[EL] Civic Courage, Indeed

[Robert Wechsler]

Dear Mark and Sean:

I think it is too often forgotten that campaign finance is part of 
government ethics. Therefore, basic government ethics principles can 
seem foreign to the conversation.

Both of you note that family members often don't like each other's 
politics. In fact, they often don't like each other, period. But that 
does not make them any less conflicted with respect to their 
candidate/official sibling. And the public, which does not know the 
details of any sibling relationship (see all of literature for the 
complexities involved), sees the same thing no matter what the 
relationship actually is. And they are right to. Equally, governments 
are right to create clear conflict rules, rather than basing them on a 
vague concept of appearance.

I have never seen a conflict of interest provision that differentiates 
between siblings that like or agree with their siblings. This equal 
treatment of siblings, and others, is a basic government ethics 
principle. It should apply equally in campaign finance.

Mark asks, "Would a family member be disqualified under this standard 
from organizing an independent group to oppose a family member's 
election?" The family member would still be conflicted, but would 
coordination still be a concern?
Well, it could be a fake supporter of an opponent. There are so many 
fakes in recent elections that this kind of fake would not be 
surprising. Considering how effective some outside independent groups 
have been at shooting those they support in the foot, I would argue that 
a coordinated opposing group would be a clever tactic.

The other basic concept that seems to be missing here is power. Both of 
you seem to think that family relationships involve political ideas. No, 
family relationships tend to involve power. The Cheney sisters' public 
disagreement is atypical, as are Carville and Matlin.

With respect to independent groups, the principal issue involving family 
members is not ideas. The principal issue is family members being seen 
as coordinating to help one member get elected, to get power.

I don't share all the views of the senator my stepson works for, but I 
know that if I were to form a supposedly independent group that took 
sides in his next election, no one who knew about the relationship would 
believe there was no coordination. The First Amendment isn't all that 
relevant here. No one has a First Amendment right to insist he is not 
coordinating with his stepson when the public reasonably believes that 
he is coordinating. This is about fraud and making a mockery of rules 
that are intended to prevent corruption, not about a marketplace of ideas.

Rob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20131121/59d08dab/attachment.html>