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

Sun Jul 6 07:22:03 PDT 2014

Regarding:

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). 

As has been explained, there are two strategies for contributing, (1) find  
someone who agrees with you and then contribute to him or her to help get 
him or  her get elected, or (2) find someone who opposes your views or is 
indifferent  and then contribute to her to change her mind.  Strategy (2) is 
rare  because it is so dumb.  What are the chances of changing someone's mind  
with a contribution, particularly one limited by contribution limits? If 
that  happens, what are the chances of the politician staying bought?  

Strategy (1) is way more successful.

This is so for anyone wanting benefits from government, including  those 
wanting "special benefits." Lets say someone wants an increase in  food stamp 
allowances. It is much smarter to contribute to a liberal  Democrat than to 
a conservative Republican. And it does not matter if it is  a "special 
benefit," whatever that is.  Let's say one  wants increased public employee union 
pensions and health care  benefits. Well find a politician who thinks that 
is good public  policy, ie, your average union official or everyday liberal 
Democrat, and  contribute to him or her and you actually have a chance that 
the politician  might support that public policy in office.  

"Pay to play" is Strategy (2) and I can only hope that all the liberals and 
 progressives actually employ this strategy.  I have a nice long  list of 
conservative Republicans for them to "pay to play."  

However, we know they don't, so what does that say about the validity of  
their argument?. Jim Bopp

In a message dated 7/5/2014 6:18:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
catbird at pipeline.com writes:

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_ 
(mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu)   
[_law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu_ (mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu) ]  on behalf 
of Joe Birkenstock [_birkenstock at sandlerreiff.com_ 
(mailto:birkenstock at sandlerreiff.com) ]
Sent:  Thursday, July 03, 2014 10:38 AM
To: _larrylevine at earthlink.net_ (mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net) ; 
_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

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  

_______________________________________________

Law-election mailing list

_Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu_ 
(mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140706/74e0e0a0/attachment.html>