[EL] Time Spent Fundraising, pre- and post-1974

[Steve Kolbert]

Brad,

I think your hypothesis --  that time spent fundraising increased
dramatically after 1974 and was negligible before that -- is very
interesting. As a theoretical matter, the hypothesis makes sense -- higher
(or non-existent) limits means larger possible sums, which means fewer
necessary asks, which means therefore less time spent raising money.

In my pre-law life as a campaign fundraiser in both (1) federal races and
(2) non-federal races in states with no individual limits, the time my
candidates spent fundraising was equal in all cases -- the candidates spent
nearly every waking hour fundraising, irrespective of whether there were
limits. (I'm a bit too young to have fundraised in 1974, though, so I have
no anecdotal evidence to offer concerning what fundraising was like back
then.)

I wonder, though, whether my experience is representative. So to that end,
ate you aware of any empirical support for the proposition that higher
limits result in less time spent fundraising? Or at least some publicly
available collection of anecdotal evidence to that effect? And I ask the
same questions with regard to the post-1974 spike in time spent
fundraising  -- any empirical data or collection of anecdotal evidence?

Thanks Brad!

Steve Kolbert
(202) 422-2588
steve.kolbert at gmail.com
@Pronounce_the_T

On Apr 8, 2014 10:57 AM, "Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:
>
> Again, "dialing for dollars" (which is generally exaggerated anyway, but
is present) is a phenomenon of the "reform" era.
>
>
>
> 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: Byron Tau [btau at politico.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 10:46 AM
> To: Smith, Brad; Marc Greidinger; David A. Holtzman
> Cc: Election law list
> Subject: RE: [EL] Rousseau and McCutcheon
>
> Actually, I think that's an interesting question that could go either way.
>
> Will being able to host a $50K per plate fundraiser -- as Kay Hagan now
can with her new JFC -- mean less dialing for dollars because she can
solicit a bigger check with a single in-person event.
>
> http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00560748
>
> Or will her fundraisers also insist on MORE dialing for dollars to donors
who were previous maxed out to other campaigns but can now be hit up for
Hagan's effort as well?
>
> --
> Byron Tau
> Lobbying and campaign finance reporter || POLITICO
> c: 202-441-1171
> d: 703-341-4610
> Follow: @byrontau
> Subscribe to: http://www.politico.com/politicoinfluence/
> ________________________________
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Smith, Brad [
BSmith at law.capital.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 10:40 AM
> To: Marc Greidinger; David A. Holtzman
> Cc: Election law list
> Subject: Re: [EL] Rousseau and McCutcheon
>
> Fortunately, if the reform lobbyists are correct, fundraising will now be
easier with joint fundraising committees, eliminating the need to spend so
much time "dialing for dollars."
>
>
>
> "Dialing for dollars" is a phenomenon of the regulatory age that began in
1974. Prior to that time, there were no constraints on individual giving,
and time spent fundraising was not an issue.
>
>
>
> 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
>
> ________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140408/cbf174a1/attachment.html>