[EL] End Citizens United PAC

Fri Apr 22 17:19:57 PDT 2016

Hi again everyone,

I misspoke in my very first attempt at joining the listserv thread. Blame it on rookie nerves, I guess.

CA’s supreme court never ruled on a case on IE limitation in California. Got it mixed up with another case. So no floodgates were opened. In fact, there were never any gates.

Always happy to have the record set straight so thanks to Lance Olson for sharing his institutional knowledge with me.

Phillip Ung
Director, Legislative and External Affairs
Fair Political Practices Commission
pung at fppc.ca.gov<mailto:pung at fppc.ca.gov>
O: (916) 322-7635
M: (760) 793-0853
Twitter<https://twitter.com/CA_FPPC> | Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/CA-FPPC-164989516906964>

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Phillip Ung
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 4:20 PM
To: Thomas J. Cares <Tom at TomCares.com>; Election Law <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] End Citizens United PAC

Thomas,

You asked to be corrected if wrong. California’s FPPC has adopted regulation related to aggregation of contributions from related sources (i.e. same owner, majority owned). http://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/NS-Documents/LegalDiv/Regulations/Index/Chapter2/18215.1.pdf

You are generally correct that California’s campaign finance structure was not affected by CU decision because our State Supreme Court had opened up those floodgates long before CU. IE’s have been aggressively used by corporations and labor unions to support and oppose Democrats in California.

One other correction: California has a complex contribution limit system which depends on what office someone is pursuing and the contributor source. So the ~$8k limit you mentioned is partly true for legislative candidates. You can find FPPC’s contribution limit table at the website<http://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/campaign-rules/state-contribution-limits.html>.

Phillip Ung
Director, Legislative and External Affairs
Fair Political Practices Commission
pung at fppc.ca.gov<mailto:pung at fppc.ca.gov>
O: (916) 322-7635
M: (760) 793-0853
Twitter<https://twitter.com/CA_FPPC> | Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/CA-FPPC-164989516906964>

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] On Behalf Of Thomas J. Cares
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 1:17 AM
To: Election Law <law-election at uci.edu<mailto: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.
[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.
[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/20160423/f57a2fad/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160423/f57a2fad/attachment.png>