[EL] WARNING: SNARK AHEAD RE: Supreme Court and campaign finance

[Joe Birkenstock]

Fair question Larry, but it’s the “stays with” that really illustrates my point.  What does that mean when that money replaces money spent on skiing?

My real point with all this: Jim & his clients are litigating away/have litigated away the administrative rules that used to draw these kinds of lines.  What’s left are a set of criminal laws that Jim says he supports (his words: selling access “should be” illegal) but which exist primarily in the eye of the beholder.

Ask Scott Walker (or Don Seigelman) whether we’re better off using criminal laws to police officeholder self-dealing than we were when these were issues addressed first and foremost with fines and conciliation agreements.

Sent from my iPhone


From: Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>>
Reply-To: "larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>" <larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>>
Date: Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:16 AM
To: Joe Birkenstock <birkenstock at sandlerreiff.com<mailto:birkenstock at sandlerreiff.com>>, Jim Bopp <jboppjr at aol.com<mailto:jboppjr at aol.com>>
Cc: "law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>" <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: RE: [EL] WARNING: SNARK AHEAD RE: Supreme Court and campaign finance

And what if the money stays with the campaign committee for communications with voters and eliminates the cause for independent expenditures?
Larry

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 Joe Birkenstock
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 6:52 AM
To: JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
Cc: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] WARNING: SNARK AHEAD RE: Supreme Court and campaign finance

"Who gets the $100k?" That's a good question, isn't it?

In practice it goes back to the campaign committee that paid for the weekend. So if you accept that money is fungible it seems as true to say the weekend attendees get it - at least get the benefit of it (including the senator).

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 3, 2014, at 9:47 AM, "JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>" <JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>> wrote:
As Trevor's "example" demonstrates, there is a lot of sloppy, vague and broad language used by "reformers" here.  So, as to Joe's hypo, who get the $100K -- assuming it does not violate any contribution limits?  Jim

In a message dated 7/3/2014 9:40:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, birkenstock at sandlerreiff.com<mailto:birkenstock at sandlerreiff.com> writes:
Sure does. What if a US senator (also a public official) raises the same $100k from the same sources for a private ski weekend in Aspen all paid by campaign funds. Still a bribe?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 3, 2014, at 9:34 AM, "JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>" <JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>> wrote:
Can the Director of the IRS -- a government official -- charge and pocket $100,000 for a meeting with him at IRS headquarters?  Sounds like a bribe to me  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 7/3/2014 9:30:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, birkenstock at sandlerreiff.com<mailto:birkenstock at sandlerreiff.com> writes:
Now *this* is an interesting way to start a long holiday weekend.  Serious question: this is "already illegal" under what law?

___________________________________
Joseph M. Birkenstock
Sandler Reiff Lamb Rosenstein & Birkenstock, P.C.
1025 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
202.479.1111
*also admitted to practice in CA


From: Jim Bopp <jboppjr at aol.com<mailto:jboppjr at aol.com>>
Date: Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 8:18 AM
To: Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com<mailto:tpotter at capdale.com>>
Cc: "law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>" <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] WARNING: SNARK AHEAD RE: Supreme Court and campaign finance

Trevor, you are so silly.  This is already illegal and should be.  Jim

In a message dated 7/2/2014 7:37:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, tpotter at capdale.com<mailto:tpotter at capdale.com> writes:
right to buy and sell meetings with government officials
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140703/888b16f5/attachment.html>