Roy's visceral dislike of BRCA causes him to assume that the parties
will raise less money under BCRA than before, and therefore play a
smaller role on the national stage. Figures for this cycle to date from
Tony Corrado of Colby College indicate that the parties are not only
raising more hard money than during any previous cycle, but are on track
to come close to raising in hard money alone in this cycle what they
raised in hard and soft together in previous cycles. This may be
partially the result of BCRA's higher contribution limits to parties,
and higher aggregate cycle limits for individuals--a feature of the law
usually not acknowledged by critics.
The higher hard money totals for party committees are also, however, the
result of vigorous "small donor" efforts by party committees. Cut off
cold-turkey from large soft money contributions, the parties (especially
the Democrats) have set out to identify smaller donors who can and will
become regular contributors. This new emphasis on small donors,
especially in the age of the Internet and email, has in it the potential
to create a new and energized core of party activists: something that
has every likelihood of strengthening (rather than weakening) the
parties.
Additionally, the record in the BCRA court challenge showed that soft
money from the six national party committees was increasingly merely
being funneled through state parties to the bank accounts of
broadcasters as payment for television and radio advertising. In the new
post-BCRA world, both national and state parties are instead
increasingly focusing on voter identification, registration, and turnout
strategies. This change of emphasis is also likely to pay dividends to
the country and the parties in terms of increasing citizen participation
in the political process.
Finally, there is no evidence whatsoever that the half billion dollars
in soft money raised and spent in the last election is simply being
redirected by contributors to 527 and other "non-party" groups. Instead,
to date even the most optimistic public braggings by these groups of
sums they HOPE to raise and spend are only a fraction of these previous
soft money totals. Instead, corporate money in particular seems likely
to remain in the pockets of the corporations and their shareholders.
This provides credence to the claims of some business leaders (CED,
Paul Volker, Warren Buffet,etc) that soft money contributions were
often involuntarily extracted from corporations only because they did
not think they could afford say no to the officeholder making the
solicitation.
Trevor Potter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas
Mann
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 11:52 AM
To: schotlan@law.georgetown.edu; ed@votelaw.com
Cc: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: Thursday on Votelaw blog is provocative!
The real story of the impact of BCRA on political parties and interest
groups is yet to be determined. Roy seems oblivious to the thoughtful
work on this subject done by the Campaign Finance Institute in Life
After Reform: When the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act Meets Politics.
He also fails to grapple with the arguments in the amicus brief
submitted by leading scholars of political parties. And then there is
that annoying fact that the national party committees have raised more
hard money in this post-BCRA cycle than they raised in hard and soft
money together at a comparable point in the last presidential election
cycle. It appears parties adapt to new realities better than scholars.
A little less hyperbole about BCRA and a little more research is
merited.
Roy Schotland <schotlan@law.georgetown.edu> 10/31/03 11:03AM >>>
Ed sends info that I find always interesting, very often valuable.
Today he puts a question (or not truly a question?) that I find more
than surprising.
On "How BCRA decentralizes politics", he says-- "OK, power has
moved away from the DNC, but has it just shifted to other big players?"
Whether one sees BCRA as a step forward or instead (as I do) the
worst law ever for our political scene (well, I know little about the
Alien & Sedition Acts), hasn't it been clear as can be that BCRA doesn't
stop the flow of funds but rather --like other steps that began in
1974-- shifts the flows, putting parties lower than ever?
But query whether it "decentralizes"-- an honest question, not
argument: The six national party committees are hurt and non-party
groups helped, indeed they're invited to blossom (does anyone still use
the line "let a thousand flowers blossom"?) and flourish. Will the
non-party groups (taken in the aggregate) be significantly less
centralized, or more or about the same, as the national party cmtes?
roy
Ed Still wrote: How BCRA decentralizes politics... or does it?
Deep in body of an article (from the New Republic via the CBS News
site) about Howard Dean probably getting the endorsement of the Service
Employees International Union is this paragraph: SEIU's formal
endorsement this year could have similar ripple effects. It could be a
signal to the few big unions that are still on the fence, like the
American Federation of Teachers and the Communications Workers of
America, which is leaning toward Dean, that the former Vermont governor
is a legitimate candidate worth backing. It could also help Dean with
other party interest groups, since [SEIU president Andy] Stern is one of
the most influential leaders in Democratic politics. In the
post-McCain-Feingold world, much of the power of the DNC has shifted to
a collection of liberal umbrella organizations known as 527s. Stern is
at the center of three of the most important: Partnership for America's
Families, America Coming Together, and America Votes, which together
will spend tens -- and maybe hundreds -- of millions of dollars next
year to beat President Bush. Dean could not have found a more powerful
ally to help him build the institutional support he now needs. OK, power
has moved away from the DNC, but has it just shifted to other big
players?
This entry was posted by votelaw at 07:51 PM
Ag Commissioner going for a ride, but not at the fairAP reports, Former
state Agriculture Commissioner Meg Scott Phipps was convicted Thursday
of perjury and obstruction of justice, and will spend time in jail while
awaiting sentencing.
Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens ordered Phipps held in the Wake
County jail until a Nov. 12 sentencing hearing. He refused a request
from Phipps' attorneys to reconsider his decision, but could consider
future motions to release her on bail.
The jury found Phipps guilty of four of five charges: perjury, aiding
and abetting perjury, obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct
justice. Jurors acquitted her on a single count of suborning perjury.
Witnesses testified that Phipps lied to cover up unreported cash
campaign contributions and illegal payments her campaign made to help
repay the campaign debt of one-time political rival and former aide
Bobby McLamb.
The contributions came from carnival vendors interested in winning
contracts to do business at the N.C. State Fair.
This entry was posted by votelaw at 07:40 PM
Arizona IRC may get some $The Arizona Daily Sun reports, A House panel
took the first steps Wednesday to giving some money to the Independent
Redistricting Commission to defend the congressional and legislative
boundaries it crafted. On a 10-3 margin the House Appropriations
Committee voted to give the commission $1.7 million. The measure now
goes to the full House.
That is far less than the $4.2 million that commission Chairman Steve
Lynn said may eventually be necessary on top of the $6 million it
already has spent.
But Lynn said it should at least pay for the costs of the lawsuit and
a likely appeal.
The need for legislative action -- and quickly -- became more apparent
as the Arizona Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to even consider
whether the commission is entitled automatically to more money.
Without comment the justices brushed aside arguments by Hauser that
because the commission is given duties in the state Constitution it
cannot be hobbled by the failure of the Legislature or governor to
provide the funds.
(Disclosure: I represent the plaintiffs in the suit against the
Independent Redistricting Commission over its Congressional plan.)
This entry was posted by votelaw at 01:29 PM
Edward Still
attorney & mediator
Suite 201
2112 11th Avenue South <== note new address & phone number
Birmingham AL 35205
phone 205-320-2882
fax toll free 1-877-264-5513
still@votelaw.com
http://www.votelaw.com
http://www.votelaw.com/blog
VEdward Stillattorney and mediatorSuite 2012112 11th Ave S.Birmingham AL
35205 phone 205-320-2882 fax toll free 1-877-264-5513
still@votelaw.com http://www.votelaw.com
http://www.votelaw.com/blog--
Roy A. Schotland
Professor
Georgetown U. Law Ctr.
600 New Jersey Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
phone 202/662-9098
fax 662-9680 or -9444
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.