[EL] Dependency Corruption & Re: Unlimited contributions vs IEs - was Re: smith on cu

Wed Apr 8 06:05:33 PDT 2015

Really not sure I'm following you. Raising money from people who endorse
your position presents a conflict of interest? That's an, umm, novel
interpretation.

And of course, you're forgetting the ultimate check on a politician's
choosing donors over voters, namely voters. Somehow "reformers" always
forget that real live people get to make decisions on whether or not
candidates are favoring their interests or their donors. 

Sean Parnell

President

Impact Policy Management, LLC

6411 Caleb Court

Alexandria, VA  22315

571-289-1374 (c)

sean at impactpolicymanagement.com

From: Arn Pearson [mailto:APearson at commoncause.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 6:32 PM
To: Sean Parnell
Cc: Thomas J. Cares; Larry Levine; Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] Dependency Corruption & Re: Unlimited contributions vs IEs
- was Re: smith on cu

Ironically, this response really cinches the point. Whether it's one donor's
x% or another opposing donor's x or 2x%, the problem is the same. Either
way, the desire for those resources creates an inherent conflict of interest
between donors and voters.  

One does not have to assume corruption or bad motives to recognize that that
conflict is inherently unhealthy for a democratic system that is supposed to
represent the interests of voters, regardless of their ability to pay:

Comparable conflicts of interest are not tolerated in most other realms,
whether there's a fiduciary duty at stake or something more common.  We
don't want financial advisors who financially benefit by promoting someone
else's bottom line; employees who get paid by competitors; police who
personally benefit from selectively enforcing (or not enforcing) public
laws; or umpires who get paid by teams.

We would all benefit by finding ways to realign the sources of campaign
funding and voters.  That's the best way to minimize the risk that the money
required to obtain and keep political power does not distort public policy
priorities or undermine public faith in the integrity or our government.  

Supermajorities of voters, across all party lines, understand the problem
and are hungry for common sense solutions.

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 7, 2015, at 5:08 PM, "Sean Parnell" <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>
wrote:

There's also the option of "If I don't do this thing Exxon wants, they won't
give me x% of what I need to run an effective campaign, but I'll bet Tom
Steyer would be more than happy to give me that x%, maybe even 2x%."

I was the fundraiser for Congressman Greg Gankse from '99 to '02, and I
always got a good laugh when I heard people explaining that the Patients'
Bill of Rights couldn't passed in Congress because of all that big money
HMOs were throwing at campaigns. The reason for my merriment was that Ganske
was the lead sponsor of the PBoR and we were raking in campaign
contributions hand-over-fist from doctors, medical associations, trial
lawyers, and others who wanted to see the legislation passed. 

Best,

Sean Parnell

President

Impact Policy Management, LLC

6411 Caleb Court

Alexandria, VA  22315

571-289-1374 (c)

sean at impactpolicymanagement.com

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas
J. Cares
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 4:04 PM
To: Larry Levine
Cc: Election Law
Subject: [EL] Dependency Corruption & Re: Unlimited contributions vs IEs -
was Re: smith on cu

I don't think an honest definition of corruption is so difficult to
construct.

If Exxon very-substantively helped me get elected to the legislature, be it
through IEs or contributions, and if I liked being a legislator, and I felt
that my re-election could hinge on their repeated support, my ability to
vote in the interest of my constituents, where that interest conflicts with
Exxon's would be corrupted. Of course, I like to think that I personally
would choose my constituents over Exxon. But, you know, politicians tend to
be egotistical, and egotistical people have a way of justifying things -
"This Bill might be a little bad for my constituents, but voting for it will
get me the money I need to be re-elected allowing me to do so many other
things that do more good for my constituents than this does bad. It's
actually a good deal for my constituents that I vote for this. Whoever would
replace me would not do the great things that I would do in my 2nd term.
It's really in their best interest that I screw them on this; it's actually
the right thing to do."

The fact is, in such a situation, where maybe it's a close call whether it's
a good bill or a bad bill, and you vote on the side of Exxon, I feel like
even you, the legislator, can't really know if the money corrupted you.
People tend not to understand the depths of their psychology well enough.
"No, no, the tax revenue is worth the environmental harm, we can spend that
money to do more good for the environment than the little bit of bad this
does."

But you can never really know if you would have made that same justification
had your career not depended on it. Maybe you would have, but maybe it was
too convenient for you to accept, that you couldn't take the affirmative
mental action of internally challenging that justification such to discover
that it was not truly merited.

In any event, if Exxon's support is a major factor in whether you'll be
re-elected, your ability to consider your constituent's interests over
Exxon's has been corrupted.

That's your appropriate definition of corruption. (I suppose this is
Lessig's 'dependency corruption').

Redefining it as quid quo pro is just convenient for the 'anti-reformers'.

Also, for what it's worth, I naively ran for State Assembly when I was 20
years old (I say "naively", because I thought my superior policy goals (
http://tomcares.com/index901.html ) would give me an actual chance). It's
very hard to imagine I would ever try that again without having first
achieved a personal financial wealth that would allow me to self-fund.
Before, I didn't realize how absolutely-necessary 6-figure fundraising was;
I was thinking David vs. Goliath. It's more like a butterfly vs Goliath (I
mean, from my experience, I was the only one really pounding hard talking
about policy, I put in tons of effort. I got 5% of the vote, like a
butterfly getting one cheap shot in Goliath's eye, before getting swatted.
No one takes you seriously if you don't have campaign cash. Yes, my resume
was weaker (which I perhaps did overcome, because I got about as many votes
as the current mayor of Lawndale, who also had no real money), but If I had
6 figures, I would have been taken more seriously, and also could have
reached more voters).

Anyway, why do I strongly doubt I would ever attempt that again without the
ability to self-fund? Because I'm not sure I trust myself to not think
something like "This Bill might be a little bad for my constituents, but
voting for it will get me the money I need to be re-elected allowing me to
do so many other things that do more good for my constituents than this does
bad. It's actually a good deal for my constituents that I vote for this.
Whoever would replace me would not do the great things that I would do in my
2nd term. It's really in their best interest that I screw them on this; it's
actually the right thing to do."

I'm afraid that If I had to raise the money to win, I wouldn't win. The
person holding the office wouldn't quite be me (I guess it would be a
corrupted me). (Though to be honest, even if I became very wealthy - maybe
doing the whole tech start up thing - I still doubt I'd ever run for
anything again, because I've "matured" into thinking there are probably
better ways for me to have a positive influence. I'd probably totally try to
be a much better version of the Kochs though.)

As for your last paragraph, about corrupting safe incumbents, doesn't the
California Medical Association contribute to every single state legislator?
I don't think they do this because they really like each and all of them. I
think they do it to "magically" immunize them to concern that the Micra cap
hasn't adjusted for inflation in 40+ years, as well as other things.

And then back to IEs vs. contributions. I guess we'll agree to disagree on
whether the fact that IEs can be less effective, for the reasons you stated
-

I find most IEs to be absolutely ineffective. My cynical perspective on IEs
is that an interest group makes money available to a consultant, who then
spends it with no accountability and with no need to assess how it might
help or hurt the candidate involved. All that after taking 15% off the top
as a fee and then marking up everything for additional commissions. Often,
the candidate has to disavow the actions of an IE that litters a district
with signs on public property or does an over-the-line hit piece. That pulls
the candidate off message and actually can hurt the campaign.

- provides a worthwhile candidate appreciation deficit, compared to direct
contributions, which proves to be important in preventing corruptive effects
of special interest money ("Exxon's IE is probably more likely, or at least
just as likely, to hurt me than help me. #$%@ them.")

Also, your proposal really just gives them more options. If a special
interest thinks a dirty smear that the candidate would never do themselves
would help the candidate more than money or be appreciated more than money
they'll still IE it. Unrestricting contributions won't get rid of the dirty
stuff in IEs; it just gifts them flexibility. Essentially the point Justin
Levitt made a few days ago:

IEs provide an avenue for individuals or groups to promote their own
messages in ways that get them power and attention, which may serve the
interest of some individuals or groups far better than a contribution.  And
IEs also provide an avenue for negative ads that give candidates plausible
deniability, which may serve the interest of some candidates far better than
a contribution.  

-Thomas Cares

On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
wrote:

One of the difficulties of this discussion is the perception and definition
of corruption. Reformers tend to see corruption everywhere they look;
without corruption they would have no purpose. Some have argued that the
advocacy of reforms is one of the factors causing the perception of
corruption. I have argued for many years that in my 45 years of political
consulting and 12 years as a news reporter I found the overwhelming majority
of elected officials to be honest people who were sincerely interested in
good public policy and law making. Reformers argue back that the simple act
of giving a contribution that results in increased access to an elected
official is in itself a form of corruption because the "average" -
non-contributing - citizen doesn't have that same access. And from there the
reformers try to eliminate, or limit, the money going from any source to the
campaign of the elected official. With that wide a gap in the interpretation
of corruption, I'm not sure the two camps can ever agree. 

As to one of your other points, I find most IEs to be absolutely
ineffective. My cynical perspective on IEs is that an interest group makes
money available to a consultant, who then spends it with no accountability
and with no need to assess how it might help or hurt the candidate involved.
All that after taking 15% off the top as a fee and then marking up
everything for additional commissions. Often, the candidate has to disavow
the actions of an IE that litters a district with signs on public property
or does an over-the-line hit piece. That pulls the candidate off message and
actually can hurt the campaign. 

I did what may have been the most effective IE in history (fact, not brag)
in 2013. Nury Martinez had finished 20 points behind Cindy Montanez in a Los
Angeles City Council Primary. With six weeks to go before the runoff
election, I was hired to do a $100,000 IE for Martinez. The result was a
10-point victory for Martinez - a 30-point turn around in six weeks. City
Council President Herb Wesson said, "In 800 years of politics, I've never
seen anything like this." What was different about this IE? I live in the
district and had the opportunity to watch the two campaigns as a consumer in
the Primary. I had a feel for what needed to be done from the start and
before getting started we built a strategy as we would have if we were doing
the actual campaign instead of an IE. Most IEs don't do that. They are
cookie-cutter operations that take little or no heed of the particulars of
the race at hand. When I'm doing a race and know there will be an IE for my
candidate, I get very nervous. In one recent race I saw an IE produce five
pieces of mail "supporting" my candidate with messages that had nothing to
do with the message of our campaign. Later, I learned the consultant had
done those same mail pieces for other candidates in other races.

Finally, while some "safe" incumbents may take advantage of their safe
incumbency to cross the line, in most cases these are the people who have
the least motivation to cross that line. They are safe and the contributing
entity needs them more than they need the contribution. In general I believe
people give money to candidates who represent positions with which they
already agree and who will advocate for that position, not someone who
disagrees and who they hope will change positions because of the
contribution. That is true whether it's a direct contribution to the
candidate, or participation in an IE. I am not going to give money to the
conservative, anti-union candidate because I hope he or she will suddenly
become a  vote for or advocate of stronger pro-labor measures. The reverse
also is true. 

Thanks,

Larry

_______________________________________________
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/20150408/324dd11a/attachment.html>