[EL] One Dollar, One Vote

Wed Feb 3 16:29:20 PST 2016

You are correct - $55,000 would not be enough to win most assembly races today. Neither would it be enough to win most community college races against a half million dollars on the other side in a district the size of the City of Los Angeles and 36 other cities. Money is a measuring stick of viability because without it even the best candidate would not be able to communicate his or her bestness to voters. And by the way, I have done many winnng assembly races in which we have been outspent. But none for $55,000.

Larry

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas J. Cares
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 10:14 AM
To: Election Law <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] One Dollar, One Vote

I do not make this as a small point. I think it's a serious issue - money raised (or loaned to one's own campaign) seems to be used as the main barometer by the press and by organizations/endorsers on whom they should treat as serious candidates or who the presumptive winner is. For this reason, it seems impossible to win elections without having large amounts of money.

I've been in democratic club meetings where the words have been said "he's only raised $40,000. He's not a serious candidate," regarding an assembly race (not mine). 

I'm not sure the 6 figures worth of mailers normally spent to win California legislative elections is nearly as determinative as the symbolic effect of that money in getting you taken seriously.

I ran for State Assembly when I was 20 years old and got about 5% of the vote in a 6-candidate special election blanket primary. I spent very little money, almost all of which was my own. I bet I would have done way better if I had spent exactly the same, but had been wealthy (even unmeritoriously wealthy, like from lotto or inheritance) and loaned my campaign a very large amount of money and paid it all back. (I'm not even joking - especially if it were an amount like $2 million - still less than Poizner's $5m assembly campaign - the resulting free attention it would have gotten me, without spending any of it, could have been enough to win it). When the press and others knows candidates can't spend, they don't take them seriously and they can't get traction (this creates the special interest-controlled early money primary of who will get taken seriously in the real primary and be able to raise more money). 

My point is, if we could somehow change the culture, of using money as the viability barometer, we might get public servants who aren't dependent on raising so much, and thus not corrupted by that dependency. 

Also, while I congratulate Larry on his money upsets, I'd like to see him win a contested CA *Assembly race* with just $55k (maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect he wouldn't work for an assembly campaign he thought could only raise that much).

-Tom

On Thursday, February 4, 2016, Scott Blackburn <sblackburn at campaignfreedom.org <mailto:sblackburn at campaignfreedom.org> > wrote:

-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-political-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/2012/02/05/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-times-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_8752058.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
www.campaignfreedom.org <http://www.campaignfreedom.org/>  

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 Adam Lioz
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 6:52 AM
To: larrylevine at earthlink.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','larrylevine at earthlink.net');> ; 'Sean Parnell' <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sean at impactpolicymanagement.com');> >; 'Lowenstein, Daniel' <lowenstein at law.ucla.edu <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lowenstein at law.ucla.edu');> >; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','larrylevine at earthlink.net');> >
Organization: Levine and Associates
Reply-To: "larrylevine at earthlink.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','larrylevine at earthlink.net');> " <larrylevine at earthlink.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','larrylevine at earthlink.net');> >
Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 2:47 PM
To: 'Sean Parnell' <sean at impactpolicymanagement.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sean at impactpolicymanagement.com');> >, "'Lowenstein, Daniel'" <lowenstein at law.ucla.edu <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lowenstein at law.ucla.edu');> >, "law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','law-election at department-lists.uci.edu');> " <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sean at impactpolicymanagement.com');> ] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 11:28 AM
To: larrylevine at earthlink.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','larrylevine at earthlink.net');> ; 'Lowenstein, Daniel' <lowenstein at law.ucla.edu <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lowenstein at law.ucla.edu');> >; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sean at impactpolicymanagement.com');> 

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 Larry Levine
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 12:55 PM
To: 'Lowenstein, Daniel' <lowenstein at law.ucla.edu <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lowenstein at law.ucla.edu');> >; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <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 Lowenstein, Daniel
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 9:37 AM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lowenstein at law.ucla.edu');>  

-- 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160203/43b51b2c/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/20160203/43b51b2c/attachment.png>