[EL] Why campaign spending is protected - in action

[Steve Hoersting]

I haven't studied the list of families, but if Koch and Soros are on the
list I must note their ratio of issues to political spending is probably 8
to 1.

Of course, we won't *know* until we get c3 disclosure. And who can imagine
democracy surviving another day without it!

But as to the hypothesis of issue suppression, Brad is hardly alone. See
the lead editorial in the WSJ of yesterday:

"Shut Up -- or we will Shut You Down"
On Oct 10, 2015 5:49 PM, "Marty Lederman" <lederman.marty at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151010/803036f3/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/20151010/803036f3/attachment.png>