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

Tue Mar 11 12:07:44 PDT 2014

Regarding this:

(In fact, reading it more  closely, it only even shows that money buys 
access from Democrats – not to be  partisan, just to illustrate the point).

Maybe that is why it is mainly Democrats who scream about corruption from  
campaign contributions -- it is called projection.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 3/11/2014 3:00:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
Eric.Lycan at steptoe-johnson.com writes:

It  seems to be an interesting study, but not terribly convincing or 
scientific.   
To  the extent it shows that money buys access, it does not show that only  
money buys access, or even that money buys access in greater degree than do 
 other factors.  (In fact, reading it more closely, it only  even shows 
that money buys access from Democrats – not to be partisan, just to  illustrate 
the point).  For example, would emails  differentiating between “local 
constituents” and “local constituents who are  veterans of military conflict” 
or “local constituents who are crippled  children” have produced a 
statistically significant result? 
Many  factors could produce that same statistical result, such as 
identifying  factors like “labor union” or “church group”, but that does not equate 
to  “corruption”. 

Eric  Lycan
Steptoe  & Johnson PLLC
One Paragon Centre
2525 Harrodsburg Road, Suite  300
Lexington, KY 40504
O: 859-219-8213 F: 304-933-8715 C:  859-621-8888  
Eric.Lycan at Steptoe-Johnson.com
_www.steptoe-johnson.com_ (http://www.steptoe-johnson.com/)    
@KYcampaignlaw

From:  law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu  
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of  Rick Hasen
Sent: Tuesday, March 11,  2014 2:22 PM
To: Joe La Rue; law-election at uci.edu
Subject:  Re: [EL] "Ready for a surprise? Money DOES equal access in  
Washington"

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 depart
ment-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/) 

____________________________________

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC  Note:
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected  by 
legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any  
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is  
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us  
immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your  
system. Also, In accordance with I.R.S. Circular 230, we advise you that any  tax 
advice in this email is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be  
used, by any recipient for the avoidance of penalties under federal tax 
laws.  Thank you for your cooperation.  

_______________________________________________
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/20140311/0283f15a/attachment.html>