[EL] Some perspectives on New York City's campaign finance system

[Smith, Brad]

If I may immodestly say so, I address some of these issues in Separation of Campaign and State, 81 George Washington L. Rev. 2038 (2013). I note that government involvement in funding candidate campaigns creates a regular temptation to attempt to dictate the nature and substance of public debate (See e.g. the almost indescribably absurd  "I'm ______ and I approve this message" required since 2003 in an effort to insulate incumbents from attacks), entangles government in races in a manner that can frustrate public opinion and determine winners (a la the Liu case), and gives the government a vested interest in making certain that candidates who participate in the government-preferred style of campaign funding in fact win, the resulting in the government putting its thumb on the scale to assist preferred candidates (the ultimate problem sensed, but poorly articulated, by the Court in Bennett). Justice Burger, Senator Baker and others were right in the 1970s when they argued that, in Burger's words, "the inappropriateness of subsidizing, from general revenues, the actual political dialogue of the people - the process which begets the government itself - is as basic to our national tradition as the separation of church and state... or the separation of civilian and military authority, neither of which is explicit in the Constitution ... ."


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 [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Bill Maurer [wmaurer at ij.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:02 PM
To: 'Sean Parnell'; law-election at UCI.EDU
Subject: Re: [EL] Some perspectives on New York City's campaign finance system

Certainly, the CFB’s death sentence on John Liu’s campaign was one of the most extreme examples of a regulatory bureaucracy injecting itself into the decision of who would be an elected official in recent history (although some would argue that the IRS is no slouch in that department).  A bureaucracy’s decision as to who can effectively compete for an elected office should give pause to even the most ardent supporters of taxpayer financed campaigns.

I’ve not seen a cop of Liu’s complaint, however, so I don’t know what remedy he is seeking and I can’t imagine what remedy he actually could seek.  He can’t be asking for a do-over.  And I have a hard time thinking he can demonstrate actual damages.  Is he just seeking a declaration and nominal damages?  How does one remedy getting effectively bounced from an election that one had no guarantee of winning in the first place?

Bill

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Sean Parnell
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 5:45 PM
To: law-election at UCI.EDU
Subject: [EL] Some perspectives on New York City's campaign finance system

I was up in New York today and wound up reading an article about New York City’s taxpayer financed campaign system that I thought might be of some interest to the list serve: http://media.cityandstateny.com/2/75/campaigns-and-elections/cracks-in-the-cfb.html#.UzIiZfldWqU A big focus of the article on the perception by some that the board running the system is playing favorites or at least being difficult with some candidates.

Best,

Sean Parnell
President
Impact Policy Management, LLC
6411 Caleb Court
Alexandria, VA  22315
571-289-1374 (c)
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com<mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>

________________________________

Spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04LG0O2uM&m=7aece20111c3&t=20140325&c=s>
Not spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04LG0O2uM&m=7aece20111c3&t=20140325&c=n>
Forget previous vote<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04LG0O2uM&m=7aece20111c3&t=20140325&c=f>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140326/1c6927af/attachment.html>