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

[Larry Levine]

Sorry. But to me “money buys access” implies without money there is no access, which would not be true in most cases. Political candidates – and all incumbents are candidates waiting for their next election – go out of their way to have mutual access between themselves and voters.

Larry

 

From: Tyler Creighton [mailto:tyler at rethinkmedia.org] 
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 9:08 AM
To: larrylevine at earthlink.net
Cc: Joe Birkenstock; JBoppjr at aol.com; law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] WARNING: SNARK AHEAD RE: Supreme Court and campaign finance

 

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 |  <mailto:tyler at rethinkmedia.org> 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>  |  <http://www.twitter.com/tylercreighton> @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/f00754ee/attachment.html>