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

[Thomas J. Cares]

Personally, I'm sympathetic to the notion that a virtuous challenger to an
unfit well-funded institutionalized incumbent might need a million
dollar personal check from someone like George Soros (or David Koch, to be
fair).

I only see bad, however, coming from affording the same entitlement to
Chevron or the SEIU - and I don't see the first amendment difference
between IEs as a technicality. An IE ad is speech. Money a candidate can
use to enjoy more controlled internal campaign staffers, for campaign
travel/office rent/food and entertainment for campaign events, for junkets
after he wins, for recontributing to others to expand his realm of
influence (as safe incumbents do), etc, is not the original contributor's
speech. (And how can someone who's controlled campaign receives $500k from
a company like Chevron ever be expected to be impartial on anything that
effects them, even remotely? If we see it as a prudent precaution for the
republic, to prohibit non-citizens from running, then surely it would be
incoherent to forgo the precaution of disallowing candidates who receive
6-figure campaign contributions from individual corporations).

So, Larry, for California state elections, how would you feel about a
compromise: No non-person hard money, but unlimited non-foreign personal
hard money, with disclosure and prohibition of conduits.

-Thomas Cares

(I appreciate your last thoughtful reply).

Sent from my iPhone


On Sunday, July 6, 2014, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net> wrote:

> City council candidates usually are perceived to be “pro-developer” or
> “anti-developer” at the time they file. Surely, in cities where development
> is an issue candidates will be forced to take positions on these issues and
> the sources of their contributions will become known. Same can be said of
> other issues: pro or anti union, open space protections, crime, etc. In
> addition voter turnouts tend to be smaller in municipal races with the
> result being a more informed electorate to discern the differences between
> candidates. Awarding of contracts most frequently is based on competitive
> bidding and recommendations come from departments in the administrative
> branch. Where final approval is required by a legislative body, there is
> the press and public interest groups to keep an eye on whether the “lowest
> competitive bid” standard is being violated frequently. And union contracts
> are produced by collective bargaining in which the elected officials
> usually are not directly involved. Certainly, nothing is perfect. But
> neither are things so far off the rails as to justify rampant violations of
> free political speech and redress. And on those occasions when they go off
> the rails there numbers of safeguards. Furthermore, contribution limits
> tend to work a disproportionate hardship on those attempting to finance
> campaigns in opposition to incumbents – in other words redress a grievance
> through free political speech.
>
> I know I run the risk of being called naïve again for this position. But
> after 44 years of political consulting and a dozen years as a political
> reporter, I’ll take that risk.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Scarberry,
> Mark
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 06, 2014 12:50 PM
> *To:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] WARNING: SNARK AHEAD RE: Supreme Court and campaign
> finance
>
>
>
> I usually agree with Jim and Larry, and usually am on the "free speech"
> side rather than the "reform" side on these issues. I do wonder though
> whether local officials who have great latitude in awarding contracts and
> benefits (generally on non-ideological grounds) may reward contributors in
> ways that state and federal level elected officials would find it hard to
> do.
>
>
>
> Perhaps public employee union contributions raise similar issues at the
> state and federal level, and perhaps elected officials at those levels have
> a lot of influence on awarding of contracts (beyond members of congress
> bringing the pork home for their home states). So perhaps the issues are
> not easily distinguishable based on these levels.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> Mark S. Scarberry
>
> Pepperdine University School of Law
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
>
> From: Larry Levine
>
> Date:07/06/2014 10:36 AM (GMT-08:00)
>
> To: JBoppjr at aol.com, catbird at pipeline.com, BSmith at law.capital.edu
>
> Cc: law-election at uci.edu
>
> Subject: Re: [EL] WARNING: SNARK AHEAD RE: Supreme Court and campaign
> finance
>
>
>
> I’ve been preaching this message to reformers and reporters for decades.
> People who opposed the war in Vietnam gave to anti-war candidates, not
> pro-war candidates; people who support reproductive choice give to one set
> of candidates; anti-choice advocates give to different candidates. All this
> is why I believe contribution limits are an abridgment of the right of
> redress. When is free speech more necessary than in pursuit of redress. If
> my government is trying to break the union movement and I am pro-labor I
> should be permitted to contribute to pro-labor candidates in unlimited
> amounts. The notion that I would give to an anti-labor candidate to change
> his or her vote is foolish. Were I to do so with the express agreement that
> the vote would change, that would be bribery and we have laws to cover
> that.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *
> JBoppjr at aol.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 06, 2014 7:22 AM
> *To:* catbird at pipeline.com; BSmith at law.capital.edu
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] WARNING: SNARK AHEAD RE: Supreme Court and campaign
> finance
>
>
>
> 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 <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 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>
> *Reply-To: *"larrylevine at earthlink.net" <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
> *Date: *Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 10:16 AM
> *To: *Joe Birkenstock <birkenstock at sandlerreiff.com>, Jim Bopp <
> jboppjr at aol.com>
> *Cc: *"law-election at uci.edu" <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] *On Behalf Of *Joe
> Birkenstock
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 03, 2014 6:52 AM
> *To:* JBoppjr at aol.com
> *Cc:* 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" <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 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" <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 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>
> *Date: *Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 8:18 AM
> *To: *Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com>
> *Cc: *"law-election at uci.edu" <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 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/fa97da90/attachment.html>