[EL] Corporate contributions to super PACs from Fortune 500 companies

Mon Jan 13 15:00:36 PST 2014

"Election ads"? What are those?

Independent expenditures - no, those are disclosed regardless of entity.
Likewise, electioneering communications.

I assume you mean "issue ads," which, I believe, were amply discussed by
the Court in *Buckley*, *MCFL*, *WRTL*, etc., etc. and should remain
outside of regulatory purview.

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com> wrote:

> All of these statements ignore the fact that corporations could spend
> money on election ads by giving to c4s and c6s for that purpose, rather
> than to SuperPacs, and avoid disclosure at the same time--an outcome NOT
> envisioned by the majority in Citizens United.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 13, 2014, at 5:46 PM, "Smith, Brad" <BSmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:
> BSmith at law.capital.edu>> wrote:
>
> So once you've cut through it all, it seems that:
> a) corporations have not been the primary users of Super Pacs, or even
> close;
> b) Fortune 500s have been especially rare (this seems to me somewhat
> important, because the Citizens United majority emphasizes the idea of "mom
> and pops," while the dissent wants to talk about Exxon Mobil. The reality
> seems in between but it is smaller corporations that have most participated;
> c) most Super PAC money comes from individuals.
>
>
>
> 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: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] on behalf of Beckel,
> Michael [mbeckel at publicintegrity.org<mailto:mbeckel at publicintegrity.org>]
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 4:44 PM
> To: Andy Kroll; Joel Gora
> Cc: law-election at UCI.edu<mailto:law-election at UCI.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Corporate contributions to super PACs from Fortune 500
> companies
>
> Adding to what Andy Kroll said, I’ll offer this observation:
>
> It seems some super PACs have made more of an effort than others to court
> corporate donors. American Crossroads, Restore Our Future, Congressional
> Leadership Fund, and the  Fund for Louisiana's Future come to mind.
>
> During the first half of 2013, about 30 percent<
> http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/08/14/13155/investors-companies-fuel-super-pac-tied-boehner>
> of the Congressional Leadership Fund’s money came from corporate givers,
> including White Castle, the Apollo Group and an LLC connected to
> high-stakes gambler and golf course developer Billy Walters.
>
> Similarly, the pro-Vitter Fund for Louisiana’s Fund received about
> two-thirds<
> http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/08/corporate-interests-all-in-for-vitt.html>
> of its money during the same period from corporate givers.
>
> Meanwhile, at one point ahead of the 2012 election, both American
> Crossroads and Restore Our Future had reported<
> http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/07/25/10201/big-business-prefers-gop-over-democratic-super-pacs>
> getting between 10 percent and 25 percent of their funding from companies.
>
> Probably the most striking example of corporate money going to a super PAC
> that I have seen is the pro-Murkowski Alaskans Standing Together super PAC.
> This group got about 93%<
> http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/03/influx-of-corporate-political-cash.html>
> of its money from Native Alaskan corporations.
>
> On the left, I’ve seen a couple of trial lawyers’ law firms make corporate
> contributions to pro-Democratic super PACs, but most Dem super PACs seem
> more interested in courting union money. And on both sides of the aisle,
> money from individual donors has made up the largest percentage of all.
>
> Best regards,
> Michael  Beckel
> Center for Public Integrity
>
>
> From: Andy Kroll [mailto:andykroll at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 4:15 PM
> To: Joel Gora
> Cc: Beckel, Michael; Rick Hasen; law-election at UCI.edu<mailto:
> law-election at UCI.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Corporate contributions to super PACs from Fortune 500
> companies
>
> A January 2013 Demos analysis found that 12% of all super PAC
> contributions in the 2012 cycle were made by for-profit corporations.
>
>
> http://www.demos.org/publication/billion-dollar-democracy-unprecedented-role-money-2012-elections
>
> That figure doesn't differentiate between Fortune 500 and non-Fortune 500
> corporations. While the amount of super PAC giving by Fortune 500 companies
> may be comparatively small, I don't know if it's accurate to say "there has
> been almost no corporate role in Super PAC spending."
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Joel Gora <joel.gora at brooklaw.edu<mailto:
> joel.gora at brooklaw.edu>> wrote:
> Regarding the sentence in the abstract of my article about Super PACs, I
> appreciate Michael Beckel’s pointing to three instances of corporate
> contributions to Super PACs from Fortune 500 companies.  I plan to revise
> my abstract appropriately in light of that.  But I believe my basic point
> that there has been almost no corporate role in Super PAC spending remains
> sound, and, indeed, is reinforced by the extremely few examples that Mr.
> Beckel cited to the contrary.
>
> Regards,
>
> Joel Gora
>
>
>
> 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 Beckel,
> Michael
> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 1:01 PM
> To: Rick Hasen; law-election at UCI.edu<mailto:law-election at UCI.edu>
>
> Subject: [EL] Corporate contributions to super PACs from Fortune 500
> companies
>
>
> Clearly, many people have been debating the role of corporate spending
> since Citizens United, but the assertion, made by Prof. Gora, that "not a
> single Fortune 500 company [has] spent a single dollar to support a super
> PAC" is demonstrably false.
>
>
>
> For instance, in October of 2012, Chevron<
> http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2013/snapshots/385.html>
> contributed $2.5 million<
> http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?13962172773> to the Congressional
> Leadership Fund, which aimed to boost House Republicans.
>
>
>
> Similarly, in 2010, the American Financial Group<
> http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2013/snapshots/3108.html>
> contributed $400,000<http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?10931311093>
> to the pro-GOP American Crossroads super PAC, and MGM Resorts International<
> http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2013/snapshots/10269.html>
> contributed $300,000<http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?11930538937>
> to the pro-Democratic Patriot Majority PAC.
>
>
>
> Some other high-profile corporate donors, some of which are Fortune 1,000
> companies, include<
> http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/11/05/11689/mystery-firm-elections-top-corporate-donor-53-million>
> the Apollo Group, B/E Aerospace, QC Holdings, White Castle and 7-Eleven.
>
>
>
> I'll be the first to note that individuals have been larger boosters<
> http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/12/20/11970/top-25-super-pac-donors-2012-election-cycle>
> of super PACs than corporations, but some well-known companies have been
> taking the leap into the super PAC waters.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Michael Beckel
>
> Reporter
>
> Center for Public Integrity
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> <
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> on behalf of Rick Hasen <
> rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 12:27 PM
> To: law-election at UCI.edu<mailto:law-election at UCI.edu>
> Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 1/11/14
>
> “Bozeman legislative candidate asks court to halt vote-reporting law”<
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57881>
> Posted on January 11, 2014 9:25 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57881>
> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The Missoulian<
> http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/bozeman-legislative-candidate-asks-court-to-halt-vote-reporting-law/article_b2096482-7a53-11e3-8a52-001a4bcf887a.html>:
> “A Bozeman legislative candidate has asked a federal court to temporarily
> block enforcement of a new state law that requires published campaign
> materials about a legislator’s record to include every vote taken by the
> lawmaker on that issue.”
>
> Chances of this challenge’s success: sky high
> <image001.png><
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57881&title=%E2%80%9CBozeman%20legislative%20candidate%20asks%20court%20to%20halt%20vote-reporting%20law%E2%80%9D&description=
> >
> Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> “In Defense of ‘Super PACs’ and of the First Amendment”<
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57879>
> Posted on January 11, 2014 9:23 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57879>
> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Joel Gora has posed this draft <
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2376894> on SSRN
> (Seton Hall Law Review).  Here is the abstract:
>
> This article is a defense of “Super PACs” and of the First Amendment
> principles that they embody, namely, that we need a robust, wide-open and
> uninhibited discussion of politics and government in order to make our
> democracy work. Like the famous Citizens United ruling in 2010, Super PACs
> have gotten a bad press and have been widely condemned as threats to
> democracy. But Super PACs are really nothing new. They trace their origins
> back to Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court’s landmark 1976 free speech
> ruling which rejected any justification for limiting the independent
> expenditures for political speech. Thus, the day after Buckley, individuals
> and groups were free to spend whatever they wished to support or oppose
> political candidates. Whether they were allowed to join together for such
> purposes was less clear. But Citizens United removed any lingering doubt by
> holding that any speaker – individual, corporate, union, non-profit – was
> free to make independent expenditures without prohibition or limitation.
> Based on those principles, a federal appeals court easily and unanimously
> ruled that what one person or group could do individually, several people
> or groups could do cooperatively, namely, pool their resources to get out
> their common message. That is a Super PAC.
>
> As a result, Super PACs played a noticeable role in the 2012 federal
> elections. But despite popular misconception, they did not dominate or
> control those elections, accounting for only 10 percent of the campaign
> spending, almost all contributions to them were fully and publically
> disclosed, and almost no corporations played any role in any such Super PAC
> spending. Indeed, so far as is known not a single Fortune 500 company spent
> a single dollar to support a Super PAC. Rather, Super PACs enabled more
> speech and debate in our political process, a result to be desired most
> significantly under the First Amendment. So, rather than being a threat to
> democracy, Super PACs have been a boon.
> <image001.png><
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57879&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20Defense%20of%20%E2%80%98Super%20PACs%E2%80%99%20and%20of%20the%20First%20Amendment%E2%80%9D&description=
> >
> Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> “U.S. justices agree to hear challenge to Ohio speech law”<
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57877>
> Posted on January 11, 2014 9:17 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57877>
> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Reuters reports<
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/10/us-usa-court-freespeech-idUSBREA091AI20140110
> >.
> <image001.png><
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57877&title=%E2%80%9CU.S.%20justices%20agree%20to%20hear%20challenge%20to%20Ohio%20speech%20law%E2%80%9D&description=
> >
> Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> Republican FEC Commissioners Issue Statement on Why Crossroads GPS Need
> Not Register as Political Committee<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57875>
> Posted on January 10, 2014 9:23 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57875>
> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> See here<http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/14044350970.pdf>.
> <image001.png><
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57875&title=Republican%20FEC%20Commissioners%20Issue%20Statement%20on%20Why%20Crossroads%20GPS%20Need%20Not%20Register%20as%20Political%20Committee&description=
> >
> Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, federal
> election commission<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
> Key figures in #Bridgegate–Baroni, Samson–also key figures in suit to
> block Lautenberg replacement of Torricelli<
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57872>
> Posted on January 10, 2014 9:20 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57872>
> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Remember New Jersey Democratic Party v. Samson<
> http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2002/a-24-02-opn.html
> >?
>
> I have an extensive discussion of  the case in the Democracy Canon<
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1344476>.
>
> Baroni, Forrester’s lawyer, wrote his own article: William E. Baroni, Jr.,
> Administrative Unfeasibility: The Torricelli Replacement Case and the
> Creation of a New Election Law Standard, 27 SETON HALL LEGIS. J. 53 (2002).
>
>
> <image001.png><
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57872&title=Key%20figures%20in%20%23Bridgegate%E2%80%93Baroni%2C%20Samson%E2%80%93also%20key%20figures%20in%20suit%20to%20block%20Lautenberg%20replacement%20of%20Torricelli&description=
> >
> Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
> “Supreme Court to mull right to lie in political ads”<
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57869>
> Posted on January 10, 2014 9:07 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57869>
> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Politico reports<
> http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/01/supreme-court-to-mull-right-to-lie-in-political-ads-180995.html
> >.
> <image001.png><
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57869&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%20to%20mull%20right%20to%20lie%20in%20political%20ads%E2%80%9D&description=
> >
> Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> Democratic FEC Commissioners Issue Statement on Why Crossroads GPS Should
> Register as Political Committee<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57867>
> Posted on January 10, 2014 4:19 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57867>
> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Here<http://t.co/CxAzTPwnnx>.
> <image001.png><
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57867&title=Democratic%20FEC%20Commissioners%20Issue%20Statement%20on%20Why%20Crossroads%20GPS%20Should%20Register%20as%20Political%20Committee&description=
> >
> Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, federal
> election commission<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
> “Bitcoin Takes Stage In Texas Senate Campaign”<
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57865>
> Posted on January 10, 2014 4:05 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57865>
> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> NPR reports<
> http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/01/10/260572933/bitcoin-takes-stage-in-texas-campaign
> >.
> <image001.png><
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57865&title=%E2%80%9CBitcoin%20Takes%20Stage%20In%20Texas%20Senate%20Campaign%E2%80%9D&description=
> >
> Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> Breaking: Supreme Court Takes Case Involving False Campaign Speech<
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57863>
> Posted on January 10, 2014 12:06 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57863>
> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Today the Court issued an orde<
> http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011014zr_bp24.pdf>r
> granting cert in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus.
>
> The cert. petition <
> http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/SBA_Cert_Petition.pdf>
> raises two questions, the second of which is substantive on the question of
> false campaign speech laws:
>
> Did the Sixth Circuit err by holding, in direct conflict with the Eighth
> Circuit, that state laws proscribing “false” political speech are not
> subject to pre-enforcement First Amendment review so long as the speaker
> maintains that its speech is true, even if others who enforce the law
> manifestly disagree?
>
> Marcia Coyle’s preview of this case<
> http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleSCI.jsp?id=1202615481907&kw=Campaign%20Lies%20Are%20Common%2C%20But%20Are%20They%20Actionable%3F&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&cn=20130814&src=EMC-Email&pt=Supreme%20Court%20Brief%20Headlines&slreturn=20140010150405>
> is here. It is not clear to me that the Court in this case is going to
> reach the merits of the constitutionality of laws barring false campaign
> speech (the Court may instead simply say that courts have to decide such
> challenges). But if the Court reaches the merits, I believe the Court is
> likely to hold at least some state laws barring false campaign speech
> unconstitutional. I’ve addressed the issues of the constitutionality of
> limits on campaign lies after US v. Alvarez in A Constitutional Right to
> Lie in Campaigns and Elections?<
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2151618>
> <image001.png><
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57863&title=Breaking%3A%20Supreme%20Court%20Takes%20Case%20Involving%20False%20Campaign%20Speech&description=
> >
> Posted in campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
> --
>
> Rick Hasen
>
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>
> UC Irvine School of Law
>
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>
> 949.824.3072<tel:949.824.3072> - office
>
> 949.824.0495<tel:949.824.0495> - fax
>
> rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>
> http://electionlawblog.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
> To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,
> we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise,
> any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
> attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
> cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
> penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii)  promoting,
> marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
> matter addressed herein.
>
> This message is for the use of the intended recipient only.  It is
> from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
> confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
> copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
> prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please
> advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
> by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
> <-->
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
Steve Klein
Staff Attorney & Research Counsel*
Wyoming Liberty Group
www.wyliberty.org

**Licensed to practice law in Illinois. Counsel to the Wyoming Liberty
Group pursuant to Rule 5.5(d) of the Wyoming Rules of Professional Conduct.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140113/fd72f075/attachment.html>