[EL] Why campaign spending is protected - in action

[Marty Lederman]

"If we think they have different views than others, isn't that pretty much
a confession that we're concerned about what they're expressing?"

uh, no.

Again, they ain't "expressing" anything; and my sympathies for
regulating *contribution
*limits would be exactly the same regardless of their viewpoints, since
their viewpoints have nothing to do with it.

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:

> I'll admit to being at something of a loss here. If we believe that old
> white rich guys have the same views as everyone else, why does it matter if
> they are spending a lot?
>
> If we think they have different views than others, isn't that pretty much
> a confession that we're concerned about what they're expressing?
>
> Unless, of course, I've misunderstood and Trevor and Marty oppose limits
> on spending.
>
> *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:* Marty Lederman [lederman.marty at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 10, 2015 5:47 PM
> *To:* Smith, Brad
> *Cc:* Rick Hasen; law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Why campaign spending is protected - in action
>
> 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/20151010/351cf0de/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/20151010/351cf0de/attachment.png>