Subject: McConnell v. FEC: The big picture
From: "Lowenstein, Daniel" <lowenstein@LAW.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 12/15/2003, 10:55 AM
To: "Election-law Listserver (election-law@majordomo.lls.edu)" <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>

	Although the task is more difficult, the sort of research Bruce is
talking about should also be done at the state level.  Does BCRA cause a
reduction in state-party campaign-related activity?  Does it cause the state
party to exclude federal candidates from some election-related
communications?

ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ Best, 
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ Daniel Lowenstein 
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ UCLA Law School 
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 405 Hilgard 
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ Los Angeles, California 90095-1476 
ΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚΚ 310-825-5148 



-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Cain [mailto:bruce@cain.berkeley.edu] 
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 10:34 AM
To: Kelner, Robert
Cc: Thomas Mann; marty.lederman@comcast.net; Rick.Hasen@lls.edu;
election-law@majordomo.lls.edu; RBauer@perkinscoie.com
Subject: RE: McConnell v. FEC: The big picture



in reply to Kelner, Mann and Ornstein,

I think measuring the impact of the BCRA is a valuable enterprise. I am 
interested in getting some "expectations" that we could test.  As Kelner 
points out, there are predictions about how the behavior/levels of 
influence of different actors will change (parties more or less 
influential, incumbents more or less safe, nonprofits more or less 
politically important,etc) and then there are 
predictions about whether these changes move us closer to certain 
reform goals (less or more appearance of corruption, less or more fund
raising time spent by incumbents, less or more special influence over
legislation, etc).  AS Kelner suggests, no one questions that there 
will be some shifts in the first category, but many are skeptical 
about the second.  reform could not be sold to the public or the Court if 
it were only about the first category.  the infringement on first 
amendment rights in BCRA can only be justified in the Court's reasoning if 
it lessens corruption and the appearance of corruption (ie the reform 
goals).  so i am wondering if proponents are willing to venture 
predictions of either type so we can benchmark the progress we have made. i
take the suggestion that MCs will do less solicitation of soft money as 
the first prediction.  will it then lead to any prediction in the second 
category? 


Bruce Cain