[EL] Civic Courage, Indeed
Robert Wechsler
catbird at pipeline.com
Thu Nov 21 14:34:40 PST 2013
Your message evinces a misunderstanding of a basic government ethics
concept. I will quote from my own /Local Government Ethics Programs in a
Nutshell/ <http://www.cityethics.org/publications/LGEP-Nutshell>, an
introduction to government ethics:
It is important to recognize that the opposite of trust is not
distrust, which we need in order to keep our representatives
accountable, but a /lack of trust/. A lack of trust causes people
not to accept their government’s decisions as fair. A democratic
government does not thrive when there is a lack of trust in those
who govern it.
(The short introduction, and its long parent, are available free on the
City Ethics website, so I am not seeking recompense from my self-quotation.)
By not thriving, I mean that people tend not to participate, not to
vote, not to go to meetings, not to volunteer for boards, not to run for
office, not to apply for government jobs.
I certainly do not favor "blind trust" in government, any more than I
think that unlimited speech is "competitive" or "rigorous." I also favor
a campaign finance program where there is training and free advice
available so that "policing" is only what happens when someone does not
seek or follow advice. Regulation should be responsible, too.
Rob
On 11/21/2013 3:36 PM, Benjamin Barr wrote:
> "Unfortunately, many people do not consider appearances and do not
> think of their responsibilities, and their thoughtlessness undermines
> trust in our political system."
>
> Well said, Rob. To the extent you are arguing in support of the idea
> that private speakers should speak ethically with their moral
> compass sharply in tune, I applaud you. But the operation of campaign
> finance reform removes those moral obligations from individuals and
> associations and transfers them to boards and commissions of
> do-goodedness. Boards of do-goodedness then promulgate bizarrely
> complicated and incomprehensible rules that attempt to define concepts
> like the "appearance of corruption" and so on, leaving ordinary
> speakers with no idea when and how it is safe to speak without the
> friendly enforcement division of the FEC launching multi-year
> investigations into why you spoke the way you did or with pre-dawn
> raids showing up at your front door.
>
> It's this abdication of the notion that we trust the citizenry to
> rigorously engage one another and office holders and to develop their
> own sense of civility and discourse that concerns me. Promulgating
> the umpteenth version of standards to define the "appearance of
> corruption" or the invention of a fifteen prong coordination test
> offers but superficial security while dampening important debate we
> should be having as a nation.
>
> One question though, since I see this notion frequently lauded on this
> listserv-why is promoting "trust in our political system"
> an undifferentiated positive we should support? And what basis
> supports this notion? Skepticism of concentrated power and office
> holders is the touchstone of government accountability and freedom in
> the American tradition, not blind trust in political and governmental
> actors. This value differentiation seems to explain a good deal of
> the schism between those who value rigorous, competitive speech and
> those who favor a heightened regulatory presence to police
> "responsibilities" of speakers. But perhaps there's more depth to the
> notion that we should establish government policies that promote trust
> in government. Help me see why this might be.
>
> Forward,
>
> Benjamin Barr
> Counsel to Project Veritas, the Wyoming Liberty Group, and speech
> instigators nationwide
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Robert Wechsler
> <catbird at pipeline.com <mailto:catbird at pipeline.com>> wrote:
>
> An appearance standard need not be subjective, as you argue in the
> McCutcheon amicus brief. Responsible appearance standards are
> based on objective relationships, such as family relationships,
> business relatinships, and superior-subordinate relationships.
> These are very logical stopping points.
>
> If, for example, I were to form an independent expenditure group
> that supported a campaign of the senator for whom my stepson
> works, it would, if this fact came out, appear that the group was
> not independent, even though in fact I have never met or
> communicated with the senator. It would be reasonable for the
> public to assume that I was not acting independently and that any
> funds I raised to support the senator were no different than the
> funds raised by the senator's campaign committee.
>
> Do I have a First Amendment right to support the senator?
> Definitely. Do I have a First Amendment right to form a supposedly
> independent expenditure group to raise funds to support the
> senator, when I actually have a close family relationship to the
> senator's aide? No.
>
> With rights come responsibilities. It is my responsibility to
> recognize that forming such a group would be seen as fraudulent
> and would therefore undermine trust in our political system. I
> wouldn't do such a thing nor argue for it to be done.
>
> The same goes for my right to write in my government ethics blog
> about this senator. I have every right to do it. But because I
> have a conflict, because it would appear that I am biased, I
> shouldn't and I won't.
>
> Unfortunately, many people do not consider appearances and do not
> think of their responsibilities, and their thoughtlessness
> undermines trust in our political system.
>
> Rob Wechsler
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/20/2013 9:30 AM, Bill Maurer wrote:
>>
>> Robert,
>>
>> That’s an interesting approach, but I don’t see a logical
>> stopping point. While it would appear to leave independent
>> expenditure/contribution distinction intact, in reality I think
>> it would mean that almost all political speech would be treated
>> as potentially corrupting and thus capable of being regulated and
>> restricted by the government. If the First Amendment is to be
>> preserved, I think, the assumption should be the other
>> way—political speech cannot be regulated or restricted unless the
>> government can actually show that it is corrupting.
>>
>> We made this point more thoroughly in our amicus brief in the
>> McCutcheon case, which you may find interesting.
>> http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/amicus_briefs/mccutcheon-amicus.pdf
>>
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
>> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf
>> Of *Robert Wechsler
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 20, 2013 4:14 AM
>> *To:* law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Civic Courage, Indeed
>>
>> One of the things I find missing in this discussion is the
>> concept of appearance. The public can never /know/ whether an
>> "independent" expenditure group is truly independent of a
>> candidate committee. The public can only go by how independent
>> the group appears to be. Appearance is the only solid standard
>> the public has.
>>
>> If an "independent" expenditure group is run by members of a
>> candidate's personal circle, then it will not /appear/
>> independent. And therefore, there is an appearance that
>> contributions to the expenditure group are no different than
>> contributions to a candidate committee. Such contributions, then,
>> may both appear and be corrupting every bit as much as
>> contributions to a candidate committee.
>>
>> Arguing that contributions to an "independent" expenditure group
>> should be unlimited cannot be legitimate without an accompanying
>> argument that the group must /appear/ independent. Otherwise,
>> from the public's point of view (which is what matters) it is
>> effectively an argument that contributions to a candidate
>> committee should be unlimited, and this has been rejected by the
>> Supreme Court.
>>
>> Robert Wechsler
>> Director of Research
>> City Ethics, Inc.
>> rwechsler at cityethics.org <mailto:rwechsler at cityethics.org>
>> 203-230-2548 <tel:203-230-2548>
>> www.cityethics.org <http://www.cityethics.org>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Spam
>> <https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04KPMf5xz&m=960fd14e886c&t=20131120&c=s>
>> Not spam
>> <https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04KPMf5xz&m=960fd14e886c&t=20131120&c=n>
>> Forget previous vote
>> <https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04KPMf5xz&m=960fd14e886c&t=20131120&c=f>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto: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/d1bbff84/attachment.html>
View list directory