[EL] Why campaign spending is protected - in action
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Sun Oct 11 17:35:58 PDT 2015
It was a tax credit of 50% of your first $200 you contributed per year to
candidates, pacs and political parties. This is a reform that I too can
support. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 10/11/2015 4:29:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com writes:
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_
(mailto: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<htt
ps://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/)
<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<mailto: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 1:48 PM
To: Scarberry, Mark
Cc: _law-election at UCI.edu<mailto:law-election at UCI.edu_
(mailto: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_
(mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu<mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu<mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu<
mailto: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_
(mailto:tpotter at capdale.com<mailto:tpotter at capdale.com<mailto:tpotter at capdale
.com<mailto: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_
(mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu<mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu<mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.
edu<mailto: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 d
epartment-lists.uci.edu_
(mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists
.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu) >>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<http://departm
ent-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
<image001.png>
_______________________________________________
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/c32e13d4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/unknown
Size: 9616 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151011/c32e13d4/attachment.bin>
View list directory