[EL] One Dollar, One Vote
Sean Parnell
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
Wed Feb 3 12:26:03 PST 2016
Well written, Scott. As you suggest, there aren't a whole lot of people in
the pro-speech movement who have alleged that 'reformers' believe the
caricatured, absolute positions that Adam puts forward here.
I would add that listening to C-SPAN Radio this afternoon I heard a
broadcast of a Bernie Sanders speech in which he said something to the
following effect:
"The reason none of the Republican candidates will say they accept the
science on climate change is that the moment they did all of their funding
from Big Oil would evaporate."
Amusingly enough, he specifically mocked and derided Donald Trump for his
views on climate change in the leadup to this point, despite the fact that
Trump is of course self-funded.
The point is, alleging that specific politicians are "bought off" or at
least inordinately influenced by specific industries is a routine staple of
"reform" rhetoric. That does not mean that "reformers" claim that money from
an industry always proves they are bought off, as I believe I mentioned a
week or two ago I have yet to hear an allegation from the "reform" community
suggesting that "Big Wind" or "Big Solar" has bought themselves a passel of
Congressmen with their contributions who continue to pass various tax
credits favoring those industries. I have my theory on why that might be,
but suffice it to say there is nobody in the pro-speech community who
believes "reformers" think contributions from industry necessarily mean
corruption.
Best,
Sean Parnell
President, Impact Policy Management LLC
Alexandria, Virginia
571-289-1374
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com
From: Scott Blackburn [mailto:sblackburn at campaignfreedom.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 12:10 PM
To: Adam Lioz <alioz at demos.org>; larrylevine at earthlink.net; 'Sean Parnell'
<sean at impactpolicymanagement.com>; 'Lowenstein, Daniel'
<lowenstein at law.ucla.edu>; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: RE: [EL] One Dollar, One Vote
-Money can always buy an election
Here <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzxpYX4TON0> is Bernie Sanders after
the Iowa Caucus on Monday: "What they were protecting is American Democracy
of one person, one vote - Not billionaires buying elections."
-There is too much money in politics
Here
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/opinion/sunday/the-growing-shadow-of-poli
tical-money.html> is the New York Times Editorial Board: "Estimates of next
year's likely total are running between $7.5 billion and $8 billion. This
moneyed universe is certain to keep expanding as the political industry's
managers and their candidates master the unlimited fund-raising and spending
devices they now have at hand. The sheer numbers should be enough to raise
public alarm." [Emphasis mine]
-There is no relationship whatsoever between money and speech
Here
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-citizens-united-catastrophe/201
2/02/05/gIQATOEfsQ_story.html> is a E.J. Dionne article decrying CU and our
money in campaigns with no mention whatsoever of "speech"
-Money going from an industry to a candidate always proves that candidate is
bought off
Here
<http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/01/keystone-senate-yea-votes-seven-tim
es-more-oil-gas-money/> is the Center for Responsive politics connecting
contributions from the "oil and gas industry" to votes "While some of the
disparity between the amounts received by the yea versus nay voters can be
explained by a longstanding partisan tilt of the oil and gas industry -
since 1990, 79 percent of the industry's campaign contributions have gone to
Republicans - the nine Democrats who sided with the GOP received
significantly more from the industry than their party colleagues."
-There is no legitimate role at all for private spending
Here
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zephyr-teachout/bernie-sanders-for-presid_b_8
752058.html> is Zephyr Teachout writing in the Huffington Post, endorsing
Bernie Sanders: "[Sanders] always explained in patient detail the way that
privately financed elections and outside spending totally destroy our
democracy."
I hope I have chosen instances of these claims that are from voices that are
prominent enough in the reform community, as well as significant political
voices generally, to demonstrate that these are not, in fact, strawman
arguments. [I have omitted the claim about Nazi protests, as I am unclear on
who argues this proposition - from either side.]
You are correct that many on this listserv do not subscribe to these blunt
characterizations, and have more nuanced views of the problems in campaign
financing. But these arguments are most definitely part of the narrative
that exists to promote more regulations in campaigns. Speaking only for
myself, it is exceedingly frustrating to see a leading presidential
candidate running primarily on this issue openly espouse the opinion that
"billionaires are buying elections" but receive pushback from the reform
community when we point out that that is simply untrue. Many in the reform
community appear happy to accept the Bernie Sanders-shorthand when it
increases the popularity of their policies, but deride arguments against
that shorthand as "strawmen" when confronted.
It is also frustrating because if it were true that billionaires were buying
elections, I would be shouting from the rooftops along with those Sanders
supporters that reforms must be made to the system. Such rhetoric creates a
moral imperative to act to restore our democracy. But the subtler view, that
money amplifies some speech and that government regulations need to be
enacted to balance that speech with the speech of others, is a debatable
policy proposal. Again speaking only for myself, I disagree that regulation
can successfully deamplify the speech of the wealthy in an equitable way; I
think it will simply amplify other avenues of influence while restricting
some speech. Many disagree with me on that proposition and I'd welcome that
debate.
But you cannot have a reasonable debate on that issue, when you've created
the illusion of a clear moral case in favor of more regulation. Donors who
give to Super PACs and c4s are literally being compared to Super Villains
<http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/this-video-perfectly-explains-how-the-rich-
control-our-elections-and-how-to-fix-it/> . Those who don't want widespread
campaign finance reforms have been equated
<http://time.com/3436637/larry-lessig-democracy/> with those who supported
White Supremacist policies in the Jim Crow south. In such a situation,
arguments against regulation will be dismissed out of hand. That is why many
in the pro-speech community seek to pierce the false narratives that are
predominant in the media environment today, and have successfully
misinformed the public.
Scott Blackburn
Research Fellow
Center for Competitive Politics
124 S. West St., Ste. 201
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-894-6830 (direct) | 703-894-6800
<http://www.campaignfreedom.org/> www.campaignfreedom.org
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 Adam
Lioz
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 6:52 AM
To: larrylevine at earthlink.net <mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net> ; '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>
Subject: Re: [EL] One Dollar, One Vote
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
<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/f88f98bb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 17181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160203/f88f98bb/attachment.png>
View list directory