[EL] "Ready for a surprise? Money DOES equal access in Washington"

Tue Mar 11 11:55:19 PDT 2014

Rick, how reassuring that we have a government of men, and not of laws. 

But on the merit of the argument, the most explicit discussion of  
corruption is NCPAC v. FEC in 1985 which describes it as quid-pro-quo.  It was 
Shrink in 2000 and then McConnell in 2003 that expanded  it to gratitude and 
access. CU simply restored it to its original  meaning.

Furthermore, we need to recognize that all sorts of people get privileged  
"access" to public officials, without making contributions. The principal  
beneficiary of privileged access is the news media.  Then there  are union 
bosses, community leaders, friends, relatives, political party  officials, the 
Congressman's investment banker, his mistress, his staff and  interns, 
Hollywood celebrities, ad nauseam. 

And as to gratitude, well, most Congressmen are normal human beings with  
appropriate feelings of gratitude whenever someone does something nice for 
them  -- like endorsing their reelection in an editorial in the local 
newspaper or  hooking up with them at a local bar.

And sometimes you have both at the same time. See above, i.e., his  
mistress, his staff and interns, some Hollywood celebrities, hooking up.

So if privileged access or gratitude is corruption, then the  "reformers" 
will have to ban a lot more than just campaign contributions.   Jim Bopp

In a message dated 3/11/2014 2:22:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:

There is  another view, which is that the Court was wrong in writing that 
in Citizens  United, and the equation of access with corruption in McConnell 
(and other  cases was correct).
Things may change once the Supreme Court changes. That  is, the definition 
of "corruption' depends upon what 5 Justices of the Supreme  Court says it 
means.

On 3/11/2014 11:19 AM, Joe La Rue wrote:

But  access DOES NOT equal real or apparent corruption, which as we all 
know  is the only constitutionally cognizable interest in limiting 
contributions  or expenditures.  Indeed, "The fact that speakers may  have influence 
over or access to elected officials does not mean that these  officials are 
corrupt."  Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S.Ct.  876, 910 (2010).  

Whether legislators should give greater  access to those who make 
contributions or expenditures is a fair  question.  Perhaps we should organize a 
petition to require the House  and Senate to change their rules to require their 
members to  meet with anyone and everyone who requests a meeting.  Of 
course, that  would likely keep the members of the legislature from legislating, 
which  would keep them from spending money we don't have on projects we 
don't  need.

Now  that you mention it, where do I sign that petition?

Joe
___________________
Joseph E. La Rue

cell: 480.272.2715  
email: _joseph.e.larue at gmail.com_ (mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com) 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail  message, including any attachments, 
is for the sole use of the intended  recipient(s) and may contain 
confidential and privileged information or  otherwise be protected by law. Any 
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or  distribution is prohibited. If you have 
received this message in error,  please immediately notify the sender and 
permanently delete the message.  

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL -  ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION/ATTORNEY WORK 
PRODUCT.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Any tax advice  contained in this 
communication was not written and is not intended to be  used for the purpose of (i) 
avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal  Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, 
marketing, or recommending any transaction  or matter addressed  herein.

_______________________________________________

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

-- 

Rick Hasen

Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science

UC Irvine School of Law

401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000

Irvine, CA 92697-8000

949.824.3072 - office

949.824.0495 - fax

_rhasen at law.uci.edu_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu) 

hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/

_http://electionlawblog.org_ (http://electionlawblog.org/) 

_______________________________________________
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/20140311/f08a9153/attachment.html>