[EL] David Brooks & McCutcheon Whistles

[Steve Hoersting]

When a Cass Sunstein and John McCain fan of the caliber of David Brooks
says, in his closing paragraphs, the progressive campaign-finance vision is
flawed, reformers must take that statement seriously.

Rick says Brooks gets the "gridlock" argument, but Brooks misses the
"corruption" argument.

I have resisted saying that these points, from Rick, (and less Delphically
from Pildes) are themselves "dog whistles." And much of the reformers'
longstanding endgame seems to be revealed in Rick's language.

The "gridlock" argument that Rick says Brooks gets is that the McCutcheon
opinion will allow the Republican party committees to quell the Tea Party
insurgency.

The "corruption" argument Rick says Brooks does not get is that stronger
[Republican] parties may sweep a Republican back in as Senate Majority
Leader and into the White House. After all, this was the state of play
pre-McCain Feingold, pre-killing of state party ground game.

I had a substantial role in creating the Super PAC and thereby freeing the
"Koch-fueled" grassroots that progressives decry today.

And I had a substantial role in bringing the McCutcheon opinion into
existence. I admit I worry the McCutcheon opinion may quell the Rand Paul,
Ted Cruz, Mike Lee realignment the Republican Party so desperately needs.

My concern, frankly, is that the Party will now be John McCains and Lindsey
Grahams "all the way down."

Here is the difference, though, between me and the reformers: I believe
America's political representation should be the result cultural and
philosophical debate, not hampered debate under restrictive campaign laws.

Steve

Sent from my phone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140404/82f5e195/attachment.html>