[EL] Why campaign spending is protected - in action

Sat Oct 10 14:47:58 PDT 2015

Really, Brad -- we know that you are not that disingenuous, so don't
pretend that you are.  ;-)

Perhaps I just need to spend more time watching tv, but I'm fairly sure
I've never heard *any *members of approximately 149 out of these 158
families "express their opinions" on *any *issue of public policy,
including the effects of regulation on business, as to which they are said
to have so much valuable expertise.  If they'd have spent that $176 million
expressing such opinions, I, for one, would hardly begrudge them.  But for
some reason I suspect that ads to the effect of "Hi, we're Trevor D.
Rees-Jones, Ronald Cameron and Farris Wilks, and we'd like to explain to
you why regulations are so onerous to the fracking and agribusiness
industries" . . . would not, in their view, be a very efficient use of
their riches.

The idea that legislators who would impose contribution limits are engaged
in some sort of modern-day effort to "silence views one doesn't agree
with," akin to Abrams, Schenck or Brandenburg, is laughable.

Don't get me wrong -- I think there are plenty of worthwhile arguments why
particular contribution limits are, or are not, a good idea.  (Cf. the
Rick/Bob Bauer back-and-forth earlier this week.)  But viewpoint
suppression?  Please.

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:

> From NYT:
>
> "In marshaling their financial resources chiefly behind Republican
> candidates, the donors are also serving as a kind of financial check on
> demographic forces that have been nudging the electorate toward support for
> the Democratic Party and its economic policies."
>
> And on the media, such as the New York Times, that provide millions in
> in-kind contributions to the Democratic Party and its economic (and
> campaign finance) policies.
>
> They are overwhelmingly white, rich, older and male,
>
> They are also more likely to have made their money in the private sector,
> more likely to work in the private sector, less likely to work in academia,
> Hollywood, or the press. They are more likely to have management
> experience, more likely to understand the impact of regulation on business,
> and more likely to have thought seriously about policy than the public at
> large.
>
> And in the end, they voice their opinions, and voters decide how to vote.
>
> No matter how you slice it, in the end campaign finance always comes down
> to the same thing-- a desire to silence views one doesn't agree with.
>
> Here the idea is that we should silence the views of rich old white guys -
> at least the conservative (on economic policy) ones.
>
> Wah!
>
> *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 Rick Hasen [
> rhasen at law.uci.edu]
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 10, 2015 2:58 PM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] ELB News and Commentary 10/10/15
>
> Breaking News: Automatic Voter Registration Coming to CA
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76585>
> Posted on October 10, 2015 11:55 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76585>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> So tweets <https://twitter.com/melmason/status/652919923337920513> LAT’s
> Melanie Mason that Gov Brown has signed the bill automatically registering
> eligible CA voters from DMV offices (unless voters object). (More details
> on the new law.
> <http://www.projectvote.org/news/governor-brown-signs-padilla-bill-to-expand-voter-registration/>
> )
>
> More on this later. This is a huge deal.
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76585&title=Breaking%20News%3A%20Automatic%20Voter%20Registration%20Coming%20to%20CA&description=>
> Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
> Nick Confessore’s Deep Dive into America’s Plutocracy
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76583>
> Posted on October 10, 2015 11:50 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76583>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Drop everything and read this
> <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html?_r=0>
>  (online, because the graphics are fantastic):
>
> Just 158 families have provided nearly half of the early money for efforts
> to capture the White House….
>
> They are overwhelmingly white, rich, older and male, in a nation that is
> being remade by the young, by women, and by black and brown voters. Across
> a sprawling country, they reside in an archipelago of wealth, exclusive
> neighborhoods dotting a handful of cities and towns. And in an economy that
> has minted billionaires in a dizzying array of industries, most made their
> fortunes in just two: finance and energy.
>
> Now they are deploying their vast wealth in the political arena, providing
> almost half of all the seed money raised to support Democratic and
> Republican presidential candidates. Just 158 families
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/us/politics/wealthy-families-presidential-candidates.html>,
> along with companies they own or control, contributed $176 million in the
> first phase of the campaign, a New York Times investigation found. Not
> since before Watergate have so few people and businesses provided so much
> early money in a campaign, most of it through channels legalized by the
> Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision five years ago….
>
> But regardless of industry, the families investing the most in
> presidential politics overwhelmingly lean right, contributing tens of
> millions of dollars to support Republican candidates who have pledged to
> pare regulations; cut taxes on income, capital gains and inheritances; and
> shrink entitlements. While such measures would help protect their own
> wealth, the donors describe their embrace of them more broadly, as the
> surest means of promoting economic growth and preserving a system that
> would allow others to prosper, too….
>
> In marshaling their financial resources chiefly behind Republican
> candidates, the donors are also serving as a kind of financial check on
> demographic forces that have been nudging the electorate toward support for
> the Democratic Party and its economic policies. Two-thirds of Americans
> support higher taxes on those earning $1 million or more a year, according
> to a June New York Times/CBS News poll, while six in 10 favor more
> government intervention to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.
> According to the Pew Research Center, nearly seven in 10 favor preserving
> Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are.
>
> This is exactly the problem I talk about which needs to be fixed in my
> upcoming *Plutocrats United*book.
> <http://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-United-Campaign-Distortion-Elections/dp/0300212453/ref=la_B0089NJCR2_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1430416698&sr=1-7>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76583&title=Nick%20Confessore%E2%80%99s%20Deep%20Dive%20into%20America%E2%80%99s%20Plutocracy&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Plutocrats
> United <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>
> “Menendez appeals judge’s ruling in corruption case”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76581>
> Posted on October 9, 2015 3:32 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76581> by
>  Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Jonathan Salant
> <http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/10/menendez_files_appeal_of_judges_ruling_in_corrupti.html>for
> NJ.com:
>
> Lawyers for U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez on Friday asked an appeals court to
> throw out an indictment
> <http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/04/sen_bob_menendez_indicted_on_federal_corruption_ch.html>charging
> him with intervening with federal agencies in exchange for gifts and
> campaign contributions.
>
> Menendez’s lawyers appealed to the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals a
> decision by U.S. District Judge William H. Walls on Sept. 28 to let
> the trial proceed
> <http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/09/judge_refuses_to_throw_out_menendez_indictment.html> against
> the Democratic senator and his friend and campaign donor, Dr. Salomon
> Melgen, a West Palm Beach, Fla., ophthalmologist.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76581&title=%E2%80%9CMenendez%20appeals%20judge%E2%80%99s%20ruling%20in%20corruption%20case%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in bribery <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=54>, campaign finance
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, chicanery
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>
> “Racially Polarized Voting” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76579>
> Posted on October 9, 2015 2:46 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76579> by
>  Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Chris Elmendorf, Kevin Quinn and Marisa Abrajano have posted this draft
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2668889> on SSRN
> (forthcoming, *University of Chicago Law Review*).  Here is the abstract:
>
> Whether voting is racially polarized has for the last generation been the
> linchpin question in vote dilution cases under the core, nationally
> applicable provision of the Voting Rights Act. The polarization test is
> supposed to be clear-cut (“manageable”), diagnostic of liability, and free
> of strong racial assumptions. Using evidence from a random sample of vote
> dilution cases, we argue that these objectives have not been realized in
> practice, and, further, that they cannot be realized under current
> conditions. The roots of the problem are twofold: (1) the widely shared
> belief that polarization determinations should be grounded on votes cast in
> actual elections, and (2) normative disagreement, often covert, about the
> meaning of racial vote dilution. We argue that the principal normative
> theories of vote dilution have conflicting implications for the racial
> polarization test. We also show that votes are only contingently related to
> the political preferences that the polarization inquiry is supposed to
> reveal, and, further, that the estimation of candidates’ vote shares by
> racial group from ballots cast in actual elections depends on racial
> homogeneity assumptions similar to those the Supreme Court has disavowed.
> Our analysis casts serious doubt on the notion — promoted in dicta by the
> Supreme Court and supported by prominent commentators — that courts should
> establish bright-line, vote-share cutoffs for “legally significant” racial
> polarization. The courts would do better to screen vote dilution claims
> using evidence of preference polarization derived from surveys, or
> non-preference evidence of minority political incorporation.
>
> Looking forward to reading this!
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D76579&title=%E2%80%9CRacially%20Polarized%20Voting%E2%80%9D&description=>
> Posted in Voting Rights Act <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>
> --
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151010/70eec9c3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151010/70eec9c3/attachment.png>