 PM, Margaret Groarke <margaret.groarke at manhattan.edu> wrote:
> When I joined this list, Mr. Bopp, the thing I found most odd was your extremely frequent statement that the only rights guaranteed were those one could exercise anonymously -- and thus the necessity of secrecy for political contributions.
>
> Perhaps Professor McDonald, like me, gained our understanding of your views from your frequent statement of them on this list.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 17, 2013, at 5:44 PM, "JBoppjr at aol.com" <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130117/05b06a6c/attachment.html>
View list directory