[EL] WARNING: SNARK AHEAD RE: Supreme Court and campaign finance
Robert Wechsler
catbird at pipeline.com
Fri Jul 4 04:12:06 PDT 2014
It's interesting how easily and unquestioningly some people say that
"the vast majority of campaign contributors have no corrupt intentions,"
when in the vast majority of elections --- that is, local elections ---
most large contributions come from "restricted sources," that is, those
regulated by, employed by, or seeking special benefits from the
government (directly or for their clients). In local elections, there is
little ideology and lots of pay to play, expected contributions from
employees and appointed officials, and the desire to preserve access and
influence in order to keep, get, or prevent very specific things, such
as contracts, permits, grants, and regulations. The vast majority of
these contributors meet with officeholders.
The world does not consist of the federal government. In the world where
I work, you cannot get elected without money from restricted sources
unless you are independently wealthy or participate in a public campaign
financing program. Are elected local and state officials decent and
honorable people stuck in a situation of legal, institutional
corruption? No one can know an individual's character, but we can know
the laws they pass and fail to pass.
We also cannot know how many decent, honorable people choose not to run
because of what they would have to do to run a winning campaign.
Robert Wechsler
City Ethics <http://www.cityethics.org/>
On 7/3/2014 6:11 PM, Smith, Brad wrote:
> As I read this thread, a few thoughts occur to me:
>
> 1. Chief Justice Roberts made a very good point in the McCutcheon
> decision, when he pointed out that contribution limits are themselves
> a "prophylactic." That is to say, _*the vast majority of campaign
> contributors have no corrupt intentions*_, *_and in fact never even
> seek a meeting with an officeholder_*_._ They merely want what they
> consider to be good policy and good government. Similarly, the
> substantial majority of officeholders are _*not corrupt, but decent,
> honorable men and women*_ trying to do a very difficult job. Thus,
> contribution limits inherently infringe on a great deal of political
> activity - speech activity - that is outside the scope of "corruption"
> as, I think, most Americans think of "corruption," and as the Supreme
> Court defines it for purposes of a compelling government interest that
> might overcome First Amendment rights.
>
> 2. The reform movement has not pursued narrowly targeted approaches
> aimed at specific, actual corruption with much vigor. Yes, virtually
> all reformers I know dislike Leadership PACs, but they have devoted,
> on the whole, little effort to reforming them. They have done very
> little to revise "personal use" laws (I believe I can say that during
> my time on the FEC, I was the toughest commissioner on the question of
> personal use). They have paid little attention to the types of events
> that Joe writes about below (But ask Bob Ney if there are limits).
> They have not put a major emphasis on limiting direct promises of
> access for contributions. Lobbying abuses, including lobbying by
> immediate family members, have always been a secondary target. Again,
> I emphasize that of course reformers have bemoaned abuses in these
> areas, but they have not been a major point of the reform lobby's
> legislative efforts. Those efforts have been reserved for much
> broader, "prophylactic" measures that necessarily limit a great deal
> of First Amendment activity that is not corrupting, and that have
> created an ever more complex set of rules that have, themselves,
> distorted the process. (As Larry notes, there was a time, before
> contribution limits, when massive IE campaigns were unheard of, to
> give just one example). Even the 1990s law that finally prohibited
> officeholders from converting campaign funds to personal funds on
> retirement was not led by the reform community, but by talk radio
> hosts, term limit enthusiasts, and other tea party precursors upset
> about perceived congressional abuses in the late '80s and early '90s
> that included the House banking scandal and more.
>
> 3. I suspect there would be room for cooperation and broad consensus
> on some of these narrow corruption issues, if reformers were prepared
> to drop their more utopian ideas and blunderbuss measures and place
> their focus here.
>
>
>
>
> /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/
>
> /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 Joe
> Birkenstock [birkenstock at sandlerreiff.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 03, 2014 10:38 AM
> *To:* larrylevine at earthlink.net; JBoppjr at aol.com
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] WARNING: SNARK AHEAD RE: Supreme Court and
> campaign finance
>
> Fair question Larry, but it's the "stays with" that really illustrates
> my point. What does that mean when that money replaces money spent on
> skiing?
>
>
> My real point with all this: Jim & his clients are litigating
> away/have litigated away the administrative rules that used to draw
> these kinds of lines. What's left are a set of criminal laws that Jim
> says he supports (his words: selling access "should be" illegal) but
> which exist primarily in the eye of the beholder.
>
>
> Ask Scott Walker (or Don Seigelman) whether we're better off using
> criminal laws to police officeholder self-dealing than we were when
> these were issues addressed first and foremostwith fines and
> conciliation agreements.
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> From: Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net
> <mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>>
> Reply-To: "larrylevine at earthlink.net
> <mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>" <larrylevine at earthlink.net
> <mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>>
> Date: Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:16 AM
> To: Joe Birkenstock <birkenstock at sandlerreiff.com
> <mailto:birkenstock at sandlerreiff.com>>, Jim Bopp <jboppjr at aol.com
> <mailto:jboppjr at aol.com>>
> Cc: "law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>"
> <law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: RE: [EL] WARNING: SNARK AHEAD RE: Supreme Court and campaign
> finance
>
> And what if the money stays with the campaign committee for
> communications with voters and eliminates the cause for independent
> expenditures?
>
> Larry
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto: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 6:52 AM
> *To:* JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu <mailto: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 <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>"
> <JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>" <JBoppjr at aol.com
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:jboppjr at aol.com>>
> *Date: *Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 8:18 AM
> *To: *Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com
> <mailto:tpotter at capdale.com>>
> *Cc: *"law-election at uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>" <law-election at uci.edu
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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/20140704/527d1ee7/attachment.html>
View list directory