[EL] Freedom Caucus to Battle McConnell on Campaign Finance

[Tyler Creighton]

This was foreshadowed during the CRominbus debate. Outside groups allied
with the Freedom Caucus (like the Senate Conservatives Fund and Citizens
United) opposed the CRominbus rider increasing party contribution limits.

"Tea party fumes over campaign finance plan":
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/tea-party-revolts-over-campaign-finance-plan-113520

More evidence that the unlimited contributions/spending mantra is actually
about who has political power and who doesn't, not a defense of the first
amendment. McConnell and co want the RNC and establishment billionaires to
have power. The Freedom Caucus wants far right billionaires to have power.

I especially love how McConnell conveniently forgets his role in the rise
of super PACs when he argues parties now need higher limits to compete w/
super PACs.

*Tyler Creighton* | ReThink Media <http://rethinkmedia.org/> | Senior Media
Associate
tyler at rethinkmedia.org | (925) 548-2189 mobile | @TylerCreighton
<http://www.twitter.com/tylercreighton>

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:

> One problem with campaign finance regulation, that we all know exists, is
> that regulation is used to try to gain political advantage over one's
> political opposition. In that sense, campaign finance regulation is a
> source of corruption. It may be that the benefits of such regulation
> outweigh the costs -- after all, pretty much all regulation (should I just
> say "all regulation") has costs, but that does not mean that regulation is
> never worth the costs. But we all know that a cost of campaign finance
> regulation is its use as a political weapon, and hence a source of, as well
> as a potential limit on, political corruption.
>
> It is disappointing but not entirely surprising that the Freedom Caucus
> (the "Freedom for me but not for thee caucus"?) has succumbed to the desire
> to use regulation to its advantage, probably for reasons others have
> explored. But it is a vivid example of a cost of regulation that is too
> often ignored, and the way that anyone can be seduced by power. We would be
> naive to think that most people who favor regulation of campaign finances
> do not see the regulations they favor as advantageous to achieving their
> substantive political goals.
>
> This predictable and perpertual abuse of regulation is, I think, a
> compelling argument for separating campaign from state--which, I think, the
> drafters and ratifiers of the First Amendment probably thought they had
> done when the drafted and ratified the thing. But others will disagree.
> Let's just not act like this is not a problem, or a big surprise when it
> occurs (even if one did not see it coming in a particular case--I didn't--
> it shouldn't be surprising once it is seen).
>
> *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 <614.236.6317>*
>
> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
> <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 Ray La Raja [
> laraja at polsci.umass.edu]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 02, 2015 11:03 AM
> *To:* Rick Hasen
> *Cc:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Freedom Caucus to Battle McConnell on Campaign Finance
>
> This is a case where instrumental reasons might trump principle for the
> Freedom Caucus, although the article makes clear that some would like
> deregulation for their PACs if restrictions on parties are loosened.
> Hopefully we can discuss your concerns about my argument if we cross paths
> in Massachusetts during your book tour.
>
>
> On Dec 2, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
> I'm surprised because of the ideological valence of the issue. That is, I
> expect members of the "Freedom Caucus" to support full deregulation of the
> campaign finance process.
>
> (I'm also skeptical of some of the arguments about polarization and
> campaign finance you make in your book, but that is an issue for another
> time.)
>
>
> On 12/2/15 7:54 AM, Ray La Raja wrote:
>
> Rick, regarding the news that they Freedom Caucus is opposed to
> McConnell’s bid to loosen party financing, why are you surprised (as you
> note at your blog)?   Channeling more money through the parties should
> diminish the clout of partisan factions at the extremes because it
> strengthens the hand of party leadership.  This is exactly the point Brian
> Schaffner and I make in our recent book, "Campaign Finance and Political
> Polarization: When Purists Prevail”
> https://www.press.umich.edu/4882255/campaign_finance_and_political_polarization
>
> Ray La Raja, Associate Professor
> Department of Political Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
> http://polsci.umass.edu/profiles/la-raja_ray/home
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://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 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/http://electionlawblog.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151202/bee65707/attachment.html>