[EL] Civic Courage, Indeed

[Salvador Peralta]

How can this kind of analysis apply to public perceptions that coordination exists between a candidate and a so-called non-coordinated Independent Expenditure Group , run by close allies of the candidate, that outspends the candidate dramatically in key races?  

Take as examples many of the Republican Primaries where candidates spent comparatively little money on media in the states where these "non-coordinated" IE pacs played heavily.  

If candidates spend their money on a ground game while the superpacs spend money on television, doesn't that create at least an appearance of coordination when family or close traditional allies are involved -- especially in cases where the candidate is being heavily outspent by their supposedly non-coordinated pacs?
 



________________________________
 From: Robert Wechsler <catbird at pipeline.com>
To: "Scarberry, Mark" <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>; sean at impactpolicymanagement.com 
Cc: "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu> 
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 5:01 AM
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

_______________________________________________
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/20131121/e992e5ed/attachment.html>