[EL] Civic Courage, Indeed

[Larry Levine]

Of course it creates that perception. And in some cases the perception is backed up by reality. There are all sorts of loopholes that make coordination unnecessary and permit levels of awareness that are within the law.

Larry

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Salvador Peralta
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 8:30 AM
To: Robert Wechsler; Scarberry, Mark; sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Civic Courage, Indeed

 

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/fe498cc0/attachment.html>