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

Thu Jul 3 09:50:17 PDT 2014

A couple of points...

I think the bigger issue is not necessarily candidates worrying about "that extra $8k", but how negative expenditures are used to enforce discipline.  

In
 most of the races we see in our state, the biggest expenditures are not
made to support a particular candidate.  In this state, $10,000 - $25,000 
would be considered rather large contributions in support of a statewide
 candidate or a leadership pac.

The 
biggest expenditures are made with the purpose of "sending a message" to 
candidates who "step out of line".  For example, in 2008, SEIU spent 
around $450,000 in a Democratic Primary to punish a candidate who 
supported PERS reforms that were opposed by the union.  That accounted 
for something like 80% of the total money raised and spent by that 
candidate's opponent. 

The point of the expenditure was not simply to help the candidate or defeat the opponent, but to send
 a clear message to other Democratic candidates about what might happen to them if they stepped too far out of line.  And the union said as much at the time.

In my view, those kinds of massive expenditures and the culture of fear that they create have a far more corrupting influence on both our elections and our legislative process than more modest expenditures of the sort that Thomas mentioned.  

With respect to Independent Expenditures...  

Oregon
 has no limits of any kind on campaign contributions yet we still have 
independent expenditures, since many groups find it beneficial to be 
able to engage in misleading negative attacks that would damage the 
candidate they are trying to benefit if they were paid for by that 
candidates committee.

For example, in 
the current election cycle, Oregon Right to Life and the Oregon Family 
Council did 31 negative pieces against a Republican incumbent in a 
"safe" Republican district because that incumbent said that the courts 
had spoken and that he was "done" fighting against gay marriage.  

These expenditures accounted for approximately 90% of the money spent on the candidate's behalf in that race.  And they were effective.  

 I think that those sorts of IE's are equally corrupting
 as the direct contributions to candidates described above.  

Does anyone really believe that
 candidates are blind to who spends money on what?  Does anyone really 
believe that candidates do not shape their behaviors in ways that will 
get themselves on the "right" side of the funding equation?

________________________________
 From: Thomas J. Cares <Tom at TomCares.com>
To: Election Law <Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu> 
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: [EL] WARNING: SNARK AHEAD RE: Supreme Court and campaign finance

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 [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/20140703/9cbb239e/attachment.html>