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

Thu Jul 3 12:18:59 PDT 2014

All fair questions. The key word in your first question is “sometimes.” Of course it sometimes happens. But I don’t think so often as to justify some of the measures we’ve taken against such situations. As I said earlier, money tends to flow in support of people who already agree with the position of donor because there are so few instances in which a person will change positions because of a contribution.

The frightening thing to candidates is the thought that an independent expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars may become involved in the campaign. I suggest the only way to stop independent expenditures is not through legislation but by removing the caps on direct contributions. There is evidence to support that position in California campaigns.

As for the MICRA cap, that’s hardly an obscure example and both sides of that issue have played heavily in campaigns. 

Regarding IEs – most of them are so ineffectively operated as to be of only small influence on the results if each candidate is funded sufficiently to make his or her message. It scares me when I know an IE will be weighing in to back one of my candidates because I have no control over what they will do or when and whether the message they make will conflict with what I am doing. Most IEs end up in the hands of consultants who take their percentage and spend the money mindlessly. Often the campaign ends up having to disassociate itself from the activities of the IE. What we have currently are candidates who tailor their positions to attract IE spending in support of their candidacies or discourage IEs from supporting the opposition. Were the money to go directly to the candidates and be reported, it would be more likely to be left to the voters to judge. With IEs the voters have no idea what is going on and the limited resources of the media today cannot provide the services of a watchdog. 

Larry

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas J. Cares
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 9:25 AM
To: Election Law
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 <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/20140703/20a55730/attachment.html>