[EL] One Dollar, One Vote

[Adam Lioz]

I know there are legitimate differences of opinion/philosophy on this topic, but I think this thread is an example of those who oppose limits on big money knocking down straw men.  Granted, some pro-limit/reform arguments get short-handed in press releases etc. and we should all strive to be careful and precise.  I hesitate to speak for others, but from my perspective here is what many of us are saying:

What many (most?) reformers do NOT argue:

-Money can always buy an election
-There is too much money in politics
-There is no relationship whatsoever between money and speech
-We should ban Nazi marches
-Money going from an industry to a candidate always proves that candidate is bought off
-There is no legitimate role at all for private spending

What many of us DO argue:

-Candidates need a certain amount of money to be viable, and all else equal more money gives you a better chance to win.  Since everyone knows and acts like this, large donors/spenders are empowered.
-Money is coming from too few people in amounts much larger than most can afford to give, and as a result a) candidates who don’t appeal to those folks face a serious barrier to entry; and b) government is responsive to this narrow donor class.  Both skew our policy outcomes.
-At a low level spending some money is essential to creating speech (buying a marker, writing a blog post), but after that it serves mostly to amplify one’s speech—and it’s perfectly reasonable to place some limits on blasting one’s speech across the land.
-There is a significant difference between regulation addressed at content (banning a march because it features Nazis) and amplification (saying that the highest bidder can’t close off Main Street to march every weekend for a year); this is a distinction that reform opponents consistently muddle.
-While the QPQ corruption the Roberts Court seeks is enough of a problem to justify current regulations (and more), correlation is not causation--and often people or PACs are giving money to candidates who already support their views.  They are helping put friendly politicians in positions of power and so often don’t need to bribe them.
-Many of us are perfectly comfortable with people spending private money on campaigns, especially when aggregated in small amounts—it’s the large checks that are well beyond the reach of most people that bother us.

Larry asked for a viable plan to communicate with a large number of voters "without raising and spending large amounts of campaign funds.”  I think candidates could campaign effectively for much less than the current TV-driven cost if their opponents weren’t spending big.  But, I don’t need to prove that b/c RE point #2 above I’m happy for there to be MORE campaign funds spent as long as they come from a combination of public financing and small contributions.  Rick lays out one viable plan in his book—combining limits with vouchers.  There are plenty of ways to do this that would not hinder robust campaigning.

Finally, since this thread started in the context of the presidential campaign I think it’s also helpful to note that the dynamics in a presidential race are somewhat unique and cannot be generalized to down-ticket races.  The amount of attention means that some candidates can get “yuge” traction without spending much money (Trump) and others have a much easier time raising small dollars than less well-known candidates (Sanders, Carson, etc.).  This isn’t to say that big money doesn’t matter in presidential races—just that it likely matters less and in different ways.

Happy to hear folks’ thoughts on the arguments above (especially those who disagree).

arl

Adam Lioz
Counsel and Senior Advisor, Policy & Outreach
Mobile: 202.251.8519

[email-signature-2]<http://www.demos.org/job-opportunities>

From: Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>>
Organization: Levine and Associates
Reply-To: "larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>" <larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>>
Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 2:47 PM
To: 'Sean Parnell' <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com<mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>>, "'Lowenstein, Daniel'" <lowenstein at law.ucla.edu<mailto:lowenstein at law.ucla.edu>>, "law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>" <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] One Dollar, One Vote

Speech without money, in the political world, is a whisper.
Larry

From: Sean Parnell [mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 11:28 AM
To: larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>; 'Lowenstein, Daniel' <lowenstein at law.ucla.edu<mailto:lowenstein at law.ucla.edu>>; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: RE: [EL] One Dollar, One Vote

Money talks, but money isn’t speech? Just want to make sure I have my memes straight.


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 Larry Levine
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 12:55 PM
To: 'Lowenstein, Daniel' <lowenstein at law.ucla.edu<mailto:lowenstein at law.ucla.edu>>; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] One Dollar, One Vote

Last Spring I did a campaign for Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees. The districts covers the entire City of Los Angeles and 36 other cities. Our total expenditures came to $55,000. The opponent was part of a “slate” of candidates backed by a  $500,000 campaign operation. We won by 1,121 votes. Money talks sometimes but not all the time. This wasn’t the first time I won an election while being out spent. In every campaign there comes a point when spending become surperfluous. Sometimes you’re lucky enough to know when you’ve reached that point. All that being said, I’d still rather have the money.
Larry

rom: 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 Lowenstein, Daniel
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 9:37 AM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] One Dollar, One Vote

            The money primary:

            Bush spent much more in Iowa than Cruz, Trump, and Rubio combined.  Bush amassed 3 percent of the vote, while the impoverished three eked out a total of only about 75 percent.

            Money talks!

                      Best,

                 Daniel Lowenstein
                 Director, UCLA Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions (CLAFI)
                 Emeritus Professor, UCLA Law School
                 818-781-3022
                 lowenstein at law.ucla.edu<mailto:lowenstein at law.ucla.edu>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160203/81450f95/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 47E67E9D-FD96-44DD-BFA4-E081F60BF8E3[26].png
Type: image/png
Size: 17181 bytes
Desc: 47E67E9D-FD96-44DD-BFA4-E081F60BF8E3[26].png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160203/81450f95/attachment.png>