[EL] Republican Nirvana

[Allen Dickerson]

The Court itself has suggested this relationship in the aggregate limits context:

The existing aggregate limits may in fact encourage the movement of money away from entities subject to disclosure. Because individuals’ direct contributions are limited, would-be donors may turn to other avenues for political speech. Individuals can, for example, contribute unlimited amounts to501(c) organizations, which are not required to publicly disclose their donors. See 26 U. S. C. §6104(d)(3).

McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 S. Ct. 1434, 1460 (2014).


From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Klein
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 4:50 PM
To: Tyler Creighton
Cc: law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Republican Nirvana

Wow. Talk about a misrepresentation and distortion. Did somebody forget the very case he argued before the Supreme Court? Super PACs and c4 participation are the wellspring of court decisions. Arguing otherwise is a dishonest attempt to call for the elimination of all contribution limits.

“Hard limits were what gave soft money its allure . . . . If large soft-money donations were banned, the parties might wilt as interest groups circumvented them. And where would the special interests take their money? Probably into ad campaigns of their own. Politicians already complain that they are becoming pawns in their own races because their fund raising is limited while that of outside interests is not. Banning soft money could remove campaigns further from the candidates' and parties' control.”

- Jonathan Rauch, National Journal, March 1997.

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Tyler Creighton <tyler at rethinkmedia.org<mailto:tyler at rethinkmedia.org>> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:29 PM, jboppjr <jboppjr at aol.com<mailto:jboppjr at aol.com>> wrote:
Absurdly low contribution limits are the wellspring from which superpacs and c4 participation in politics flows

Wow. Talk about a misrepresentation and distortion. Did somebody forget the very case he argued before the Supreme Court? Super PACs and c4 participation are the wellspring of court decisions. Arguing otherwise is a dishonest attempt to call for the elimination of all contribution limits.

Tyler Creighton | tyler at rethinkmedia.org<mailto:tyler at rethinkmedia.org>  |  Media Associate
ReThink Media<http://rethinkmedia.org> | (925) 548-2189<tel:%28925%29%20548-2189> mobile
@ReThinkDemocrcy<https://twitter.com/rethinkdemocrcy> | @ReThink_Media<https://twitter.com/rethink_media> | @TylerCreighton<http://www.twitter.com/tylercreighton>

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto: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<http://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/20150707/bcbcd836/attachment.html>