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

Thu Jul 3 12:18:50 PDT 2014

Interesting question, Mark.

You are correct about House elections just prior to the passage of BCRA. I
recall that something similar might be said about House re-election rates
prior to the enactment of FECA (though not to immediately afterward, i.e.
the 1974 election).

Here I would look elsewhere for the incumbency factor.

BCRA began its legislative journey prior to the 1996 election (The New
Campaign Finance Sourcebook, 36). The 1992 and 1994 elections were scary
for incumbents. BCRA could be seen as a response to that threat.

But BCRA did not pass in 1996. Why not, if incumbent protection is such a
factor in enacting these regulations? Part of the answer is institutional:
BCRA fell in 1996 to a filibuster. In general, legislating is hard in the
US. There are multiple veto-points. Other factors also matter enacting
legislation: partisanship, above all. The GOP had both House majorities and
a 60-40 edge in soft money fundraising during this period.

But the bill did pass in 2002. Why? Twenty percent of the GOP caucus in
both the House and the Senate voted for it. One might say conjecture that
the incumbent interests of this 20 percent overcame their partisan
interests.

Party soft money was a real threat to holders of marginal seats. After all,
party leaders applied soft money to the task of defeating vulnerable
candidates of the other party.

Is there any evidence that the 20 percent of Republicans who voted for BCRA
held more vulnerable seats than the 80 percent did not. There was about an
8 point average difference in Bush's 2000 vote share between districts
represented by pro-BCRA members and those represented by anti-BCRA
Republicans. That vulnerable 20 percent may have seen needed help in BCRA's
soft money ban, at least as long as they could believe it would also
restrict outside groups.

Of course, members from different districts and the same party may differ
in important ways. Republicans in competitive districts might be
ideologically different than those from safer districts. If reform ideology
and incumbent interest are highly correlated, you have an identification
problem.

Still, I am inclined to think that BCRA may have been more than anything
else an effect of a larger change whereby Democratic (Republican) districts
are less likely to elect Republican (Democratic) representatives.

John Samples
Cato Institute

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Interesting theory, but how do you explain the fact that Congress passed
> BCRA after three consecutive cycles of incumbent reelection rates of 96% or
> higher?
>
> Mark Schmitt
> 202/246-2350
> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
> twitter: mschmitt9
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>  My general view is that all campaign finance systems will eventually
>> come to benefit incumbents. This isn't necessarily due to nefarious purpose
>> or intent (though it can be and sometimes is). Rather, if the system
>> benefits incumbents, it won't be seen as a problem. Even if pressure grows
>> for "reform," incumbents won't see as the problem those elements (or at
>> least most such elements) that benefit incumbents. If the system is working
>> against incumbents, however, those incumbents will see that as a problem
>> and move to change the system.
>>
>>  *Bradley A. Smith*
>>
>> *Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault*
>>
>> *   Professor of Law*
>>
>> *Capital University Law School*
>>
>> *303 E. Broad St.*
>>
>> *Columbus, OH 43215*
>>
>> *614.236.6317 <614.236.6317>*
>>
>> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
>> <http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx>*
>>   ------------------------------
>> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
>> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of ReThink
>> Media [tyler at rethinkmedia.org]
>> *Sent:* Monday, June 30, 2014 7:56 PM
>> *To:* Sean Parnell
>> *Cc:* law-election at UCI.edu
>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] WARNING: SNARK AHEAD RE: Supreme Court and campaign
>> finance
>>
>>   I didn't mean to imply that this is necessarily the **real** reason
>> Republicans oppose the amendment but rather to show Mr. Bopps argument is
>> easily turned on its head.
>>
>> --
>> Tyler Creighton
>> *tyler at rethinkmedia.org <tyler at rethinkmedia.org>*
>>
>>  *Sent from my phone*
>>
>> On Jun 30, 2014, at 7:24 PM, "Sean Parnell" <
>> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com> wrote:
>>
>>   All I can say is that if I possessed the type of mindreading abilities
>> displayed here on the matter of why Republicans **really** oppose a
>> Constitutional amendment giving Congress the powers sought by Mr.
>> Creighton, I wouldn’t be typing out e-mails to the election law listserve,
>> I’d be sitting at a poker table in Vegas.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Sean Parnell
>>
>> President
>>
>> Impact Policy Management, LLC
>>
>> 6411 Caleb Court
>>
>> Alexandria, VA  22315
>>
>> 571-289-1374 (c)
>>
>> sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
>> mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Tyler
>> Creighton
>> *Sent:* Monday, June 30, 2014 6:31 PM
>> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Supreme Court and campaign finance
>>
>>
>>
>> The "campaign finance is incumbency protection" argument is a tired trope
>> that doesn't hold water. The argument implies that Congressional inaction
>> to regulate campaign finance is as much an incumbency protection racket as
>> Congressional action to do the same. In other words not writing any rules
>> is in fact writing the rules. Republicans in Congress refuse to support a
>> constitutional amendment empowering Congress to place contribution limits
>> on independent expenditure groups because they wish to preserve a leg up
>> over challengers who cannot attract large sums of IEs. Republicans in
>> Congress refuse to support a constitutional amendment empowering Congress
>> to re-enforce aggregate contribution limits because incumbents can join
>> together to solicit multi-million dollar contributions to JFCs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Moreover, the argument is completely divorced from hard data and the
>> reality of modern day fundraising. The data shows us that incumbents are
>> disproportionately advantaged in raising large sums of money with higher
>> contribution limits. Incumbents have ready made fundraising networks and
>> connections to industry and lobbyists who are willing to write checks and
>> host fundraisers. Of the top 20 State Assembly fundraisers in 2012 in
>> Texas
>> <http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/state_candidates.phtml?s=TX&y=2012&f=H>,
>> a state with no individual contribution limit to candidates, 14 were
>> incumbents while a mere 4 were challengers and 2 were for open seats. A
>> challenger doesn't crack the top 7. Only one true challenger is in the
>> top 20 list
>> <http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/state_candidates.phtml?s=TX&y=2012&f=S>
>> for State Senate candidates. A much more exhaustive look at contribution
>> limits
>> <http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/publications/Electoral.Competition.pdf> and
>> electoral competition by the Brennan Center (itself supported by this
>> GMU research <http://brennan.3cdn.net/82542437c8f479e0e9_3em6iyowv.pdf>)
>> substantiates this quick glance at the data in Texas.
>>
>>
>>
>> One can certainly envision a contribution limit sufficiently low as to
>> advantage incumbents over challengers, but high contribution limits is the
>> other side of the same coin. If your goal is electoral competition, public
>> financing of elections, as demonstrated in Connecticut
>> <http://www.demos.org/publication/fresh-start-impact-public-campaign-financing-connecticut>
>> and elsewhere, should be your goal, not abolishment of all contribution
>> caps.
>>
>>
>>   *Tyler Creighton* | tyler at rethinkmedia.org  |  Media Associate
>>
>> ReThink Media <http://rethinkmedia.org> | (202) 449-6960 office | (925)
>> 548-2189 <%28925%29%20548-2189> mobile
>>
>> @ReThinkDemocrcy <https://twitter.com/rethinkdemocrcy> | @ReThink_Media
>> <https://twitter.com/rethink_media> | @TylerCreighton
>> <http://www.twitter.com/tylercreighton>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>>
>> If anyone responds to this, please use this (or another) subject line
>> (and not ELB News and Commentary)
>>
>> On 6/30/14, 12:44 PM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
>>
>>  Regarding this:
>>
>> *The Court has shown no such deference when it comes to the need for
>> campaign finance regulation or to protect the voting rights of racial
>> minorities and others. The Roberts Court has overturned or limited every
>> campaign finance law it has examined (aside from disclosure laws). It has
>> struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. How much deference
>> did Congress get in those cases? None.*
>>
>> *Well when is Congress wise and entitled to deference? When the Court
>> agrees with Congress’s approach. Let’s call that “faux deference,” to go
>> with the “f**aux-nanimity*
>> <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2014/scotus_roundup/scotus_end_of_term_massachusetts_abortion_clinic_buffer_zone_law_goes_down.html>*”
>> of the rest of the term.*
>>
>> Rather than deference, a much better argument could be made for
>> scepticism when it comes to Congress writing campaign finance laws.  After
>> all, with campaign finance laws, members of Congress are writing the rules
>> for their own election specifically and when citizens can criticize them
>> generally. There are no subjects that they are more intensely
>> self-interested.
>>
>> Ironically, "reformers" should know this.  Some of them believe that
>> members of Congress thirst so strongly for campaign contributions that they
>> would sell their votes for just a few hundred dollars.  If this is true,
>> then surely they would write campaign finance laws to benefit themselves.
>> Jim Bopp
>>
>> In a message dated 6/30/2014 1:05:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>> rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>>
>> #HobbyLobby: When is Congress “Wise?” When the Court Agrees with
>> Congress’s Wisdom <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62877>
>>
>> Posted on June 30, 2014 8:50 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=62877> by Rick
>> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Near the end of Justice Alito’s majority opinion in the Hobby Lobby
>> <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf> case today,
>> he writes that it is not the Court’s job to question the “wisdom” of
>> Congress in using the compelling interest test in RFRA, but the Court
>> applies that RFRA test strongly, and in a way which shows the Court
>> apparently giving great deference to Congress’s judgment about how to
>> balance the government’s interest in generally applicable laws with the
>> accommodations of religious freedoms. It reminded me of Justice Scalia’s
>> pleas in Windsor
>> <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf>last term
>> for deference to Congress on the need for the Defense of Marriage Act.
>>
>> The Court has shown no such deference when it comes to the need for
>> campaign finance regulation or to protect the voting rights of racial
>> minorities and others. The Roberts Court has overturned or limited every
>> campaign finance law it has examined (aside from disclosure laws). It has
>> struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. How much deference
>> did Congress get in those cases? None.
>>
>> Well when is Congress wise and entitled to deference? When the Court
>> agrees with Congress’s approach. Let’s call that “faux deference,” to go
>> with the “faux-nanimity
>> <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2014/scotus_roundup/scotus_end_of_term_massachusetts_abortion_clinic_buffer_zone_law_goes_down.html>”
>> of the rest of the term.
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>>
>> Rick Hasen
>>
>> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>>
>> UC Irvine School of Law
>>
>> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>>
>> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>>
>> 949.824.3072 - office
>>
>> 949.824.0495 - fax
>>
>> rhasen at law.uci.edu
>>
>> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>>
>> http://electionlawblog.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
John Samples
Vice President and Publisher
The Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202.789.5248
Fax: 202.842.2240
Cell: 703-772-5977
Email: jsamples at cato.org
Web: http://www.cato.org/people/samples.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140703/5607e793/attachment.html>