[EL] Why campaign spending is protected - in action

[Marty Lederman]

"the article is about spending, not contributions."

Which article were you reading?  The one I read does not say a *single
word* about
any ads run by these families, or any speech they have engaged in.  But it
does say the folllowing:

Just 158 families, 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.

These *donors’ *fortunes reflect the shifting composition of the country’s
economic elite.

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 entitlement programs. 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.

Doug Deason, a Dallas investor whose family *put $5 million behind Gov.
Rick Perry* of Texas

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.

Republicans are far outpacing Democrats in exploiting the world of “super
PACs,” which, unlike candidates’ own campaigns, can *raise unlimited sums
from any donor, and which have so far amassed the bulk of the money in the
election*.

The 158 families each *contributed $250,000 or more *in the campaign
through June 30, according to the most recent available Federal Election
Commission filings and other data, while an additional 200 families *gave*
more than $100,000. Together, the two groups *contributed *well over half
the money in the presidential election -- the vast majority of it
supporting Republicans.

Like most of the ultrawealthy, the new *donor* elite is deeply private.
Very few of those contacted were willing to speak about their
*contributions* or their political views. Many *donations* were made from
business addresses or post office boxes, or *wound through limited
liability corporations or trusts*

Hildebrand Family
*Donated* $250,000

[etc.]

More than 50 members of these families have made the Forbes 400 list of the
country’s top billionaires, marking a scale of wealth against which
even a *million-dollar
political contribution* can seem relatively small. The Chicago hedge fund
billionaire Kenneth C. Griffin, for example, earns about $68.5 million a
month after taxes, according to court filings made by his wife in their
divorce. He has *given a total of $300,000* to groups backing Republican
presidential candidates.

The three families who have *provided the largest donations *in the
campaign to date — the Wilks family of Texas, which made billions providing
trucks and equipment in the shale fields; the Mercers of New York, headed
by the hedge fund investor Robert Mercer; and Toby Neugebauer, a Texas-born
private equity investor . . .

Another group of the families, including the hedge fund investor George
Soros and his son Jonathan, have ties to the Democracy Alliance, a network
of liberal *donors* who have pushed Democrats to move aggressively on
climate change legislation and progressive taxation. Those* donors, many of
them from Hollywood or Wall Street, have put millions of dollars behind
Hillary Rodham Clinton.*

Mr. Pickens, who has *donated $125,000* to groups supporting Mr. Bush or
Carly Fiorina.



On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:

> Well, first, the article is about spending, not contributions.
>
> Second, if the 158 have views representative of Americans, then what is
> the problem? If they do not, and we still think their spending is a problem
> that should be limited, isn't that a desire to silence those individuals?
>
> My hat is off to you, Marty, if you're prepared to silence those you agree
> with to the same extent as those you disagree with, even if it means much
> more influence for those you disagree with. If so, you are a small minority
> in the reform community, and I thank you for it.
>
> *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 6:20 PM
>
> *To:* Smith, Brad
> *Cc:* Rick Hasen; law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Why campaign spending is protected - in action
>
> "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/c7bbb768/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/c7bbb768/attachment.png>