[EL] NY Times Editorials on Election Law

[Mark Schmitt]

There's another aspect of this story that is relevant to election law: 
One long section of the Observer story argues that the Times editorials 
have become irrelevant, because the candidates they endorsed (Chris 
Quinn, Daniel Squadron, others) didn't win.

Why is that important? For years, we've heard from Sen. McConnell and 
others that any attempt to balance the influence of money in politics 
would have the unintended result of increasing the power of those 
corporations that happen to own newspapers. And certainly in the past, 
the Times endorsement has been considered one of the most lucrative 
commodities in city and state politics. (By all accounts, it was the 
Times endorsement that made Daniel Patrick Moynihan the Democratic 
nominee for U.S. Senate in 1976 rather than Bella Abzug, who the 
editorial page editor preferred, but he was overruled.) I'm sure I'm not 
the only current or past NYC voter who will admit to occasionally using 
the Times endorsement as a heuristic in judicial and state legislature 
elections.

But if Times-endorsed candidates lose, perhaps that's an indication that 
in a campaign-finance system like New York City's, one that ensures that 
candidates with broad support have sufficient resources to get their own 
message out, that single endorsement doesn't have nearly as much 
influence. One more reason that small-donor public financing is the way 
to go.

That said, I largely agree with Allen Dickerson. Even when I agree with 
Times editorials on election law and campaign finance, and I usually do, 
they bear all the marks of one phone call to one advocate.


------ Original Message ------
From: "Allen Dickerson" <adickerson at campaignfreedom.org>
To: "Pildes, Rick" <pildesr at exchange.law.nyu.edu>; 
"law-election at UCI.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>
Sent: 2/14/2014 1:11:41 PM
Subject: Re: [EL] NY Times Editorials on Election Law

>Prof. Pildes,
>
>
>
>In some ways election law presents a perfect test case: this is a 
>highly-technical area of the law that elicits strong emotional 
>reactions, is understood by very few, but upon which nearly everyone 
>has (often loud) opinions. In the specific case of the Times, there 
>have certainly been instances where the editorial page’s writing has 
>not reflected its budget.
>
>
>
>A few very quick examples:
>
>
>
>Conflating Super PACs and social welfare groups: 
>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/27/opinion/when-super-pacs-become-lobbyists.html?_r=0.
>
>
>
>In an editorial concerning McCutcheon, stating categorically that 
>“Since [Buckley] the court has upheld every federal contribution limit 
>that has come before it.” Which is true, as far as it goes, but ignores 
>state contribution limits, including Breyer’s inconvenient opinion in 
>Randall v. Sorrell, a fairly recent and significant case: 
>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/08/opinion/politicians-for-sale.html.
>
>
>
>Or its review of the district court’s opinion in U.S. v. Danielczyk, 
>which takes the court to task for disallowing a complete ban on 
>corporate contributions, but fails to note that the nearly $200,000 in 
>straw donations would have been illegal regardless, and that the 
>court’s opinion explicitly stated that corporations would still be 
>subject to the federal limits (all of which might have undermined the 
>sky-is-falling corruption rhetoric). 
>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/opinion/29sun2.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
>
>
>
>And then there’s the petty. A direct accusation that the FEC’s 3-3 vote 
>against finding reason to believe Crossroads GPS violated federal law 
>was “further evidence of the power of machine politicians to mock 
>election law as they raise and spend vast amounts of money to the tune 
>of “Anything Goes.” (I, for one, was not aware that FEC commissioners 
>are “machine politicians.”) 
>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/opinion/dangerous-inaction-by-the-election-commission.html?ref=campaignfinance. 
>Or a piece published August 29, 2011 (“’Independents’ Candidates Really 
>Love”) that ended by stating that “[t]he Romney Super PAC has already 
>been blessed with mystery million-dollar donations, including one via a 
>dummy corporation that had to be hurriedly disclosed lest it violate 
>the law. “No harm, no foul,” Mr. Romney assured voters about the 
>donation, sounding like a candidate for the F.E.C.” (Again, an unfair 
>dig at FEC commissioners who, agree or not, are generally considered to 
>hold good-faith views. Oh, and that point about “mystery million-dollar 
>donations” seems like the sort of thing one would back up, or at least 
>explain, since “mystery donations” to Super PACs are illegal).
>
>
>
>All this is disheartening. The national debate on these topics already 
>generates more heat than light. And the Times reaches a readership that 
>could be taught some of this topic’s complexities. It’s too bad that it 
>has instead used its unique position in for this level of one-sided, 
>and sometimes misleading, rhetoric.
>
>
>
>Thanks for raising such an interesting and important question.
>
>
>
>Allen
>
>
>
>Allen Dickerson
>
>Legal Director | Center for Competitive Politics
>
>124 S. West Street | Suite 201 | Alexandria, VA 22314
>
>O: 703.894.6800 | F: 703.894.6811
>
>adickerson at campaignfreedom.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>From:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu 
>[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of 
>Pildes, Rick
>Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 12:02 PM
>To:law-election at UCI.edu
>Subject: [EL] NY Times Editorials on Election Law
>
>
>
>A bit earlier, I posted on the blog an excerpt from a long story the 
>New York Observer published a week or so ago, which reported that NY 
>Times staffers were deeply frustrated with the Board’s editorials.  One 
>staffer was quoted saying of the editorials:  “They’re completely 
>reflexively liberal, utterly predictable, usually poorly written and 
>totally ineffectual.”  Having just run across the story, I wanted to 
>generate a discussion on the list serv about this subject when it comes 
>to the NY Times editorials on election law.  I realized it would be 
>better to keep that discussion internal to the listserv, so I am 
>sending this to the listserv rather than on the blog itself.
>
>
>
>A critique of the Observer story from the Washington Post can be found 
>here.  Here’s an excerpt from the Observer story:
>
>
>
>IT’S WELL KNOWNAMONG THE SMALL WORLD of people who pay attention to 
>such things that the liberal-leaning reporters at TheWall Street 
>Journal resent the conservative-leaning editorial page of TheWall 
>Street Journal. What’s less well known—and about to break into the 
>open, threatening the very fabric of the institution—is how deeply the 
>liberal-leaning reporters at TheNew York Times resent the 
>liberal-leaning editorial page of TheNew York Times.
>
>The New York Observer has learned over the course of interviews with 
>more than two-dozen current and former Times staffers that the 
>situation has “reached the boiling point” in the words of one current 
>Times reporter. Only two people interviewed for this story agreed to be 
>identified, given the fears of retaliation by someone they criticize as 
>petty and vindictive.
>
>The blame here, in the eyes of most Times reporters to whom TheObserver 
>spoke, belongs to Andrew Rosenthal, who as editorial page editor leads 
>both the paper’s opinion pages and opinion postings online, as well as 
>overseeing the editorial board and the letters, columnists and op-ed 
>departments. Mr. Rosenthal is accused of both tyranny and pettiness, by 
>the majority of the Times staffers interviewed for this story. And the 
>growing dissatisfaction with Mr. Rosenthal stems from a commitment to 
>excellence that has lifted the rest of the Times, which is viewed by 
>every staffer TheObserver spoke to as rapidly and dramatically 
>improving.
>
>“He runs the show and is lazy as all get-out,” says a current Times 
>writer, and one can almost hear the Times-ness in his controlled anger 
>(who but a Timesman uses the phrase “as all get-out” these days?). 
>Laziness and bossiness are unattractive qualities in any superior, but 
>they seem particularly galling at a time when the Times continues to 
>pare valued staffers via unending buyouts.
>
>The Times declined to provide exact staffing numbers, but that too is a 
>source of resentment. Said one staffer, “Andy’s got 14 or 15 people 
>plus a whole bevy of assistants working on these three unsigned 
>editorials every day. They’re completely reflexively liberal, utterly 
>predictable, usually poorly written and totally ineffectual. I mean, 
>just try and remember the last time that anybody was talking about one 
>of those editorials. You know, I can think of one time recently, which 
>is with the [Edward] Snowden stuff, but mostly nobody pays attention, 
>and millions of dollars is being spent on that stuff.”
>
>Asked by TheObserver for hard evidence supporting a loss of influence 
>of the vaunted editorial page, the same Times staffer fired back, “You 
>know, the editorials are never on the most emailed list; they’re never 
>on the most read list. People just are not paying attention, and they 
>don’t care. It’s a waste of money.”
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140215/7c8ebc2a/attachment.html>