[EL] McCutcheon
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Tue Oct 1 07:24:30 PDT 2013
If you read my /Slate/ article you will see that I actually address that
point head on.
I further explain why it is better for reformers to fight against
further deregulation as part of a longer term strategy to reverse the
/Citizens United/ era in this piece.
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2293979>
I don't expect to convince you, nor do I intend to continue this
debate. But I did want to point interested parties to my defenses of
these positions.
On 10/1/2013 4:50 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
> Since "reformers" believe that independent spending is just a
> corrupting as large contributions to candidates, I puzzled by their
> opposition to easing candidate contribution limits. Under their way
> of thinking, the only thing that would change is that candidates would
> get the money directly.
> This should be viewed as a positive change since it is
> pro-democracy, pro-transparency and pro-accountability -- after all
> you cannot vote against a super PAC -- but you can vote against a
> candidate for receiving a large contribution you do not like. And many
> of the "evil" "outside" groups would go away, and much of their money,
> as donors redirect their contributions to candidates.
> This is obviously a better system than the current one. Jim Bopp
> In a message dated 9/30/2013 2:04:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>
>
> Rooting for “Faux Judicial Restraint”–My Slate Piece on
> McCutcheon <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55576>
>
> Posted on September 30, 2013 11:02 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55576>by Rick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I have written The Next /Citizens United/? The campaign finance
> case at the Supreme Court next week will be big—or huge
> <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/09/campaign_finance_at_the_supreme_court_is_mccutcheon_v_fec_the_next_citizens.html>.
> for /Slate. /It begins:
>
> Sometimes at the Supreme Court, it is not if you lose, but how
> <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2009/09/how_liberals_can_win_by_losing_at_the_roberts_court.html>.
> That principle will be on full display in /McCutcheon v.
> Federal Election Commission/
> <http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commission/>,
> the campaign finance case the Supreme Court will hear next
> Tuesday, the second day of the new term. If the government
> loses big, it could mark the beginning of the end
> <http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/07/supreme-court-another-citizens-united-but-worse.html>
> of any limits on campaign contributions given directly to
> candidates in federal, state, and local elections.
>
> /Citizens United/ and the rise of super PACs are already
> flooding
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2293979>
> the election system with money. But so far we’ve managed to
> keep a little distance between the money and the candidates
> themselves. If hard-line conservatives get their way, that
> distance will evaporate, and soon you could write a
> multimillion-dollar check that would go right into a
> candidate’s bank account. The question is whether Chief
> Justice John Roberts will hold back the conservative majority
> back from the brink—though if he does, Justice Antonin Scalia
> will surely taunt him for it.
>
--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20131001/865313f6/attachment.html>
View list directory