[EL] Civic Courage, Indeed

[Sean Parnell]

Well, you have me there. Now you just need to get a law passed defining as
fraud the claiming of independence for a contribution made to an IE
committee that supports the donor's relative. Because that certainly isn't
there now.

 

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 2:17 PM
To: Sean Parnell
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Civic Courage, Indeed

 

One has a First Amendment right to be snarky, but not a First Amendment
right to commit fraud (saying one is independent when one has a close
personal relationship so that one can spend unlimited contributions on a
campaign that is limited with respect to contributions). But fraud is the
sort of thing that isn't in the Constitution. It is found in the Bill of
Responsibilities known as criminal laws, so it does not exist in your world.
It exists in mine.

Rob

On 11/21/2013 2:01 PM, Sean Parnell wrote:

Ah, my apologies - you're not prohibiting people from exercising their First
Amendment rights, you're only prohibiting them from doing so in the manner
they prefer and find effective. Forgive me for not picking up on that
distinction. Next I suppose we ought to focus on prohibiting Rush Limbaugh
from being as effective as he is. Maybe we can restrict his political speech
mode to some form of artistic expression where he won't so dominate the
field, such as erotic dance?

 

I have to admit however, I struggle to find the 'Bill of Responsibilities'
embedded in the Constitution alongside the Bill of Rights. Perhaps it's one
of the emanations? A penumbra maybe? It might be hidden in the general
welfare language, I suppose.

 

If that's too snarky for you, I apologize, and I'll simply observe that our
rights have legal underpinnings embedded in the U.S. Constitution, while
these 'responsibilities' you refer to generally do not have the same sort of
legal force. Your '3 dimensions' apparently give equal legal weight to all 3
dimensions, whereas I am content to keep two of those three dimensions well
in the background when it comes to the exercise of constitutional rights.
One chief advantage (I believe at least) of my one dimensional world is it
keeps me from wanting to strip some people of their constitutional rights
because it appears to me that doing so would be of benefit to the public (or
that part of the public I align with) or where I believe some people are
failing to live up to their responsibilities as good citizens. 

 

Best,

 

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 1:01 PM
To: Sean Parnell
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Civic Courage, Indeed

 

I don't understand why, if you believe in your argument, you cannot make it
without misrepresenting others' arguments. I never said that these people
(including myself) should not exercise their First Amendment rights, based
on appearances. I just said that they should not do it in the form of a
supposedly independent group that does not appear independent (with clear
definitions of who this includes).

I also find it deeply sad that you don't see that responsibilities accompany
rights. I live in a wonderfully complex, three-dimensional world of rights,
responsiblities, and appearances. My responsibilities are at least as
important to me as my rights. You live in a simple one-dimensional world of
rights, rights, and rights. I wouldn't live there for anything.

Rob 




On 11/21/2013 8:35 AM, Sean Parnell wrote:

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/20131121/957130c5/attachment.html>