[EL] "We got way too excited over money in the 2012 elections"

[David Segal]

Various people were/are concerned about CU for various reasons, including both the effects on binary election outcomes and the values of politicians who are such that they're able to get elected to begin with.  No doubt the effects of money on what values candidates hold or what issues are afforded serious debate is much harder to measure than is the impact on zero-sum electoral outcomes.
But gay marriage strikes me as the exception that proves the rule -- allowable because it doesn't contravene (and to some extent comports with) the values of wealthier people.  Success on that front makes the mismatches between public opinion and legislative outcomes vis a vis Wall Street, progressive taxation, social security/medicare, concern about the deficit vs concern about jobs, etc, even more stark.  
From: psherman at ij.org
To: davidadamsegal at hotmail.com; jbirkenstock at capdale.com; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: RE: [EL] "We got way too excited over money in the 2012 elections"
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 21:12:39 +0000







Even assuming that this is a correct assessment of the role that money plays in politics in general, I don't think it distinguishes 2012, when pundits absolutely lost their minds
 about the "torrents" of money unleashed by Citizens United (and SpeechNow.org!), from any other recent election year (or from any election in decades, for that matter).




Which issue positions were un-serious in 2004 or 2008, before Citizens United, but became serious in 2012 (or vice versa)? The only thing that comes to my mind is, perhaps, increased Republican support for gay rights, which was promoted by American Unity
 PAC.  I think this trend (to the extent there is one) probably has more to do with changes in public opinion than changes in campaign-finance law, but even if money has played a role, that just shows how new sources of political funding have expanded the range
 of opinions that can be held by "serious" candidates.  That strikes me as a good thing and, in this particular case, I think most prominent opponents of
Citizens United would probably agree.



In any event, the Great Citizens United Freak Out of 2012 that Ezra is trying to explain doesn't seem to have had anything to do with this phenomenon.  It seems to have been prompted, instead, by widespread belief that the money unleashed by
Citizens United would buy electoral outcomes.  And, as Ezra correctly notes, that belief appears to have been either incorrect or dramatically overstated.



Best,

Paul



From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of David Segal [davidadamsegal at hotmail.com]

Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 2:51 PM

To: Joseph Birkenstock; law-election at uci.edu

Subject: Re: [EL] "We got way too excited over money in the 2012 elections"








I'd be interested in hearing what the panelists said, but analyses along these lines miss the role that money plays in determining which issue positions are allowed to be taken by 'serious' candidates and electeds.  And especially misses that all-important
 first sorting: That in order to make a serious run for even most state legislative seats (or city council seats in mid-sized or big cities) you need to be somebody who's had success at networking among people who are able to make sizable campaign donations.
  





And I think all of that does make it a 'decisive player' and 'imperil democracy', even if it doesn't tip the red-blue balance.






And yet the way we talked about money in the run-up to the 2012 election, we really suggested it would be a decisive player. In fact, we suggested, quite often, that
 it wouldn’t just decide the election, but that it would imperil democracy itself.









Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 14:23:44 -0400

From: jbirkenstock at capdale.com

To: law-election at uci.edu

Subject: [EL] "We got way too excited over money in the 2012 elections"





Quick additional nomination to today’s edition of the always indispensable “ELB News and Commentary”:
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/06/we-got-way-too-excited-over-money-in-the-2012-elections/
 
The linked article is a transcript of Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein’s opening remarks for a panel at the Yale Institution for Social and Policy
 Studies on “Purchasing Power: Money, Politics, and Inequality.”  
 
Klein’s remarks briefly explore how a “really, really simple” mathematical model ended up predicting last year’s presidential election results to within
 a tenth of a percentage point despite omitting (or because it omitted) any consideration of the amount of money raised or spent by or for either candidate. 

 
In fact, the model’s predicted result was much more accurate than the truthier outcome Klein’s gut told him to expect; and in his remarks Klein explains
 that “one reason I think the model beat me was that I was reading a lot of stories about super PACs and campaign fundraising and my model wasn’t.”
 
The schedule of the Yale conference itself is online here:

http://isps.yale.edu/conferences/purchasing-power-money-politics-and-inequality/schedule#.UYfJPMpi-M8.  Sounds like an interesting event, I’d be interested to hear any field reports from any list members in attendance.
 
Best,
Joe
 
 
________________________________

Joseph M. Birkenstock, Esq.

Caplin & Drysdale, Chtd.

One Thomas Circle, NW

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 862-7836

www.capdale.com/jbirkenstock

*also admitted to practice in CA
 
 
 


From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
 [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen

Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 10:48 AM

To: law-election at UCI.edu

Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 5/6/13


 




“Lobbyists Keep Freshmen Coming Back for More Checks”


Posted on 
May 6, 2013 7:38 am 
by Rick Hasen


Political MoneyLine reports.








Posted in

campaign finance, 
legislation and legislatures, 
lobbying | 
Comments Off 



“On Bush v. Gore, O’Connor Belatedly Regrets”


Posted on 
May 6, 2013 7:38 am 
by Rick Hasen


Jost on Justice.








Posted in

Bush v. Gore reflections, 
Supreme Court | 
Comments Off 



“Battling Across the Finish Line: Florida and
 Colorado Move Toward Approval of Reform Bills” 

Posted on 
May 6, 2013 7:21 am 
by Rick Hasen


A ChapinBlog.








Posted in

election administration, 
The Voting Wars | 
Comments Off 



“Getting Beyond the Fraud”


Posted on 
May 6, 2013 7:20 am 
by Rick Hasen


Fort Wayne Journal Gazette 
editorial: “Before Indiana GOP officials bluster on too long about how dirty the Indiana Democratic Party’s kettle is when it comes to election fraud, they should keep in mind their own record.”








Posted in

The Voting Wars | 
Comments Off 



“Husted suddenly losses interest in election uniformity”


Posted on 
May 5, 2013 2:09 pm 
by Rick Hasen


Plunderbund blogs.








Posted in

election administration, 
The Voting Wars | 
Comments Off 



“Stem dark money flow into elections”


Posted on 
May 5, 2013 2:04 pm 
by Rick Hasen


Raph Graybill oped in the
Montana Standard.








Posted in

campaign finance | 
Comments Off 



“L.A. County rejects school districts’ bid to avoid voting rights suits”


Posted on 
May 5, 2013 12:22 pm 
by Rick Hasen


LAT: “Los Angeles County officials rejected a bid Tuesday from several Santa Clarita Valley school districts and a water district
 hoping to consolidate elections and avoid the kind of voting rights lawsuits that other local governments have been hit with….The districts commissioned a joint demographic study that found moving to by-district elections would not necessarily increase minority
 voting power or protect them against voting rights lawsuits. So instead they requested that the county allow them to consolidate their elections with the statewide general election in a bid to increase voter participation in their elections….But officials
 with the county registrar-recorder said allowing the districts to move their elections might overload the county’s voting system, which has limited room on each ballot. According to the office, large portions of the county are already at 75% capacity in even-year
 November elections.”








Posted in

election administration, 
voting, 
Voting Rights Act | 
Comments Off 



“The House Prefers Chaos to Order’


Posted on 
May 4, 2013 6:13 pm 
by Rick Hasen


NYT Editorial:

“Regular order!” That has been the demand of House Republicans for three years, insisting on a return to the distant days when Congress actually passed budget resolutions and spending bills, instead of paying for the government through
 shortsighted stopgap measures.

“Senate Democrats have done nothing,” 
Speaker John Boehner said on “Meet the Press” on March 3, referring to the Senate’s failure to pass a budget since 2009. “It’s time for them to vote. It’s time for us to get back to regular order here in Congress.” The two chambers could try to resolve
 their differences in a conference committee, he said, “and maybe come to some agreement.”

But a funny thing happened a few days after those comments were made: the Senate agreed to that demand and

actually passed a budget. Suddenly all those Republican cries for regular order stopped. Suddenly the House has no interest in a conference with the Senate. Instead, Congress is preparing for yet another budget crisis.









Posted in

legislation and legislatures, 
political parties, 
political polarization | 
Comments Off 



“The ‘Transparency’ Agenda; It’s a murky business.”


Posted on 
May 4, 2013 5:29 pm 
by Rick Hasen


This article appears in the
Weekly Standard.








Posted in

campaign finance | 
Comments Off 





-- 
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org


<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments)
 was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein. This
 message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure, copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
 prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document. <-->


_______________________________________________ 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/20130507/3c516ac8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130507/3c516ac8/attachment.png>