[EL] Freedom Caucus to Battle McConnell on Campaign Finance

Wed Dec 2 12:45:52 PST 2015

I was referring to how he is trying to sell the rider:
http://www.rollcall.com/news/campaign_finance_riders_face_fight_in_year_end_spending_bill-244913-1.html

McConnell and other backers of rolling back limits on party-candidate
> coordination say it would help political parties compete in the campaign
> funding scene increasingly dominated by super PACs that can raise unlimited
> funds.

Political parties wouldn't need increased funding to compete in a scene
increasingly dominated by super PACs if McConnell and others hadn't helped
paved the way for 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 3:34 PM, Steve Klein <stephen.klein.esq at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Tyler,
>
> Sen. McConnell brought a case against BCRA back in 2003 that conflicts
> with your narrative a bit.
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Tyler Creighton <tyler at rethinkmedia.org>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Klein
> Attorney*
> Pillar of Law Institute
> www.pillaroflaw.org
>
> **Licensed to practice law in Illinois and Michigan*
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151202/aa243eb3/attachment.html>