[EL] Rousseau and McCutcheon
David A. Holtzman
David at HoltzmanLaw.com
Tue Apr 8 01:39:16 PDT 2014
A donor can give more than $3.6 million if playing all sides.
But why would Billy give so much?
Can he really expect gratitude from the vast majority of Members of
Congress who are in safe seats and didn't need his $ to get (re-)elected?
Perhaps he expects to get their ears?
And thereby thinks he will get his "unneeded, financially wasteful and
environmentally unwise highway project?"
Or is he expecting that his donations to candidates in safe districts
will be funneled to close contests, thereby busting the so-called "base"
limits in practice (if not under law), thereby gaining the gratitude and
dependency of the (tenuous) majority party, which will then perforce
give him his "unneeded, financially wasteful and environmentally unwise
highway project," notwithstanding the risk of politically damaging
public outcry?
If so, isn't the problem the transfer of donation $ from the individual
contests to which it was contributed?
- dah
p.s. re Mark Scarberry's mention below of the possibility that "High
levels of donations cause representatives to listen only (or mostly) to
the rich donors, breaking the link between ordinary people and their
representatives:"Perhaps a useful reform would be to ban private
fundraising events.Would it be reasonable to prohibit candidates and
elected officials from appearing at any event (or receiving guests in
any "VIP" area) for which payment to their cause is a requirement of
admission?
On 4/7/2014 9:42 PM, Marc Greidinger wrote:
> These kinds of abstractions, glittering generalities, and apples to
> oranges comparisons don't illuminate much.
>
> Compare the circumstances of Millie, who has $2M in assets, of which
> $1M is wrapped up in a closely held paving firm, with Billy, who has
> $2B in assets with $1B wrapped up in a closely held paving firm. The
> only real difference in the interests of these firms is that Millie's
> business paves mostly driveways, parking lots, and roads in small
> subdivisions, while Billy's business is involved with paving major
> city and county roads and highways. Normally, they can expect their
> respective companies to achieve a 15% per annum profit on the value of
> the companies.
>
> Both of these firms might benefit from improvements in the
> transportation infrastructure generally: Billy's business could get
> contracts, and Millie's business could see long-term gains from
> additional or improved roads, which could create additional housing
> and business developments, providing smaller opportunities in local
> communities.
>
> And the country could benefit as a whole from improving its aging
> infrastructure if the best and most urgent of these projects were
> approved.
>
> But neither of these businesses are likely to put much campaign money
> toward the general cause of getting more money to improve the
> transportation infrastructure nationwide. Neither one would get a good
> return for these "investments" because the costs of the investments
> would directly hit each of their bottom lines, while the benefits are
> diffused among paving businesses nationwide, and they may not get any
> of this money at all.
>
> It pays to let George make the donations towards good government here,
> but George feels the same way, and so nobody does it.
>
> On the other hand, let us suppose there is a good probability that
> though political donations an unneeded, financially wasteful and
> environmentally unwise highway project might come through the area,
> and Billy's firm would likely get the contract and increase profits to
> 25% for a few years. It would make sense for Billy to write campaign
> checks up to the $3.6 million that McCutcheon now allows because that
> kind of money from this single source could significantly increase the
> chances that the project would be approved, and the investment could
> yield a 5000% return. The lawmakers receiving the funds would make it
> their business to know what Billy's firm's interests are, and would
> understand -- or could be helped to understand -- that if they did not
> help get the particular project approved, those donations would likely
> not be forthcoming in future -- no express quid pro quo needed. Billy
> is rich enough that he need not organize much to get his way on issues
> like this in Congress. His money alone sways things when it comes to
> such specific projects. And given the scale of the Federal budget,
> this boondoggle -- however meaningful to Billy -- would almost
> certainly go unnoticed by the voters in the districts of the
> Congressmen who accept Billy's money.
>
> Millie cannot afford the funds to make federal donations that would
> make a difference on this project, or virtually any other specific
> federal project that could make a real difference to her business
> bottom line. She can only make meaningful donations to one or two
> Congressmen, not enough to pull off a boondoggle on this scale. Trying
> to organize the small scale paving companies along the prospective
> path of the unwise highway is difficult for her because she would face
> the same "free rider" problems that she would experience in trying to
> improve the US transportation infrastructure generally. George is
> still uninterested.
>
> So the free rider effect protects the public from bad investments and
> bad public policy decisions that are the result of Millie's special
> interests, but not so much Billy's interests anymore. Moreover,
> businesses of Billy's size are able to get profits and unfair
> advantages from political inefficiencies of this sort. Millie cannot.
> Big business gets unfairly subsidized to the public detriment, and
> everything gets put askew.
>
> These are among the significant perverse effects of McCutcheon.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:38 PM, <JBoppjr at aol.com
> <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>> wrote:
>
> Yep, the liberal agenda is just not being adopted fast enough, so
> we just need to shut up the voices of the nopposition so that we
> will have a health political system. Jim Bopp
> In a message dated 4/7/2014 1:24:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> richardwinger at yahoo.com <mailto:richardwinger at yahoo.com> writes:
>
> The health of the British political system today seems far,
> far better than the health of the U.S. political system. This
> year in particular, Congress seems unable to do anything
> useful. Many judicial vacancies haven't been filled.
> Immigration reform is stalled, marijuana policy is stalled,
> tax reform is stalled, a coherent campaign finance policy is
> stalled.
>
> Richard Winger
> 415-922-9779 <tel:415-922-9779>415-922-9779 <tel:415-922-9779>
> PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org <mailto:wmaurer at ij.org>>
> *To:* "'JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>'"
> <JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>>; "adam at boninlaw.com
> <mailto:adam at boninlaw.com>" <adam at boninlaw.com
> <mailto:adam at boninlaw.com>>; "oregon.properties at yahoo.com
> <mailto:oregon.properties at yahoo.com>"
> <oregon.properties at yahoo.com
> <mailto:oregon.properties at yahoo.com>>;
> "john.k.tanner at gmail.com <mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>"
> <john.k.tanner at gmail.com <mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>>
> *Cc:* "law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>"
> <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 7, 2014 10:08 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Rousseau and McCutcheon
>
> We don't have to go to Europe in the 1940's to see that
> government control of political finances is not the solution
> to political alienation and rule by elites. Italy recently
> scrapped its system of publicly financed parties, in large
> measure because of corruption and the feeling among
> middle-class Italians that it was geared towards establishing
> and reinforcing a system favoring the rich and connected insiders.
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25370808
> England has almost entirely publicly funded politics---it
> doesn't even permit independently funded issue
> advertisements. It too suffers from low voter turnout, a lack
> of belief in political efficacy, and a perception that
> politics is sclerotic and atrophying.
> Moreover, in most of Europe, which features far more control
> of political speech and activity than the United States, there
> has been a rise of extreme groups outside of the main
> political parties, ranging from the outright sinister
> (Greece's Golden Dawn) to the also sinister (France's National
> Front) to more moderate parties that nonetheless represent
> deep alienation from the ruling establishment (Britain's UKIP
> and Italy's Five Star Movement).
> Is all this the result of government control (or, more
> accurately, government occupation of huge amounts) of
> opportunities for peaceful political activity? Most certainly
> not. But it does suggest that such control is not cure for
> corruption, alienation, extremism, and rule by elites and may,
> in fact, exacerbate or even make permanent all of them.
> Bill
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] *On
> Behalf Of *JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 07, 2014 5:08 AM
> *To:* adam at boninlaw.com <mailto:adam at boninlaw.com>;
> oregon.properties at yahoo.com
> <mailto:oregon.properties at yahoo.com>; john.k.tanner at gmail.com
> <mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Rousseau and McCutcheon
> Interesting question but reelection rates are also effected
> dramatically by partisan redistricting, as well as other
> factors, so it is hard to isolate just campaign finance rules
> to see it there is a correlation. Jim Bopp
> In a message dated 4/7/2014 7:56:21 A.M. Eastern Daylight
> Time, adam at boninlaw.com <mailto:adam at boninlaw.com> writes:
>
> Well, there's plenty of states (I live in one) without
> campaign finance limits for state and local races. What
> are the incumbency retention rates for legislators in
> limits states versus no-limits states?
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 07, 2014 7:50 AM
> *To:* oregon.properties at yahoo.com
> <mailto:oregon.properties at yahoo.com>;
> john.k.tanner at gmail.com <mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Rousseau and McCutcheon
> I think there is good evidence that campaign finance
> limits, being written by incumbents, favor incumbents.
> Thus, the government writes the rules for campaign speech,
> and they are the governors.
> Sorry, I did not take French, if that is what it is. Jim Bopp
> In a message dated 4/6/2014 10:45:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight
> Time, oregon.properties at yahoo.com
> <mailto:oregon.properties at yahoo.com> writes:
>
> What Jim and Brad are calling for, no limits and no
> disclosure is an attack on the ability of "the governed"
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 6, 2014, at 6:25 PM, John Tanner
> <john.k.tanner at gmail.com
> <mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Revenons a nos moutons
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 6, 2014, at 9:22 PM, David Lublin
> <dlublin at american.edu
> <mailto:dlublin at american.edu>> wrote:
>
> Geez somehow doesn't seem like the quite right
> choice of expression here ;)
> At serious risk of beating the long-dead
> horse, there was no other period where Jews,
> Catholics, Gypsies, and Communists were
> targeted in German history /at the same time/.
> Pol Pot was genocidal, which also doesn't fit
> other periods in German history.
> Even if one accepted your dubious premise, the
> suggestion that democracies that regulate
> campaign finance, like Canada and the UK, are
> "suppressive" of the wealthy in the manner of
> either the
> yet-to-be-named-but-definitely-not-Nazi period
> of German history or Pol Pot is hyperbolic and
> unworthy of the arguments for the side you
> claim to defend.
> While I think that the Court's majority, let
> alone the First Amendment, deserves a better
> public defense, I'm sure BCRA's defenders
> would love to see you keep making it, as you
> play right into their hands.
> I hope all have a good Sunday night whatever
> their opinions on McCutcheon. If any of you
> felt constrained by the previous limits,
> please contact me so I can hit you up if I
> should run for office again.
> Best,
> David
> On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 7:57 PM,
> <JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>> wrote:
> Geeze. Over decades, as you concede, the
> German govt did target Jews and Catholics in
> the name of the German volk -- before Hitler.
> Just because Hitler did it too does not make
> it out of bounds to discuss what the German
> govt did before him, as you suggest.
> And yes I hid it well because I was not doing it.
> So the problem here is that the government is
> suppressing the freedom of some -- rich people
> -- in the name of allowing the "authentic"
> voice of the people to be heard. There is a
> long history of governments doing so,
> sometimes with modest measures, like speech
> restrictions through campaign
> finance measures, sometimes not, in order to
> get their favored policy agenda implimented.
> But the point is that this is just
> what campaign finance "reformers" are doing
> now. Jim
> In a message dated 4/6/2014 5:47:20 P.M.
> Eastern Daylight Time, dlublin at american.edu
> <mailto:dlublin at american.edu> writes:
>
> Jim,
> You stated that "the German government
> targeted Jews, gypsies, Catholics and
> Communists . . . "? Most minds would tend
> to go to Nazi Germany headed by Hitler at
> that point. It wasn't the Weimar Republic
> and I don't think the last period of the
> German Empire particularly targeted
> Catholics. Any earlier and there wouldn't
> be any Communists to target. The mention
> of Pol Pot would seem to be a clue too.
> So if you weren't meaning to invoke Hitler
> and this period, you hid it well.
> In any case, there's a reason that Martin
> Niemöller's famous quote doesn't begin
> with "First, they instituted campaign
> finance reform and I did not speak out --
> Because I was not a major donor."
> Again, dialing it back would be welcome
> here. If the Supreme Court managed to make
> the argument without Rwanda, Nazi Germany,
> and Cambodia, I am confident that you can
> do the same.
> David
> On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 5:31 PM,
> <JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>>
> wrote:
> Furthermore, I purposefully did not
> invoke Hitler. (1) I agree that he was
> "very distinguished in his field," and (2)
> the concept of the German volk, and that
> Jews were an enemy of the volk, long
> preceded Hitler's rise to power, even
> though he avidly believed it, exploited it
> for his own political purposes and took it
> to extreme's never imagined by its most
> feverish supporters before his time. Jim Bopp
> In a message dated 4/6/2014 3:13:50 P.M.
> Eastern Daylight Time, JBoppjr at aol.com
> <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> writes:
>
> Regarding this:
> /Oh, and you forgot Rwanda./
> Yes, so many examples but so little
> space. Jim Bopp
> In a message dated 4/6/2014 1:22:26
> P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> dlublin at american.edu
> <mailto:dlublin at american.edu> writes:
>
> I haven't read all of this debate
> but it's always good to see
> Godwin's law
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law>
> proved again.
> I remember Prof. Judith Shklar,
> whose family fled Germany,
> teaching my graduate political
> theory class to avoid comparisons
> to Hitler because "he was very
> distinguished in his field."
> Surely, one can make a strong
> argument against campaign finance
> reform without having to go there.
> Oh, and you forgot Rwanda.
> David
> --
> David Lublin
> Professor of Government
> School of Public Affairs
> American University
> 4400 Massachusetts Ave.
> Washington, D.C. 20016
> http://davidlublin.com/
> On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 10:08 AM,
> <JBoppjr at aol.com
> <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>> wrote:
>
> One of the side benefits of
> the McCutcheon case is that it
> has revealed what the campaign
> finance "reformers" are really
> all about.
> First, their goal is the
> typical liberal agenda. Then
> they identify those who they
> think are opponents to that
> agenda -- corporations, the
> "rich.". Then they support
> legislation to shut them up.
> Of course they dress this up
> as regulating the system --
> the "collective" voices of the
> people -- to make sure that
> the authentic "will of the
> people" is heard by
> suppressing those voices that
> distort that will --
> by misleading convincing some
> and drowning out others.
> This approach does have its
> roots deep in our history and
> is frequently the
> justification for tyranny.
> The communists suppressed
> the bourgeoisie in the name of
> the proletariat. Pol Pot
> destroyed the urban dwellers
> in the name of rural
> dwellers. The German
> government targeted the Jews,
> gypsies, Catholics and
> communists as the enemy of the
> German volk. All these enemies
> of the people had to be
> silenced to defend the
> authentic will of the people.
> Breyer acknowledges that he is
> countenancing the violation of
> the First Amendment rights of
> the "rich," but justifies it
> as ensuring that the authentic
> will of the people will be
> heard through the "collective"
> speech of the people. And he
> lets the government pick the
> voices to be surpressed.
> So Breyer sets it all out
> clearly, as does mpoweru4
> below, obviously limiting
> their retribution to be
> visited on the enemies of the
> people to campaign finance
> limits -- while others in our
> history were much more willing
> to use the full power of
> government against them.
> Their problem is that the
> First Amendment was adopted to
> protect the very speech that
> Breyer, et al are so willing
> to violate in the name of the
> collective. So they have to
> pretend that they are the ones
> writing a First Amendment --
> balance the First Amendment
> interests involved -- while
> this balancing has already
> been done and the First
> Amendment already written by
> our Founders. And that
> amendment was written to
> protect individual freedom
> against the efforts of the
> collective to suppress their
> speech -- regardless of
> whether the government thinks
> that that speech is helpful to
> democracy or not. Jim Bopp
> In a message dated 4/6/2014
> 8:08:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight
> Time, mpoweru4 at gmail.com
> <mailto:mpoweru4 at gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> To get a sense of the
> consequences, one might
> think not only about the
> types of players, but the
> interests they represent.
> The demise of aggregate
> limits plays mightily into
> the hands not only of rich
> people in general, but of
> rich people who have
> highly focused interests.
> The "general will" if it
> means anything at all,
> would correspond to more
> generalized interests like
> protecting the
> environment, building
> economic strength,
> preventing economic
> collapse, helping people
> devastated by weather
> emergencies, and
> maintaining transportation
> infrastructure.
> The very wealthy,
> operating from
> self-interest, are not
> likely to define their
> agenda in such general
> terms. They would likely
> be focused on very
> particularized
> corresponding interests,
> eg: resisting EPA
> jurisdiction over a
> certain sector of the
> energy industry; tax
> incentives for research
> and hedge funds; stopping
> a requirement for a level
> of capitalization in
> banks; maintaining flood
> insurance program that
> will pay to rebuild
> buildings in developments
> under construction too
> close to a rising ocean;
> and building a certain
> unnecessary road using
> particular contractors or
> sources for asphalt.
> The right analyst for this
> is Prof. Mancur Olsen. He
> explains how empowering
> special interests causes
> political outcomes not
> consonant with the
> interests of the people in
> a republic in his "Logic
> of Collective Action." In
> his "Rise and Decline of
> Nations" he develops a
> theory of the pernicious
> consequences on the
> republic over time.
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at
> 7:05 PM, John Tanner
> <john.k.tanner at gmail.com
> <mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> apologies. I was
> skimming comments on
> the 2d
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at
> 6:47 PM, Scarberry,
> Mark
> <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu
> <mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>>
> wrote:
>
> My 4/2 post
> (scroll way down
> to see it) was
> probably too long
> for most list
> members to wade
> through. It raised
> concerns about the
> reference to
> Rousseau, whose
> pernicious concept
> of the general
> will could find a
> place in an
> analysis like
> Justice Breyer's.
> I don't think
> Breyer meant to
> suggest it, but
> one reason to make
> sure the voices of
> the rich don't
> drown out other
> voices is so that
> the people won't
> develop "false
> consciousness." We
> must be saved by
> the government
> from being
> persuaded by the
> loud voices of the
> rich.
> I very much
> dislike arrogant
> rich people who
> think they know
> better. I even
> more distrust a
> government that
> wants to protect
> my ability to
> think clearly
> about what is in
> my interest and in
> the public interest.
> Mark Scarberry
> Pepperdine
> Sent from my
> Verizon Wireless
> 4G LTE Smartphone
> -------- Original
> message --------
> From: Benjamin Barr
> Date:04/04/2014
> 3:17 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: John Tanner
> Cc: Election law list
> Subject: Re: [EL]
> McCutcheon
> John,
> This is Breyer's
> usual three card
> monte. To
> collectivize the
> Bill of Rights he
> relied on the
> writings of
> Benjamin Constant
> in his Active
> Liberty tome
> (expanding all the
> positive "values"
> implicated by the
> First Amendment -
> none of which seem
> relevant to the
> American founding
> or history of the
> First Amendment).
> This dissent is
> just a
> continuation of
> the same bad theme.
> This profound
> difference in
> viewing the Bill
> of Rights as a
> charter of
> "negative" or
> "positive"
> liberties is also
> at root what
> separates many
> reformers from
> free speech
> advocates on this
> listserv and more
> broadly.
> Forward,
> Benjamin Barr
> Sent by my Android
> device. Please
> excuse any
> typographical errors.
> On Apr 4, 2014
> 6:06 PM, "John
> Tanner"
> <john.k.tanner at gmail.com
> <mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Not to change
> the subject,
> but I'm
> surprised that
> no one has
> remarked on
> the dissent's
> invocation of
> Rousseau's
> Social
> Contract,
> which was far
> more
> influential on
> the French
> Revolution
> (and
> particularly
> the thought of
> St Just and
> Robespierre)
> than the
> American,
> where the
> strong
> preference for
> Locke and
> Montesquieu
> has pointed in
> a different
> direction. It
> seems odd,
> off-key and,
> wandering well
> away from the
> subject, I
> wonder if it
> prompted the
> counter-invocation
> of Burke - and
> the
> brandishing of
> the dissent's
> impolitic
> choice of the
> word,
> "collective."
> On Thu, Apr 3,
> 2014 at 8:49
> AM, Tyler
> Culberson
> <tylerculberson at gmail.com
> <mailto:tylerculberson at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> These
> figures
> derived
> from a Bob
> Biersack
> piece at
> OpenSecrets:
> https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/09/mccutcheons-multiplying-effect-why.html
> On Thu,
> Apr 3,
> 2014 at
> 8:45 AM,
> Tyler
> Culberson
> <tylerculberson at gmail.com
> <mailto:tylerculberson at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Doug,
> From
> Commissioners
> Ravel
> and
> Weintraub's
> statement
> yesterday,
> "In
> fact,
> only
> 646
> donors
> reached the
> biennial
> limit
> during
> the
> 2012
> cycle."
> On
> Wed,
> Apr 2,
> 2014
> at
> 7:24
> PM,
> Scarberry,
> Mark
> <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu
> <mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>>
> wrote:
>
> Can we
> distinguish
> between
> two "anti-corruption"
> interests
> that
> could
> be
> seen
> as
> being
> addressed
> by
> the dissent
> in
> McCutcheon?
> The first
> is
> the interest
> in
> keeping
> lines
> of
> communication
> open
> between
> ordinary
> people
> and their
> elected
> representatives,
> so
> as
> to
> make
> representative
> government
> responsive
> to
> the people
> **between
> elections**.
> High
> levels
> of
> donations
> cause
> representatives
> to
> listen
> only
> (or mostly)
> to
> the rich
> donors,
> breaking
> the link
> between
> ordinary
> people
> and their
> representatives.
> The voice
> of
> the ordinary
> person
> is
> drowned
> out by
> the voice
> of
> the rich
> donor,
> because
> the representative
> will
> listen
> only
> (or mostly)
> to
> the voice
> of
> the rich
> donor.
> With
> a
> reference
> to
> Rousseau
> (which
> one hopes
> does
> not incorporate
> his concept
> of
> the "general
> will"),
> the dissent
> treats
> the breaking
> of
> that
> link
> as
> a
> form
> of
> corruption.
>
> The second
> is
> the interest
> in
> the formation
> of
> the views
> of
> the people;
> the formation
> of
> those
> views
> may be
> corrupted
> if
> too much
> money
> is
> spent
> by
> rich
> people
> to
> help
> form
> those
> views
> or
> to
> finance
> the formation
> of
> such
> views.
> Here
> we
> run dangerously
> close
> to
> the concept
> of
> the "general
> will,"
> a
> true
> will
> of
> the people
> that
> somehow
> is
> different
> from
> what
> they
> really
> think,
> because
> their
> thinking
> has been
> warped
> by
> the spending
> of
> so
> much
> money
> by
> the rich
> (perhaps
> creating
> a
> "false
> consciousness").
> The spending
> of
> huge
> amounts
> of
> money
> by
> the rich
> in
> furthering
> their
> own views
> drowns
> out the
> voices
> of
> the ordinary
> people,
> as
> both
> the rich
> speaker
> and the
> ordinary
> speaker
> try to
> convey
> their
> views
> to
> the people
> and to
> persuade
> the people.
> Is
> it
> clear
> that
> the dissent
> only
> sees
> the first
> of
> those
> interests
> as
> an
> "anti-corruption"
> interest
> that
> justifies
> campaign
> finance
> regulation?
> (At first
> I
> wasn't
> sure,
> especially
> given
> the "drowning
> out"
> imagery,
> but a
> more
> careful
> reading
> leads
> me
> to
> this
> conclusion.)
> Is
> it
> also
> clear
> that
> the first
> interest
> has nothing
> to
> do
> with
> which
> person
> is
> elected,
> but rather
> with
> who the
> elected
> person
> will
> listen
> to
> once
> elected?
> Thus
> it
> has nothing
> to
> do
> with
> any desire
> to
> level
> the playing
> field
> for the
> election,
> right?
> Instead
> it
> has to
> do
> with
> the actions
> that
> will
> be
> taken
> by
> the person
> once
> elected,
> which
> makes
> it
> similar
> to
> a
> concern
> about
> quid
> pro quo
> corruption.
> My
> apologies
> if
> I'm asking
> the list
> to
> reinvent
> the wheel.
> Mark
> Mark
> S.
> Scarberry
> Professor
> of Law
> Pepperdine
> Univ.
> School
> of Law
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election
> mailing
> list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> --
> David Lublin
> Professor of Government
> School of Public Affairs
> American University
> 4400 Massachusetts Ave.
> Washington, D.C. 20016
> http://davidlublin.com/
>
>
>
> --
> David Lublin
> Professor of Government
> School of Public Affairs
> American University
> 4400 Massachusetts Ave.
> Washington, D.C. 20016
> http://davidlublin.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Spam
> <https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04LL0acXS&m=784d6c8a8e85&t=20140407&c=s>
> Not spam
> <https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04LL0acXS&m=784d6c8a8e85&t=20140407&c=n>
> Forget previous vote
> <https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04LL0acXS&m=784d6c8a8e85&t=20140407&c=f>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> Call
> Send SMS
> Add to Skype
> You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto: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
>
> --
> David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
> david at holtzmanlaw.com
>
> Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be
> confidential, for use only by intended recipients. If you are not an
> intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email
> to an intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email
> in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or
> copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received
> this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and discard
> all copies.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140408/db59aa9c/attachment.html>
View list directory