[EL] McCutcheon

[John Tanner]

add it all together and it still won't get you an ambassadorship


On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Beckel, Michael <mbeckel at publicintegrity.org
> wrote:

>  It's also worth noting that there are effectively 4 different aggregate
> limits:
>
> 1)      $48,600 to all federal candidates
>
> 2)      $48,600 to all state and local party committees and PACs
>
> 3)      $74,600 to all PACs and party committees
>
> 4)      $123,200 to all candidates, PACs and party committees
>
>
>
> According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, about 600
> people hit the candidate-only contribution limit during the 2012 election
> cycle, and about 1,700 people hit the party/PAC ceiling that cycle with
> their giving to national party committees, as we wrote about<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/10/07/13510/supreme-court-mccutcheon-case-could-aid-gop>at the Center for Public Integrity.
>
>
>
> The Center for Responsive Politics has more on this here:
>
> http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/mccutcheon.php
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Beckel
>
> Reporter
>
> Center for Public Integrity
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Paul
> Blumenthal
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 02, 2014 5:07 PM
> *To:* Tyler Culberson
> *Cc:* Election Law
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] McCutcheon
>
>
>
> I found 49 donors to have broken the aggregate limits in the 2012 cycle:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/campaign-contribution-limits_n_3132474.html
>
>
>
> The FEC doesn't do this kind of digging themselves. They don't ascribe
> unique identifiers, which makes it very hard to trace. I believe Adam
> Bonica has a paper on the FEC and unique identifiers that related to
> aggregate limits. That is now something the FEC doesn't have to worry about
> not dealing with.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Tyler Culberson <tylerculberson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> "I'm also curious how many donors have run up against the aggregate limit
> in the last decade."
>
>
>
> I might check with Paul Blumenthal who had written an article in
> Huffington Post about donors crossing the biennial limit threshold last May
> in Huffington Post. I'd also note that this law had not been meaningfully
> enforced since 1990, when the FEC actually fined a small number of donors
> who exceeded the biennial limits.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Doug Spencer <dougspencer at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>    I have two questions for the list about today's "Battle of Competing
> Hypotheticals" also known as the *McCutcheon* opinion:
>
>
>
> (1) Despite the "civility<http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/a-civil-day-on-the-bench-for-opinions-on-the-impolite-world-of-campaign-finance/>"
> in today's announcement, Roberts and Breyer are clearly frustrated with
> each other. Breyer, channeling his inner Oscar Wilde, even went so far to
> say that it's nearly impossible to read the majority opinion without
> laughing. But I don't read the majority and dissent as mutually exclusive,
> at least on the point of circumvention. Breyer describes what is
> *possible* and Roberts argues what is *plausible*. Can somebody offer
> some context on this point? Roberts argues that circumvention is unlikely
> because of the various anti-earmarking provisions that have been added over
> the years. But certainly these provisions have been added because of actual
> (or feared) circumvention. For those with a working knowledge of
> contribution bundling and earmarking, is it true as Roberts argues that the
> 100 PAC scenario (or other of Breyer's hypos) is "highly implausible"? I'm
> also curious how many donors have run up against the aggregate limit in the
> last decade. This fact is missing from the opinion and party briefs (I
> didn't read the amicus briefs), but it seems like a relevant piece of
> information, even if it could cut both ways.
>
>
>
> (2) In footnote 7, the majority notes that just 8 of the 38 states with
> base limits also have an aggregate limit. What is the status of these state
> laws? Would state-specific evidence of circumvention be enough to preserve
> them? The *Citizens United* experience suggests that it wouldn't<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/supreme-courts-montana-decision-strengthens-citizens-united/2012/06/25/gJQA8Vln1V_blog.html>.
> But the holding in *McCutcheon* seems to be more fact-oriented than in *Citizens
> United *so perhaps individual state histories and campaign finance
> regimes will make a difference.
>
>
>
> Thanks for any thoughts.
>
> Doug
>
>
>
> -----
>
> *Douglas M. Spencer*
>
> *Associate Professor of Law and Public Policy*
>
> University of Connecticut
>
> 65 Elizabeth Street
>
> Hartford, CT 06105
>
> (860) 570-5437
>
> http://www.dougspencer.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paul Blumenthal
> Huffington Post
> o: (202) 624-9384
> c: (202) 714-8545
> Twitter: PaulBlu
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140402/cbb6032d/attachment.html>