[EL] End Citizens United PAC

[Larry Levine]

Are Californians not permitted to be concerned about CU as a national issue?

And by the way, Mr. Sanders, there were super PACs and independent expenditures before CU. All CU did was open the door for other types of money to flow into those PACs. “Reverse CU,” Mr. Sanders, and you will not have gotten money out of politics.

Larry Levine

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas J. Cares
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 1:17 AM
To: Election Law <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] End Citizens United PAC

 

FWIW, I've long been incensed at California Democrats for relentlessly using CU to rile their base, with shameless hypocrisy. CU changed nothing for CA at the state level because CA allowed everything that CU came to protect. California still allows corporations to give ~$8k to unlimited candidates. To my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) there is no rule even against multiple related corporations (i.e. same owner) circumventing limits by all giving the max. Democrats (who control the State) could, of course, ban direct corporate contributions to candidates, but choose not to. I'm also not familiar with any serious efforts by the party to limit state IEs before CU. But they sure as heck use CU for everything it's worth to rile their base, like they're mindless sheep who shouldn't notice the hypocrisy on their state level acquiescence.

 

(I also suspect you have Democrats who like CU itself but pretend it's an abomination. By the way, the answer to all this special interest money in politics is more money in politics - a voter voucher system heavily-diluting special interest money with ultra-clean money. This is much more effective and viable than making qualifications onto the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Things were not good before CU. CU is not the real problem. I would say "get over it.")

 

Thomas Cares

 


 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82111> “This Group Raised $11 Million To Defeat Citizens United. So Why Do People Hate Them?”


Posted on  <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82111> April 21, 2016 9:10 am by  <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen

 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/end-citizens-united-pac-campaign-finance-reform_us_570e5308e4b0ffa5937da409?6btz8ecsieqqcl3di> Paul Blumenthal nails it. The End Citizens United PAC is about electing Democratic candidates not ending Citizens United.

 <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82111&title=%26%238220%3BThis%20Group%20Raised%20%2411%20Million%20To%20Defeat%20Citizens%20United.%20So%20Why%20Do%20People%20Hate%20Them%3F%26%238221%3B&description=> 

Posted in  <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> Uncategorized


 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82109> “Electing the President: Rules and Laws”


Posted on  <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82109> April 21, 2016 8:53 am by  <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen

 <http://colreaction.stroock.com/Reaction/RSProcess.asp?RSID=izMOQ5dVVROwHBoZ18rTHA&RSTYPE=OPENATTACH> Goldfeder and Perez in the NYLJ.

 <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D82109&title=%26%238220%3BElecting%20the%20President%3A%20Rules%20and%20Laws%26%238221%3B&description=> 

Posted in  <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1> Uncategorized


 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82107> Bill Moyers Talks to Richard Painter About Campaign Finance Reform




-- 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160422/8c0ff05a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160422/8c0ff05a/attachment.png>