[EL] Civic Courage, Indeed

[Sean Parnell]

Thank you, Robert, for helping to fill in a few of the details on what I'm
sure will be the ever-growing list of Americans who are prohibited from
exercising their First Amendment rights based on appearances, or at least
the appearances preferred (disfavored?) by the 'reform' community. I look
forward to reading about more Americans who need to go on this list. Perhaps
it could be cross-referenced with Santa's naughty/nice list?

 

Sean Parnell

President

Impact Policy Management, LLC

6411 Caleb Court

Alexandria, VA  22315

571-289-1374 (c)

sean at impactpolicymanagement.com

 

From: Robert Wechsler [mailto:catbird at pipeline.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 8:01 AM
To: Scarberry, Mark; sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Civic Courage, Indeed

 


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/d3bdfbf8/attachment.html>