[EL] 80% of time fundraising

[Lowenstein, Daniel]

        To think in terms of how large a contribution it takes to buy a Congressman is of course to apply an extremely crude conception of human psychology to the question of conflict of interest posed by campaign finance.  Nevertheless, if we think in those terms as a heuristic device, Jim could have added that if contribution limits were substantially raised, the price would increase.  In general, the pressure generated by the need to raise campaign funds would decrease as contribution limits and other restraints were eased.  That is why, in my later writings on campaign finance, I regularly commented that as a rule of thumb, one should tend to favor any proposal making it easier to raise money and to disfavor any proposal making it more difficult.  Ceteris paribus, of course.

          For the same reason, Sam is also right that public financing should tend to diminish the pressure from the need to raise funds.  The problem is that it is quite difficult to devise public financing schemes that do not create other problems and that use public funds in a reasonably efficient way for the intended purpose.  Tax credits, in particular, though they have some advantages compared to other public financing schemes, seem to me a highly inefficient use of public funds.  It's been a long time since I've looked at empirical details, but I believe the overwhelming preponderance of lost revenues would go as a tax break for those who are already contributing rather than to generate new contributions.

             Best,

             Daniel H. Lowenstein
             Director, Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions (CLAFI)
             UCLA Law School
             405 Hilgard
             Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
             310-825-5148


________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of JBoppjr at aol.com [JBoppjr at aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 7:08 AM
To: sambagen at umich.edu
Cc: law-election at UCI.EDU
Subject: Re: [EL] 80% of time fundraising

I would like to see the tax credit for small contributions to candidates, pacs and political parties (say $500, it was 50% of the first $200 a person gave to all of them)restored. This would mean that more people would give more small contributions to these entities.

But this would have no real effect on the distortion effect of low candidate contribution limits and little effect on candidate fundraising.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 7/29/2014 9:54:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sambagen at umich.edu writes:
So we can get you to agree on a small-donor matching system like New York's, so candidates can save all that time on fundraising?


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:31 AM, <JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>> wrote:
This is of course ridiculous and caused by exceeding low candidate contribution limits. You cannot even buy a Democrat candidate for $2600 or even $5200.  Anecdotal evidence is that it takes at least $99,000 in cold hard cash to buy a Democrat candidate (Jefferson) and at least $140,000 to buy a Republican one (Cunningham).

These low candidate contribution limits also are accountable for the vast majority of fund given to independent groups that the "reformers" spend all their time complaining about -- a problem they created.

These limits need to be raised or eliminated to stop this distortion of the system.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 7/28/2014 11:56:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> writes:
“Leaked Memo Tells Senate Candidate To Spend 80 Percent Of Her Time Raising Money”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=63797>
Posted on July 28, 2014 8:54 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=63797> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

HuffPo<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/28/michelle-nunn-fundraising_n_5628018.html>‘s Paul Blumenthal:

A campaign strategy memo prepared for Georgia Democratic Senate candidate Michelle Nunn last year and leaked online on Monday reveals far more than just the inner workings of one high-profile Senate campaign. Details in the memo illuminate the dominant role of fundraising in the political world.

“Hitting our targets will require us to prioritize fundraising above all else and to focus the candidate’s time on it with relentless intensity,” the memo<http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/235287519?access_key=key-7XLZhUlmcqs8zb0ft3xs&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll>, written in December 2013 and leaked to National Review<http://www.nationalreview.com/article/383894/michelle-nunns-campaign-plan-eliana-johnson#GASen>, states in a section on the campaign’s finance plan.

To reach the campaign’s target of raising $15 million to $20 million for the entire race, the memo urges that Nunn’s time be budgeted almost exclusively for fundraising, at least until the tail end of the race. Nunn, who would face no serious competition in the Democratic primary, should spend between 70 and 80 percent of her time raising money from January through September, according to the memo. Only in October does the recommended fundraising time drop to 50 percent.

The memo estimates that there are 2,500 campaign hours in 2014 and recommends that 2,201 of them be spent raising money.

_______________________________________________
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



--
Samuel Bagenstos
Professor of Law
University of Michigan Law School
https://www.law.umich.edu/FacultyBio/Pages/FacultyBio.aspx?FacID=sambagen
Twitter: @sbagen