[EL] End Citizens United PAC

Fri Apr 22 18:08:13 PDT 2016

Qa

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 22, 2016, at 5:51 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>> wrote:

I had the same experience with Senator Leahy at a congressional hearing. He began by bemoaning at great length how, in a small state like his home of Vermont, only a small bit of corporate spending could drown out all other speakers. So I began by pointing out that Vermont in its more than 200 years as a state had never prohibited corporate spending in elections, and he got very upset and spent some time berating me (which perhaps I deserved, for suggesting that some people were “freaking out” about the decision). He graciously did not deduct his outburst from my time as a witness.

As for judicial deference to congress’s “unique expertise,” I’ve noted (most recently in Politics, Money and Corruption: The Story of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, in the excellent Josh Douglas/Eugene Mazo edited volume “Election Law Stories” – you should all get it, and I won’t be offended if you skip my chapter), after McCain-Feingold passed in 2003 we at the FEC were actually asked to explain it to members of Congress. Which is fine—I doubt that Congress understands the details of most laws it passes—but it does seem curious to grant them special deference in the field.

Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
  Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 East Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 236-6317
bsmith at law.capital.edu<mailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu>
http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp

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 Bill Maurer
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 4:52 PM
To: Sean Parnell; 'Craig Holman'; larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>; Tom at TomCares.com<mailto:Tom at tomcares.com>; law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] End Citizens United PAC

I had this similar discussion with a Washington state senator (the chair of what was then the Senate Judiciary Committee, no less) who was bemoaning how Citizens United had destroyed democracy in the Evergreen State and how it important it was to overturn the decision that had brought so much money flooding into Washington elections. He had forgotten (if he ever knew, which is doubtful, as he tended speak authoritatively about things he knew nothing about) that Washington always permitted, and still does permit, not only independent expenditures by corporations and unions, but direct contributions to candidates from both. After explaining to him at length what the laws he wrote actually said, he nonetheless said the same thing a few weeks later. He had even received significant contributions directly from corporations throughout his entire career, but still somehow thought they had been illegal prior to CU.

These are the folks to whom members of the judiciary believe they should defer because of their “expertise.”

Bill

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 Sean Parnell
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 12:59 PM
To: 'Craig Holman'; larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>; Tom at TomCares.com<mailto:Tom at TomCares.com>; law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] End Citizens United PAC

At the federal level, yes. Pretty sure Tom’s original comment was aimed at state law, and as those of us who follow the issue with some attention to detail know, prior to the Citizens United decision independent expenditures by corporations were legal in a (bare)  majority of states. It’s worth noting, at least I think so, that those states didn’t appear any worse for the fact that they were under the thumb of corporate overlords, as this paper I did some time ago demonstrated: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Parnell-2010-CU-States.pdf

Best,

Sean Parnell
President, Impact Policy Management LLC
Alexandria, Virginia
571-289-1374
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com<mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>

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 Craig Holman
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 2:59 PM
To: larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>; Tom at TomCares.com<mailto:Tom at TomCares.com>; law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] End Citizens United PAC

Larry:

Prior to Citizens United, there was a $5,000 contribution limit to independent expenditure committees and, following BCRA, corporate sources of funds were prohibited for independent expenditures and electioneering communications and we had near 100% donor disclosure of independent expenditures and electioneering communications.

It is a very, very different campaign finance environment in the wake of Citizens United.

Craig Holman, Ph.D.
Government Affairs Lobbyist
Public Citizen
215 Pennsylvania Avenue SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
T-(202) 454-5182
C-(202) 905-7413
F-(202) 547-7392
Holman at aol.com<mailto:Holman at aol.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>>
To: 'Thomas J. Cares' <Tom at TomCares.com<mailto:Tom at TomCares.com>>; 'Election Law' <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Sent: Fri, Apr 22, 2016 1:42 pm
Subject: Re: [EL] End Citizens United PAC
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> [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:election at uci.edu>election at uci.edu<mailto: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.
<image001.png><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.
<image001.png><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>

--
_______________________________________________
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
________________________________

Spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09QJw12px&m=c959040e59bd&t=20160422&c=s>
Phish/Fraud<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09QJw12px&m=c959040e59bd&t=20160422&c=p>
Not spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09QJw12px&m=c959040e59bd&t=20160422&c=n>
Forget previous vote<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09QJw12px&m=c959040e59bd&t=20160422&c=f>
_______________________________________________
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/20160423/1e1a20bc/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5065 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160423/1e1a20bc/attachment.png>