[EL] Prop 8 harassment

Sun Sep 1 16:26:53 PDT 2013

Sure, but that's entirely speculation about why people might not give to
defeat Spitzer, or more specifically, why they apparently didn't give to
this particular outside-money operation. That doesn't seem like very useful
speculation.

As to your question, the answer is really simple: "Retaliation" against
your opponent's donors is the flip side of rewarding your own. Both are
forms of corruption. Almost everything that reformers favor would address
both forms of corruption: With public financing, of course, there would be
no one to retaliate against. Contribution limits minimize the temptation to
retaliate -- a Nixonian politician might go after the guy who put $500,000
into his opponent's campaign, but probably not one of many $2,000 donors.
Etc.

And disclosure is also essential to spotting retaliation when and if it
occurs. For example, in an article last year (discussed on this list),
Steve Hoersting named three companies that he believed the Obama
administration had retaliated against in regulatory actions. Because of
disclosure, it was easy to test that accusation, and see that two of the
three companies were primarily Democratic donors. Without public
disclosure, elected officials would still know who their friends are and
aren't, and could still retaliate as well as reward -- but we would never
know about it.

Mark Schmitt
Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute <http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/>
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: mschmitt9

On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org> wrote:

>  Thanks, Mark.  Those are interesting points, but I can think of plenty
> of reasons why people on Wall Street would be hesitant to cross Elliot
> Spitzer, whereas union leaders would feel no such reservations.  I don't
> remember union leaders being charged in highly publicized actions by the
> "Sheriff of Wall Street" only to have the charges quietly dropped months
> later (but only after their reputations and finances were destroyed).
> There was a reason why he was known as the "Sheriff of Wall Street" and not
> the "Sheriff of the Union Hall."  Sometimes the most obvious explanation is
> the right one and if people did not fear retaliation from Spitzer, perhaps
> Stringer would have outraised deBlasio by now.
>
> However, you didn't answer my question, which is how do pro-regulation
> proponents deal with minimizing the threat of official retaliation, which,
> while perhaps you feel is not at play here, has been in the past (i.e.,
> Nixon and the airlines).
>
> Bill
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Mark Schmitt [
> schmitt.mark at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 31, 2013 9:00 PM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Prop 8 harassment
>
>    "What to make of this story?" Well, first note that there's no actual
> retribution or intimidation even alleged. According to the Post, a couple
> of political entrepreneurs set up a committee to tap the Wall Street
> Spitzer-haters (a well-known group, several of whom appeared on camera in
> the fascinating film about Spitzer, *Client 9*), then failed to raise any
> money at all. They now claim that it's only because potential donors were
> fearful of retribution by Spitzer. No intimidated donor is quoted, even
> anonymously -- just two schmoes who couldn't raise enough to pay a month's
> rent.
>
>  As the story acknowledges, other anti-Spitzer committees have had no
> trouble raising money, and Spitzer's main opponent, Scott Stringer, has
> raised more than $4 million in fully disclosed contributions. For context,
> Stringer has raised almost as much as the $4.5 million raised by the
> current front-runner for *mayor*, Bill deBlasio. So people don't seem
> intimidated about contributing to Spitzer's opponent. And if your concern
> is that "a vendetta-driven megalomaniac etc etc" might win, you should be
> thankful for New York City's public-financing system, which boosts the
> value of Stringer's small donations and puts his total at close to $6
> million, vs Spitzer's $8 million. As a result, it's likely to be a very
> competitive race, in which name-recognition and other factors will matter
> more than the difference in spending.
>
>  Current NY fundraising totals here:
>
> http://www.nyccfb.info/VSApps/WebForm_Finance_Summary.aspx?as_election_cycle=2013
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org> wrote:
>
>>  Professor,****
>>
>>
>>  I appreciate your take on private citizen harassment, even though I
>> ultimately disagree.  But what to make of this story, then?  ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>>
>> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/steamroller_spitz_cows_kittish_stringer_25l25EqIpGaq2WtotahHiO
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> It would seem that harassment from elected officials is also legitimate
>> concern, perhaps one so significant that it will lead to the election of a
>> vendetta-driven megalomaniac who could qualify for a frequent customer card
>> from a brothel to run New York City’s finances.  In a similar situation
>> (thankfully prostitute-free), I would note that threats from the Nixon
>> Administration against the airlines led to the “brown paper bag filled with
>> cash” campaign scandals around the time of Watergate.  ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Does the possibility of government harassment in an age of growing
>> government activity raise enough flags to warrant reconsidering
>> disclosure?  How do those in favor of disclosure deal with these
>> situations, which may be even harder to detect than private citizen
>> harassment?  I can’t recall much discussion of this type of harassment here
>> or elsewhere.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Bill****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Rick Hasen
>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 31, 2013 10:20 AM
>> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
>> *Subject:* [EL] Prop 8 harassment****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Jim Bopp wrote a message which I inadvertently deleted but was able to
>> find in this archived post<http://department-lists.uci.edu/pipermail/law-election/2013-August/007755.html>and this
>> one<http://department-lists.uci.edu/pipermail/law-election/2013-August/007756.html>.
>> In the posts, Jim claimed there were lots of instances of Prop. 8
>> supporters be harassed (thanks to mapquesting by the "homosexual lobby" of
>> campaign donors).
>>
>> Jim and I debated this point on the listserv last year.  In that series
>> of posts, I pointed out that the courts in the Protectmarriage.com and Doe
>> v. Reed cases rejected Jim's claims that there was much unconstitutional
>> harassment of people simply for making donations.  (There were some
>> instances of harassment of leaders of the group---but not of simple
>> campaign donors).  If I remember Jim's response the last time we debated
>> this, he rejected the court's findings on the extent of the harassment as
>> well as the question of what should count as unconstitutional harassment.
>> (The debate has some interesting parallels to the points Sam Bagenstos was
>> making about private retaliation.)
>>
>> I cover the evidence of the extent of the harassment in Chill Out: A
>> Qualified Defense of Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws in the Internet Age<http://ssrn.com/abstract=1948313>,
>> 27 *Journal of Law and Politics* 557 (2012). I'd also recommend my
>> former student's note, Elian Dashev Economic Boycotts as Harassment: The
>> Threat to
>> First Amendment Protected Speech in the Aftermath of Doe v. Reed<http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2776&context=llr>.
>> In my article, while I reject the claims of harassment as exaggerated, I do
>> believe that as a matter of policy, jurisdictions should greatly increase
>> the threshold for disclosure of campaign contributions and spending,
>> because there is a value in donor privacy and releasing the names of those
>> who are very small financial players in elections does not serve an
>> important governmental purpose.
>>
>> I don't plan to engage in a debate about this with Jim again---but I did
>> not want to leave his points unanswered for those new to the listserv (or
>> with memory loss).
>>
>>
>> ****
>>
>> -- ****
>>
>> 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****
>>
>> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/****
>>
>> http://electionlawblog.org****
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130901/3bfd81a2/attachment.html>