[EL] Why campaign spending is protected - in action

[Sean Parnell]

For those that don't know, I do a fair amount of work in the health care
policy area. There's a striking similarity in how some argue part of their
case on campaign finance and health care. The argument generally follows
this form:

 

"Every other advanced nation has (universal health care/limits on campaign
finance), and this proves that the U.S. is deficient and we should adopt
[insert favored policy, almost always single-payer health care on that
topic]."

 

As Brad so capably points out, the people making this claim typically don't
know what they are talking about, they've simply cherry-picked a few items
from some stray observations they've made and assumed that because
European/Western/advanced nation A has policy X, which they like, then
surely A was also wise enough to adopt Y and Z. Alas, no (anybody who wants
more info relating to deficiencies of European health care against the
"ideal" of single payer, feel free to contact me offline).

 

Best,

 

 

Sean Parnell

President, Impact Policy Management, LLC

571-289-1374 (c)

sean at impactpolicymanagement.com

Alexandria, Virginia

 

 

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Smith,
Brad
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 9:20 PM
To: Eric J Segall; Schultz, David A.
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Why campaign spending is protected - in action

 

Of course, most western democracies do not require disclosure of donors to
the equivalent of 501(c)(4) organizations or trade associations. 

 

There are also many ways in which "the rest of the free world" has much less
restrictive systems than the United States. Spain allows direct corporate
contributions to candidates and parties, with contribution limits in excess
of $100,000. Germany also allows direct corporate contributions, and foreign
contributions, anonymous contributions, and contributions from government
contractors as well. And it has no limit on the size of contributions.
Sweden allows direct corporate and government contractor contributions, and
has no individual contribution limits. Belgium allows foreign contributions.
The Netherlands has no contribution limits, and allows direct corporate
contributions. We could go on for some time.

 

Advocates of regulation might be careful before getting carried away with
suggesting we emulate our western brethren.

 

In any case, we have our First Amendment traditions, and our Constitution.
Although it is true that the quality of U.S. governance and debate does seem
to have declined since the FECA amendments were passed in 1974, for the most
part the U.S. seems to be a pretty healthy democracy when we consider the
quality of life for Americans.

 

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

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 Eric J Segall
[esegall at gsu.edu]
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 4:59 PM
To: Schultz, David A.
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Why campaign spending is protected - in action

Thanks David. I think the UK and France don't (or didn't), even allow
politicians to make direct TV ads.

 

But when it comes to free speech (hate speech, defamation, writing checks),
we are so much smarter than the rest of the free world.

 

Maybe Trump and Carson will make folks rethink or at least question.

 

Best,

 

Eric 

Sent from my iPhone


On Oct 11, 2015, at 4:45 PM, "Schultz, David A." <dschultz at hamline.edu>
wrote:

Nicely stated.  We often forget that other democratic societies strike
different balances (e.g.  Canada ) and they are able to be free and protect
free speech.

On Oct 11, 2015 3:03 PM, "Eric J Segall" <esegall at gsu.edu> wrote:

The astounding to me about most (not all) of this debate is the mixing of
policy issues and judicial review issues. These policy issues are really
hard but absent censoring movies or content based restrictions on actual
speech (not writing checks), this is all judicial common law in a very
difficult area. For God's sake other countries with free speech and free
elections do it do much differently. I'm not saying they are right but 5
judges based on vague text and opposite history imposing their views ....

 

I think, at the least, the policy and judicial review issues should be kept
separate.

 

Best,

 

Eric 

Sent from my iPhonech 


On Oct 11, 2015, at 12:44 PM, "Scarberry, Mark"
<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> 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> 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
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/20151012/511643f6/attachment.html>