[EL] Why campaign spending is protected - in action

Sun Oct 11 14:02:05 PDT 2015

Here is what I found with a quick search on the history of federal tax
credits and deductions for political contributions.

http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Toward_A_Small_Donor_Democracy_USPIRG.pdf

   Ellen

-------
Ellen P. Aprill
John E. Anderson Professor of Tax Law
Loyola Law School
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015
213-736-1157

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Sean Parnell <
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com> wrote:

> For quite some time I and several others who share a generally pro-First
> Amendment bent on political speech have thought reviving the old tax
> deduction for political contributions (or was it a credit? Can’t remember)
> that was eliminated under, I think, the ’86 tax reforms, would be a fine
> idea. I tend not to be a fan of meddling with the tax code in such a manner
> (loading the code with exemptions and credits and deductions being a
> favorite game of rent-granters) but if it would end the war on political
> speech (sorry, war on too much political speech) then I’d be happy to see a
> $50 or $100 tax credit added to the federal code.
>
>
>
> Sean
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Trevor
> Potter
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 11, 2015 4:16 PM
> *To:* David Keating
> *Cc:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Why campaign spending is protected - in action
>
>
>
> It is REALLY interesting that no one so far appears willing to address the
> various state and local campaign finance systems and proposals I have noted
> that would enable and encourage Americans OTHER than the the 1% of the 1%
> to participate in financing Presidential candidates ..perhaps silence here
> means these various suggestions are so obvious and so welcome that they do
> not merit much discussion??
>
> However, although I continue to believe that providing ways to increase
> the political speech of most Americans is the most needed reform given what
> is happening right now. I am also willing to respond to questions about
> restrictions in place or proposed. Basically, I support Buckley's line
> between speaking on one's own ( expenditures by individuals) and donations
> to fund the speech of others ( contributions). I continue to believe that
> Citizens United was wrongly decided ( for many reasons, not the least of
> which is that corporations are not individuals or voters and shareholders
> have usually not approved this use of their money). I also continue to
> believe that SpeechNow was wrongly decided. The funding of SuperPacs which
> we are all seeing now and which the NY Times reported on in the article
> which started this email exchange is contributions, not speech to the
> public by those individuals writing the checks, as others have ably noted
> on this List Serve.
>
> I believe that pretty much everyone on this List Serve believes in SOME
> restrictions on political contributions ( some forms of foreign national
> funding comes to mind). The ongoing debate is over which contribution
> limits are appropriate. Is there any such consensus on the proposals to
> increase political speech through incentives to encourage greater
> participation in campaign contributions by the 99 2/3rd % of Americans who
> do not currently appear on the FEC contributor data base?
>
> Trevor
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Oct 11, 2015, at 2:12 PM, "David Keating" <
> dkeating at campaignfreedom.org<mailto:dkeating at campaignfreedom.org>> wrote:
>
> OK, so you didn’t say so here in one of these emails, but you’ve long
> advocated just that. If you’ve changed your mind, let’s hear it.
>
> This is your proposal:
>
> APPLY THE EXISTING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS THAT APPLY TO PACS TO
> SUPER PACS
>
> Amend Section 315(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2
> U.S.C. § 441(a)) by
> adding at the end the following new paragraph: “(9) For purposes of the
> limitations imposed
> by paragraphs (1)(C), (2)(C), and (3)(B) on the amount of contributions
> which may be made
> by any person to a political committee, a contribution made to a political
> committee which
> accepts donations or contributions that do not comply with the
> contribution or source
> prohibitions under this Act (or made to any account of a political
> committee which is
> established for the purpose of accepting such donations or contributions)
> shall be treated in
> the same manner as a contribution made to any other political committee to
> which such
> paragraphs apply.”
>
> https://represent.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/AACA-Full-Provisions.pdf<
> https://represent.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/AACA-Full-Provisions.pdf>
>
> It “was crafted by former Federal Election Commission chairman Trevor
> Potter…”
> http://anticorruptionact.org/faq/<http://anticorruptionact.org/faq/>
>
> 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
> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf Of Trevor
> Potter
> Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 1:48 PM
> To: Scarberry, Mark
> Cc: law-election at UCI.edu<mailto:law-election at UCI.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Why campaign spending is protected - in action
>
> Mark
>
> I completely agree with you that Barrack Obama killed the general election
> Presidential funding system, just as George Bush's failure to participate
> in 2000 ( followed by John Kerry's on the Democratic side in 2004) killed
> the primary matching find system. That history, though, doesn't end the
> discussion-- it starts it, and points to a bipartisan responsibility for
> fixing it.
>
> But I am puzzled by the rest of your response-- I did not say anything
> about restricting anyone's speech ( including but not limited to the news
> media's). I wrote about increasing speech, and bringing the other 99.9 % of
> Americans into the game....
>
> Trevor
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 11, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Scarberry, Mark <
> Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu<mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu<mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu%3cmailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu
> <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu%3cmailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu%3cmailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu%3cmailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>>>>
> wrote:
>
> Trevor,
>
> My point was that it is dangerous for government to be permitted to
> regulate spending. It's interesting to note that the first presidential
> candidate to refuse public money so that he could spend unlimited amounts,
> our current President, is the leader of the party that is so outraged by
> the Court's decisions. So who is responsible for the demise of the public
> funding system?
>
> Would you regulate spending by news media, who are thought by many (most?)
> people to be extraordinarily partisan, and to engage in herd-like
> repetition of memes (like this morning's characterization of competition
> for the position of Speaker as Republican "chaos")?
>
> Do you support return of the Fairness Doctrine?
>
> Mark
>
> Mark S. Scarberry
> Pepperdine University School of Law
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Oct 11, 2015, at 8:28 AM, "Trevor Potter" <
> tpotter at capdale.com<mailto:tpotter at capdale.com<mailto:tpotter at capdale.com%3cmailto:tpotter at capdale.com
> <tpotter at capdale.com%3cmailto:tpotter at capdale.com%3cmailto:tpotter at capdale.com%3cmailto:tpotter at capdale.com>>>>
> wrote:
>
> Mark
>
> I am interested in your apparent assumption that the only alternative to a
> infinitesimal tiny percentage of wealthy Americans dominating the process
> by which we choose our President is restrictions on speech.
>
>
> Your post says: "I will say that I don't like rich people having so much
> influence; but the cure -- government regulation of the amount of money
> that can be spent to put forward a message -- may be worse than the
> disease. (Power of all kinds is dangerous, to state the obvious.)"
>
> From 1976 through 1996 we had a functioning system of public funding in
> both primary and general elections for President. It included a " matching"
> component to double the value of small ( up to $250) contributions. This
> system is widely credited with enabling Ronald Reagan to win the 1980
> Republican nomination despite some early primary losses that temporarily
> dried up his fundraising-- the matching funds arrived in time to finance
> wins in later primaries. As a result of the Buckley decision, individuals
> could still spend an unlimited amount of their own money on political
> speech-- but they had to speak themselves rather than give it to SuperPacs
> , which did not exist in today's form because of contribution ( not
> expenditure) limits.
>
> It is interesting that ALL of the discussion about the NY Times article so
> far on the ListServe has related to claims of " silencing" the speech of
> the highlighted 158 families, rather than enhancing the speech of 100
> million or more others. It seems to me that both sides of this debate--
> those concerned about preserving the ability of the ultra wealthy to speak/
> spend? without limit in elections , and those concerned about the dominant
> role such unlimited money provides to a tiny handful of Americans-- should
> agree on the virtues of proposals to enhance the speech of all other
> Americans.
>
> As a start, we have the model of the Presidential public funding system,
> which still exists in law, if not in reality: it could be reformed and
> improved. There are bills pending to do so. We have the model of the NYC
> 6-1 match of small contributions. We have the Minnesota model, where
> political contributors of small sums fill out a simple state form and
> immediately receive direct reimbursement of the contribution from the
> state. We have a proposal from Prof. Richard Painter, formerly of the
> George W. Bush White House, for a $100 " first fruits of their labor"
> taxpayer rebate, provided to all registered voters in the form of a voucher
> divisible and transferable to candidates or political parties-- sort of
> like a Starbucks card.
>
> All of these seem to be possible ways to address the problem-- a problem
> that you describe as " rich people having so much influence" --by expanding
> speech, not restricting it. It would likely produce a flood of new
> political speech-- surely music to the ears of those who say we need more,
> not less political speech. And any of these proposals ( or all, for that
> matter) would strengthen the voice of ordinary Americans in our political
> process-- surely something to be devoutly hoped for and worked for in this
> era of citizen disaffection with our political system, which poll after
> poll shows voters believe has been captured by the very few ( such as those
> in the NY Times article).
>
> Trevor Potter
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Oct 10, 2015, at 9:11 PM, "Scarberry, Mark" <
> Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu<mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu<mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu%3cmailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu
> <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu%3cmailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu%3cmailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu%3cmailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>>>>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I will say that I don't like rich people having so much influence; but
> the cure -- government regulation of the amount of money that can be spent
> to put forward a message -- may be worse than the disease. (Power of all
> kinds is dangerous, to state the obvious.)
>
>
> <115101111283601206.png>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
>
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu%3cmailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu%3cmailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu%3cmailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu%3cmailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> >>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
>
> <image001.png>
>
> [image: This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
> from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
> copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is prohibited.
> If you have received this communication in error, please advise us by
> return e-mail, or if you have received this communication by fax advise us
> by telephone and delete/destroy the document]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151011/132dedd1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9616 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151011/132dedd1/attachment.png>