[EL] Sanders health care reform/Republican support for campaign finance "reform"

Wed Jan 20 08:57:41 PST 2016

Sean,
In a recent post you included CLC in a list of organizations that you say have linked campaign finance reform to a range of liberal policy positions allegedly favored by these organizations on “single-payer health care, sensible gun control, Big Oil, fair share of taxes.”  This certainly is not an accurate description of CLC statements or goals.  It does not correctly reflect either the tone or the substance of CLC’s consistent position on campaign finance reform.

In fact, CLC takes its nonpartisan approach very seriously.  CLC regularly files complaints against, and criticizes, both Democrats and Republicans for failing to adhere to campaign finance laws.  (See, for example, Larry Noble’s recent Washington Post piece, “Clinton’s campaign-finance hypocrisy.”  Also note that CLC filed complaints with the FCC about the ads being financed by Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg.  The complaints note that the TV stations running the Next Gen and Independence USA PAC ads failed to disclose Steyer/Bloomberg, respectively, as the “true identity of the source of the ads.”)  CLC has never taken a public policy position on any of the progressive issues you list.  CLC has never suggested that campaign finance reform is a step toward any particular policy change.  In fact, CLC has repeatedly noted the corrupting influence of money in politics on both sides of the aisle.  As you know, CLC President Trevor Potter is a lifelong Republican who was Deputy General Counsel to President Bush’s 1988 campaign, a Republican FEC appointee, and General Counsel to the 2000 and 2008 Presidential campaigns of John McCain.

We disagree with you and your compatriots about the best direction and substance of campaign finance, ethics, and lobby disclosure laws.  However, it is inaccurate of you to state that CLC seeks to use campaign finance reform to advance a particular partisan or ideological agenda.  CLC works to strengthen our democracy and to ensure the fundamental rights of all Americans to participate in the political process, whatever the resulting policy outcome.  The key is that average citizens are heard in Washington -- not just big money from whatever source.

Meredith McGehee
Policy Director, Campaign Legal Center
Recipient of the 2014 MacArthur Award for Creative & Effective Institutions<http://www.macfound.org/maceirecipients/79>
1411 K St. NW, Suite 1400
Washington, DC  20005
202-736-2200 (o); 202-841-4400 (c)
mmcgehee at campaignlegalcenter.org<mailto:mmcgehee at campaignlegalcenter.org>

Follow us on Twitter @CampaignLegal
or @campaignlegalmm
Become a fan on Facebook

On Jan 19, 2016, at 8:46 AM, sean at impactpolicymanagement.com<mailto:sean at impactpolicymanagement.com> wrote:

An observation, one I made perhaps a decade and a half ago, linking the two lead items in yesterday afternoon's e-mail:

No, Republicans are unlikely to embrace campaign finance "reform," at least not in large numbers, because campaign finance reform is explicitly marketed by most of its advocates as a way to advance policies generally favored by Democrats/progressives and/or stymie policies generally favored by Republicans/conservatives, as Sanders has done here.

Ask yourself the question: how many times have you heard the following statements or their kind offered by, say, the folks at Campaign Legal Center, Brennan Center, Public Citizen, or other organizations that make up the constellation of "reform" groups:

"If we can get money out of politics, we'll be able to pass single-payer health care..."
"Big campaign contributions blocked sensible gun control..."
"Politicians paid off by Big Oil won't let real climate change legislation through Congress..."
"We'll never get the rich to pay their fair share in taxes until we get real campaign finance reform passed..."
"The Koch brothers are trying to buy the election..."

Now, ask yourself how often you've heard "reform" groups offer the following sentiments or their like:

"Politicians are too dependent on union contributions to enact needed pension reforms..."
"We could pass real tort reform if it weren't for all those trial lawyer contributions..."
"Democrats chose to side with their donors in the solar and wind energy industries instead of taxpayers..."
"Tom Steyer is trying to buy the election..."

I'm guessing that if you're honest, you'll admit that "reformers" rhetoric generally runs about 100/0 in favor of the former sort of statements. I can tell you that in the almost ten years I've been heavily involved in this issue, I can count on one hand the number of times I've heard something like the latter emerge from the mouth of a "reform" advocate. Simply peruse the web site of any "reform"' group and compare the number of times corporations are mentioned in a negative light, versus the number of times unions are mentioned in a similarly negative light, to get a sense of what I'm talking about.

Consider, for example, the lead language at the web site of Public Citizen: "Defending democracy. Resisting corporate power." followed by this statement: "Public Citizen advocates for a healthier and more equitable world by making government work for the people and by defending democracy from corporate greed."

I'm hopefully not engaging in rank partisanship by noting that this statement perhaps has somewhat more appeal to an individual on the progressive/liberal side of the ideological divide than someone on the conservative/libertarian side. Anyone care to dispute this? (Please note I said "dispute" and not "explain")

So, for those of you hungering for buy-in from the Republican-ish side for "reform," I feel fairly confident in predicting that a message of "Support reform so a progressive agenda can finally be enacted" is not going to be successful.

Best,

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

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 1/18/16
From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
Date: Mon, January 18, 2016 2:16 pm
To: "law-election at UCI.edu<mailto:law-election at UCI.edu>" <law-election at UCI.edu<mailto:law-election at UCI.edu>>

Sen. Sanders Ties Health Care Reform to Campaign Finance Reform<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79094>
Posted on January 18, 2016 11:13 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79094> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
From last night’s debate<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/17/the-4th-democratic-debate-transcript-annotated-who-said-what-and-what-it-meant/>: (video<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/sanders-campaign-finance-system-is-corrupt-603515971586>)
SANDERS:…
You know what it all comes down to?
Do you know why we can’t do what every other country — major country on Earth is doing? It’s because we have a campaign finance system that is corrupt, we have super PACs, we have the pharmaceutical industry pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into campaign contributions and lobbying, and the private insurance companies as well.
What this is really about is not the rational way to go forward — it’s Medicare for all — it is whether we have the guts to stand up to the private insurance companies and all of their money, and the pharmaceutical industry. That’s what this debate should be about.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: Well, as someone who — as someone who has a little bit of experience standing up to the health insurance industry, that spent, you know…
(APPLAUSE)
… many, many millions of dollars attacking me, and probably will so again, because of what I believe we can do building on the Affordable Care Act, I think it’s important to point out that there are a lot of reasons we have the health care system we have today.
I know how much money influences the political decision-making. That’s why I’m for huge campaign finance reform. However, we started a system that had private health insurance.
<share_save_171_16.png><https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79094&title=Sen.%20Sanders%20Ties%20Health%20Care%20Reform%20to%20Campaign%20Finance%20Reform&description=>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
“Can Republicans Embrace Campaign-Finance Reform?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79092>
Posted on January 18, 2016 11:01 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79092> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
TAP sits down<http://prospect.org/article/can-republicans-embrace-campaign-finance-reform> with Nick Penniman of Republican reform group Issue One.
<share_save_171_16.png><https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D79092&title=%26%238220%3BCan%20Republicans%20Embrace%20Campaign-Finance%20Reform%3F%26%238221%3B&description=>
_______________________________________________
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/20160120/a9e5c006/attachment.html>