[EL] Seattle is passing Measure I-122: $100 in vouchers to every voter, lower contribution limits, etc.

Thu Nov 5 08:57:34 PST 2015

Paul,

One can raise policy concerns without threatening a lawsuit. Not all objections are legal.

But thank you in any event for the kind words. I'm especially pleased that this exchange identified at least one place where we agree in our reading (and comprehension?) of Buckley: underbreadth arguments will not often succeed, and governments should not be encouraged to over-regulate where associational liberties are implicated.

Best,

Allen

________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of Paul Ryan <PRyan at campaignlegalcenter.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2015 11:33 AM
To: David Keating; larrylevine at earthlink.net
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Seattle is passing Measure I-122: $100 in vouchers to every voter, lower contribution limits, etc.

David,

Your Legal Director, Allen Dickerson, could certainly answer these questions for you. I emailed him a link to the initiative text yesterday, at his request, and I know from personal experience that he has excellent reading comprehension skills.  Or, of course, you could read it yourself.  As was the case yesterday with Larry Levine’s questions, the answers to your questions are clearly stated in the initiative.

Regarding bundling, section 2.04.620(d) provides: “Any person properly obtaining and holding a Democracy Voucher may assign it by writing the name of the assignee candidate, and signing the holder’s name on and dating the Voucher where indicated thereon, and delivering the signed and dated Voucher to the candidate, or to SEEC, or to any candidate’s representative who shall be registered for this purpose with SEEC. Delivery may be by mail, in person (by any person the holder requests to deliver the voucher), or electronically via a secure SEEC online system.”

Regarding giving cash to someone for their vouchers, section 2.04.620(e) provides: “Assignment or transfer for cash or any consideration is prohibited. Offering to purchase, buy or sell a Democracy Voucher is prohibited. No person may give or gift a Democracy Voucher to another person, except by assigning it to a candidate as provided herein.”

Personally, I would have preferred that the initiative contain restrictions on bundling, but my sense is that the folks in Seattle who designed the program narrowly tailored the program so as not to unnecessarily burden the associational rights of neighbors like those described in your hypothetical.  But it sounds like your policy preference would have been to prohibit neighbors from organizing with each other to collect and deliver vouchers to candidates.  That comes as a somewhat pleasant surprise to me!  Perhaps CLC and CCP can work on some model legislation to restrict bundling?

I think one of the goals of the Seattle advocates was to do what they could to reduce the likelihood of First Amendment-based legal challenges to the new program from your organization (CCP) and others like it. Given listserv comments yesterday by Larry Levine, Sean Parnell and Jim Bopp, it seems their fear of First Amendment-based lawsuits was justified. But your criticism of the measure for not burdening enough associational activity seems to cut the other way.  Am I crazy to think you’d be complaining about the measure either way it went on the bundling issue?

At any rate, a statute is not “invalid under the Constitution because it might have gone farther than it did . . . . ”  Buckley, 424 U.S. 1, 105 (1976). So the Seattle law’s failure to prohibit bundling of vouchers shouldn’t present any legal problems in the seemingly inevitable legal challenge.

Best,

Paul Seamus Ryan

Senior Counsel

The Campaign Legal Center, Recipient of the 2014 MacArthur Award for Creative and Effective Institutions<http://www.macfound.org/maceirecipients/79/>

Ph. (202) 736-2200 ext. 222

Mobile Ph. (202) 262-7315

Follow me on Twitter @ThePaulSRyan<https://twitter.com/ThePaulSRyan>

And follow CLC @CampaignLegal<http://bit.ly/j8Q1bg>

From: David Keating [mailto:dkeating at campaignfreedom.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 11:40 PM
To: Paul Ryan; larrylevine at earthlink.net
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: RE: [EL] Seattle is passing Measure I-122: $100 in vouchers to every voter, lower contribution limits, etc.

Tell us, is bundling of the vouchers prohibited?  If I lived in Seattle, could I go to my neighbors and ask them to give me their vouchers for a candidate and turn them in to the candidate?  If that is okay, it sounds like a subsidy to groups that are good at canvassing.  And no doubt we will see a lot more canvassing if that is the case.

What if someone gives cash for vouchers and gives them to candidates he likes, then what happens?

David

_________________________________________________

David Keating | President | Center for Competitive Politics

124 S. West Street, Suite 201 | Alexandria, VA 22314

703-894-6799 (direct) | 703-894-6800 | 703-894-6811 Fax

www.campaignfreedom.org<http://www.campaignfreedom.org/>

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Ryan
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 10:41 AM
To: larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Seattle is passing Measure I-122: $100 in vouchers to every voter, lower contribution limits, etc.

Your loophole-finding skills are impressive, Larry!  That’s a real gift.  Given how quickly you found your loophole, I’m surprised you didn’t find the answers to your questions as well. The measure makes clear in section 2.04.620(c) that the vouchers can only be assigned to candidates for the offices of mayor, city attorney or city council.  The measure makes clear in section 2.04.620(d) that the vouchers can only be assigned/transferred to candidates, not ballot measures. Both of these points are reiterated in section 2.04.630(a). The measure makes clear in sections 2.04.620(d)-(e) that each of the four $25 vouchers can be assigned to any eligible candidate and that “a person may assign any number of his or her Democracy Vouchers to the same candidate in a given year.”

Paul Seamus Ryan

Senior Counsel

The Campaign Legal Center, Recipient of the 2014 MacArthur Award for Creative and Effective Institutions<http://www.macfound.org/maceirecipients/79/>

Ph. (202) 736-2200 ext. 222

Mobile Ph. (202) 262-7315

Follow me on Twitter @ThePaulSRyan<https://twitter.com/ThePaulSRyan>

And follow CLC @CampaignLegal<http://bit.ly/j8Q1bg>

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Levine
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 10:15 AM
To: 'jboppjr'; 'Joe La Rue'; 'Dan Meek'
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Seattle is passing Measure I-122: $100 in vouchers to every voter, lower contribution limits, etc.

It took me less than 30 seconds to figure out the loophole in this. I’ve said for decades: “Show me a limit and I’ll show you a loophole.” On a separate subject: are these vouchers applicable to any election in the city? Just city offices? Ballot measures? Can they be contributed to an independent expenditure campaign? Can they be divided among a number of candidates for different offices?

I guess the reform industry has to keep coming up with new visions of corruption and new solutions to justify the fundraising operations that pay their salaries.

Larry

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of jboppjr
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 3:58 AM
To: Joe La Rue <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>>; Dan Meek <dan at meek.net<mailto:dan at meek.net>>
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Seattle is passing Measure I-122: $100 in vouchers to every voter, lower contribution limits, etc.

Yes these measures are subject to challenge. Jim

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note® 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Joe La Rue <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com<mailto:joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>>
Date: 11/4/2015 12:46 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: Dan Meek <dan at meek.net<mailto:dan at meek.net>>
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Seattle is passing Measure I-122: $100 in vouchers to every voter, lower contribution limits, etc.

Jim Bopp?  Jim Bopp?  Paging Jim Bopp ....

Sent from my iPhone using voice recognition software. Please excuse any mistakes.

On Nov 3, 2015, at 22:31, Dan Meek <dan at meek.net<mailto:dan at meek.net>> wrote:

Seattle voters by 60-40% are passing Measure I-122.  It requires the City to send $100 in political vouchers to every voter in January of every even-numbered year, to be paid from an increase in property taxes (about $30 million over 10 years).  It lowers the contribution limit to candidates for City office from $700 to $500.  .  It bans candidates from accepting or soliciting contributions from anyone having at least $250,000 in contracts with the City in the last two years or who has paid at least $5,000 to lobby the City.

Dan Meek

503-293-9021

dan at meek.net<mailto:dan at meek.net>

855-280-0488 fax

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151105/a3ae61a4/attachment.html>