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

Fri Jul 4 05:56:04 PDT 2014

I would summarize Brad's excellent point by saying that the "reformers" are 
 actually much more interested in corruption as they and incumbents define 
it --  citizens criticizing public officials, than actual corruption by 
public  officials themselves.  And Brad gives a lot of good examples of this.   
Jim Bopp

In a message dated 7/3/2014 6:11:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
BSmith at law.capital.edu writes:

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  foremost with 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  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140704/10d6bd2a/attachment.html>