Roy Schotland wrote:

Fred,

1)  Sen. Levin used the mortgaging example and the $1 figure.  That led to an amendment which, as Sen. Dodd said, "is not a fix at all".

2)  Don't use the mortgage example as a red herring.  Address the point, which is that a self-funder who's far, far from big bucks, triggers the BCRA provision.  And it's incumbents who benefit most from the provision, since it's they who are most able to raise larger contributions.  The NYTimes article brought out how hard it is for non-incumbents to raise such contributions.

3)  What do you say of the provision's hidden kicker--  no more than $250,000 in candidate self-lending can be repaid after the election?

4)  And what about steps to reduce the unique, well-known hurdles facing women and minority candidates, and the incumbent-challenger gap?  E.g., how about adapting the Millionairesâ Amendment leeway, so as to allow non-incumbent
women and minority candidates to raise up to $X from >$2,000 contributions, at least for early money?
    Women and minority candidates don't have networks of big contributors, but the whole idea of Early Money is that many women and minority candidtes have at least enough deeper-pocket supporters that, if they weren't stopped by the ordinary $2,000 cap, they could raise enough to get some visibility and viability, thus break through and have a reasonable shot at real campaigns.
 

Jennifer Steen wrote:

Fred, Roy and list --

I indeed do have data on challengers' assets and income (collected for
1992-2000 from the personal financial disclosure reports all candidates
file with the House Clerk).  The million-dollar challengers (and the
$350,000 challengers) tend to be *very* wealthy (even without counting
the value of their homes).  Some of them may take out mortgages against
their homes to finance the campaign (instead of using cash or borrowing
against other assets), but very few of them count their home as their
only significant asset.

Nonetheless, the basic point about the pro-incumbent bent of the
Millionaires' Amendment is correct.  Anyone interested in my chapter on
the Millionaires' Amendment for The Campaign Finance Institute volume on
the consequences of BCRA -- essentially addressing "what if the MA had
been in effect in 2000?" -- can find it at www.cfinst.org or, better yet
buy the book!

Jennifer Steen
--
Jennifer A. Steen
Assistant Professor
Political Science Department
Boston College

jennifer.steen@bc.edu
http://www2.bc.edu/~steenje

FredWooch@aol.com wrote:
> Roy:
>
> Do you have any data as to how many challengers have actually mortgaged their
> million-dollar homes in order to throw that money into their campaigns for
> federal office?  While your pro-incumbent point is generally well-taken, this
> particular example strikes me as fairly fanciful based on my admittedly limited
> experience.
>
> Fredric D. Woocher
> Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
> fwoocher@strumwooch.com
> (310) 576-1233