[EL] Illinois Limits

[Mark Schmitt]

I agree with Steve on this, although I would call it *Davis II *rather
than *III
*because Arizona Free Enterprise is quite different. I agree with Steve
because:

1. If the primary purpose of contribution limits is to prevent corruption,
and the legislature concluded that contributions larger than $X are
potentially corrupting, that shouldn't change just because of the actions
of another candidate. In fact, it undermines the entire premise of
contribution limits to make them variable.

2. Even if you believe that equality of political opportunity is an
important value (and I do), and thus some "level the playing field"
measures are valid, the Illiniois law and the Millionaire Amendment at
issue in *Davis* don't really level the playing field at all. They level it
only for those candidates who have access to mega-donors like Rahm
Emanuel's small group. Those will primarily be incumbents or candidates who
already have access to big money, like Barack Obama in 2004. (The only
notable non-incumbent beneficiary of the Millionaire's Amendment.) For most
people who want to run for office, and who don't have access to, say, Laura
and John Arnold, the idea that they can now accept contributions of
$100,000 or more is just a cruel joke.

Arizona is different because the boost in public financing for candidates
who faced non-participating opponents or outside spending clearly benefited
all candidates in that situation, and it didn't change contribution limits.
It was designed to encourage participation in a system that, on the whole,
would reduce dependence on large donors and thus reduce corruption. Whether
you agree with the Court or not, it's a wholly different kind of question
than *Davis* or this Illinois provision.

I also think it's outrageous that the Illinois provision can be triggered
simply by someone contributing to his own campaign, then deciding not to
run and moving the money to a totally different organization, which is the
case here. That's just an invitation to fraud. If Kelly didn't seem to
actually hate Rahm Emanuel, I'd think the whole thing was a set up.



Mark Schmitt
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: mschmitt9

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com> wrote:

> If *Davis v. FEC* is *Davis I*,
> and *Arizona Free Enterprise PAC* is *Davis II*,
> someone with standing should challenge the limit-lifting provision in
> Illinois and create *Davis III*.
>
>
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-rahm-emanuel-fundraising-caps-20141127-story.html
>
> Those limits purportedly exist -- in the first instance -- to combat
> corruption, not foster egalitarianism: Increasing the amount contributors
> can give an incumbent because a challenger makes a well-financed run gives
> away the game.
>
> --
> Stephen M. Hoersting
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141202/7a0db2ec/attachment.html>