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

[Tyler Creighton]

I don't think I've ever seen or heard a more contradictory sentence. Money
either buys access or it doesn't. Your modifier clearly implies that it
does.

In 56 years of news reporting and political consulting I don’t think I’ve
> ever seen or heard of money going for access, although donors certainly
> have an advantage over the general public when it comes to access.


*Tyler Creighton* | tyler at rethinkmedia.org  |  Media Associate
ReThink Media <http://rethinkmedia.org> | (202) 449-6960 office | (925)
548-2189 mobile
@ReThinkDemocrcy <https://twitter.com/rethinkdemocrcy> | @ReThink_Media
<https://twitter.com/rethink_media> | @TylerCreighton
<http://www.twitter.com/tylercreighton>


On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Is it for “access” or for a specific vote. In 56 years of news reporting
> and political consulting I don’t think I’ve ever seen or heard of money
> going for access, although donors certainly have an advantage over the
> general public when it comes to access. At the same time, I’ve often seen
> donors get access without getting the vote they want. So, if the money goes
> to and IRS agent, who has no legislative authority, they I would say it’s
> probably a bribe. But if it goes to the campaign committee of an office
> holder or someone seeking office it is not necessarily a bribe, and more
> often than not it isn’t a bribe. One think I’ve learned is that people
> contribute political funds to candidates who already agree with their
> positions and seldom to someone who opposes their positions in the hopes of
> changing a vote.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> *From:* 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 7:13 AM
> *To:* JBoppjr at aol.com
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] WARNING: SNARK AHEAD RE: Supreme Court and campaign
> finance
>
>
>
> Guess I’m not gonna get an answer, but I’ll try again anyway.  To sum up:
> $$ goes straight to public official for access = bribe.  $$ pays for access
> during free ski weekend (and pays for the free ski weekend) /= bribe?
>
>
>
> So the distinction that determines whether felonies have been committed
> comes down to which payee is named on the check(s)?
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> *From: *Joe Birkenstock <birkenstock at sandlerreiff.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 9:52 AM
> *To: *Jim Bopp <jboppjr at aol.com>
> *Cc: *Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com>, "law-election at uci.edu" <
> 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" <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 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" <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 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>
> *Date: *Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 8:18 AM
> *To: *Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com>
> *Cc: *"law-election at uci.edu" <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 writes:
>
> right to buy and sell meetings with government officials
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140703/029b31be/attachment.html>