[EL] Disclosure and Holly Paz

[Sean Parnell]

One thing Brad forgot to mention is the rich variety of corruption that has
persisted in New York city politics under taxpayer funded political
campaigns, as documented so well in this CCP report:
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Clean-Elections-an
d-Scandal-August-5.pdf. "Cash & Carry Larry" Seabrook, recipient of over
$400,000 in taxpayer funds, was just one of many "clean" officials in New
York who taxpayers probably don't feel lived up to the promises of the
'reformers.' 

If New York City is the model for 'good government,' I'll pass.

Sean Parnell
President
Impact Policy Management, LLC
6411 Caleb Court
Alexandria, VA  22315
571-289-1374 (c)
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com


-----Original Message-----
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Smith,
Brad
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 9:03 AM
To: Mark Schmitt; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Disclosure and Holly Paz

Leaving aside what David Keating has already addressed - the article was
submitted to the Hill well before the election - Mark's conclusion is once
again wrong anyway. It is perfectly possible for the law to facilitate the
comeback of a candidate who, nonetheless, loses.

Mark knows this - in fact, he recently wrote in the New Republic that New
York's system of government subsidies for campaigning was a "model" for the
rest of the country. One reason he gave was that more races were
"competitive," as "Dozens of city council and other races featured three or
more candidates with enough money to compete." This he attributes to the
law.

Yet looking at the results in the New York Times, it appears that incumbents
on City Council went 29-1 in their races for re-election, averaging 81.3% of
the vote. In 17 contested races, incumbents averaged 63.5%, with the 16
winners averaging 64.8%. The average incumbent winner won by 39.3 percentage
points; all incumbents, including the one loser, won by 36.1 percentage
points.

So Mark apparently thinks it is a very important point for his case that
challengers ran some marginally competitive races that they still lost -
this is evidence that the law helped them, and helps make the law a "model
for reform."  But the fact that Elliott Spitzer barely lost the controller's
race is  not evidence of anything much at all, and particularly not that he
may have used the law to intimidate donors or that the law may have helped
him in his campaign, a campaign that was far more successful than the
examples Mark uses as proof of the law's effects.

Granted, there are a lot of variables left unaccounted for here.
Nonetheless, one almost begins to wonder if for Mark, in between the
"harumphs," there is any possible set of facts or evidence that would cause
him to rethink his theory.

Indeed, one point that those of us in the free speech community often make
is that the campaign finance reform project generally, and government
subsidies for campaigns in particular, after 40 years of trial have very
little if anything to show in the way of concrete benefits. For noting these
lack of results, we are sometimes deemed the "ideologues."


Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
   Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
614.236.6317
http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx

________________________________________
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: Thursday, September 19, 2013 10:30 PM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Disclosure and Holly Paz

I notice that in a piece published on September 19, you wrote, "disclosure
laws are facilitating the political comeback of former Governor Eliot
Spitzer."

You're aware that there was an election, right? It was September 10.

I always wonder if any possible set of facts or evidence would cause the
proponents of this theory to rethink it. Apparently not.

Whether The Hill has any editors is also an interesting question, but not
for this list.


------ Original Message ------
From: "Eric Wang" <11cfrlaw at gmail.com>
To: law-election at uci.edu
Sent: 9/19/2013 7:37:12 PM
Subject: [EL] Disclosure and Holly Paz
>The lively discussion on this listserv a few weeks ago about disclosure 
>and Holly Paz inspired me to write this following piece that was 
>published in The Hill's Congress Blog today:
>
>http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/323135-disclosures-un
>intended-consequences-
>
>_______________________________________________
>Law-election mailing list
>Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election