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

[Thomas J. Cares]

Larry, you know California state politics; you really don't think it
sometimes happens where a legislator votes a certain way on a bill, where
it's not an issue he feels close to, and where it's obscure and not in the
public eye, and where he might lean slightly the other way, just because he
knows it could well cost him ~$8k/cycle (the limit).

...Also, what about inaction? There must be hundreds of obscure examples.
I'll pick a random one - an issue I'm not even close to. The $250,000
(micra) cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases, that was
set in 1975, and some 4 decades later, never updated to keep up with
inflation - I'm sure you know the CMA gives a lot of money, and also polls
all legislative candidates on whether they feel the cap should be raised.
Would you not agree that it doesn't get raised, because legislators aren't
inclined to give up that ~$8k/cycle (which they'd probably stop getting
from the CMA if they tried to raise it)?


If I could go for one more question (and I ask genuinely, not
argumentatively): You suggest IEs are effectively loopholes to contribution
limits. So you don't think direct campaign contributions can be more
corrupting / that direct contributions are more critical for a campaign,
and more appreciated, and more corruptive (can a very poorly funded
campaign do just as well if it's supported by IE ads? (I wouldn't think so
- if you need 800k to win, I think >300 has to be direct; it can't be
50+ 750 in IEs - attack IEs also have shown great potential for backlash -
I remember several significant incidents in 2010).

-Thomas Cares


Sent from my iPhone

On Thursday, July 3, 2014, 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu');>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','JBoppjr at aol.com');>
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','birkenstock at sandlerreiff.com');>>
> *Date: *Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 9:52 AM
> *To: *Jim Bopp <jboppjr at aol.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jboppjr at aol.com');>>
> *Cc: *Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tpotter at capdale.com');>>, "
> law-election at uci.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election at uci.edu');>" <
> law-election at uci.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','JBoppjr at aol.com');>" <JBoppjr at aol.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','JBoppjr at aol.com');>" <JBoppjr at aol.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jboppjr at aol.com');>>
> *Date: *Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 8:18 AM
> *To: *Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tpotter at capdale.com');>>
> *Cc: *"law-election at uci.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election at uci.edu');>" <
> law-election at uci.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/b57b217a/attachment.html>