[EL] “Yes, ‘Citizens United’ gives Republicans an electoral edge. Here’s proof.”

Sat Apr 9 07:46:32 PDT 2016

I believe the word you are looking for is actually “evidence,” not “proof.”

Best,

Sean Parnell

President, Impact Policy Management LLC

Alexandria, Virginia

571-289-1374

sean at impactpolicymanagement.com

From: ReThink Media [mailto:tyler at rethinkmedia.org] 
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2016 9:41 PM
To: Sean Parnell <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>
Cc: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] “Yes, ‘Citizens United’ gives Republicans an electoral edge. Here’s proof.”

Or just proof that it reduced competition. 

"The decision also made it more difficult to unseat Republican officeholders, cementing the already strong financial advantage of political incumbents, and reduced the number of Democratic candidates who ran for office."

--

Tyler Creighton

tyler at rethinkmedia.org <mailto:tyler at rethinkmedia.org> 

Sent from my phone

On Apr 8, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Sean Parnell <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com <mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com> > wrote:

Alternate headline: “Yes, pre-Citizens United independent expenditure bans gave Democrats an electoral edge. Here’s proof.”

Sean Parnell

President, Impact Policy Management LLC

Alexandria, Virginia

571-289-1374

sean at impactpolicymanagement.com <mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com> 

Posted in  <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10> campaign finance,  <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59> campaigns

 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81684> “Yes, ‘Citizens United’ gives Republicans an electoral edge. Here’s proof.”

Posted on  <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81684> April 8, 2016 7:58 am by  <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen

See  <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-citizens-united-gives-republicans-an-electoral-edge-heres-proof/2016/04/07/c9fe3fa4-fb5c-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html> this WaPo oped by Tilman Klumpp, Hugo M. Mialon and Michael A. William:

Unlike the federal government, some states never restricted independent political expenditures and were, therefore, unaffected by the Citizens United decision. Other states had restricted such expenditures and were forced to remove the restrictions after the ruling. In a study that will be published in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Law and Economics, we analyzed data from more than 38,000 state legislative races between 2000 and 2012, in both groups of states. Our objective was to figure out what impact, if any,Citizens United had on who gets elected to state legislative office. In states that previously banned corporate and union expenditures, we found thatCitizens United shifted the odds of electoral success detectably and in a clear direction: from Democratic to Republican candidates.

Many things determine who wins on Election Day, and simple correlations don’t automatically indicate causal effects. States that were forced to lift their bans on independent expenditures may have elected more Republicans in 2010, but this surge could have been caused by a reaction to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the recession or any other issue on voters’ minds at the time. And while states with independent expenditure bans may have elected more Democrats before 2010 than did states without such bans, this does not necessarily have anything to do with how the states regulated election finance. There are many reasons some states vote differently from others, including historical, cultural and demographic differences….

With this approach, we found that the chance of Republican candidates winning state legislative seats increased by about four percentage points on average as a result ofCitizens United, and by 10 or more percentage points in several states. The decision also made it more difficult to unseat Republican officeholders, cementing the already strong financial advantage of political incumbents, and reduced the number of Democratic candidates who ran for office. Finally, the data provide evidence thatCitizens United discouraged ordinary people from making monetary contributions to candidates’ campaigns, an effect feared by critics of the decision early on.

 <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D81684&title=%26%238220%3BYes%2C%20%E2%80%98Citizens%20United%E2%80%99%20gives%20Republicans%20an%20electoral%20edge.%20Here%E2%80%99s%20proof.%26%238221%3B&description=> <image001.png> 

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto: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/20160409/099d3574/attachment.html>