[EL] End Citizens United PAC

[Thomas J. Cares]

I've been to democratic club meetings where resolutions have passed
endorsing that we not retain or recall our state Supreme Court justices,
for taking the nonsubstantive Citizens United "proposition" off the ballot.
So much outrage. And democratic legislators were so proud to put that on
the ballot. But they won't do anything against non-personal direct
contributions, and I doubt that if CU were overturned they would jump
to restrict IEs similar to BCRA. I don't understand. If the freeflow of
political money forced by CU has been so terrible for the nation, shouldn't
they want to likewise protect the State's political system from that terror?

I call "disingenuous red meat." It's very easy to rile people up when a
court forces something. I don't think I need to list all the times that's
been done in our history.

And why aren't democrats, beyond the recent laudable initiative that passed
in Seattle, working on reforms to spend ~0.1% of public money on a voter
voucher system? They say the voice of regular people gets drowned out, or
that you can't win without being a special interest puppet, so why not
work on the viable remedy of giving voters vouchers for political
contributions?

-Tom

On Saturday, April 23, 2016, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net> wrote:

> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu');>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>
>
>
> “This Group Raised $11 Million To Defeat Citizens United. So Why Do People
> Hate Them?” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82111>
>
> Posted on April 21, 2016 9:10 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82111> by *Rick
> Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Paul Blumenthal nails it.
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/end-citizens-united-pac-campaign-finance-reform_us_570e5308e4b0ffa5937da409?6btz8ecsieqqcl3di>The
> End Citizens United PAC is about electing Democratic candidates not ending
> Citizens United.
>
> [image: Share]
> <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 Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
> “Electing the President: Rules and Laws”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82109>
>
> Posted on April 21, 2016 8:53 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82109> by *Rick
> Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Goldfeder and Perez
> <http://colreaction.stroock.com/Reaction/RSProcess.asp?RSID=izMOQ5dVVROwHBoZ18rTHA&RSTYPE=OPENATTACH> in
> the NYLJ.
>
> [image: Share]
> <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 Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
> Bill Moyers Talks to Richard Painter About Campaign Finance Reform
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=82107>
>
>
>
> --
>


--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160422/478acb95/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/20160422/478acb95/attachment.png>