I apologize for the mistake of citing to Ornstein, not Corrado. I will be
happy to engage with the points of the article and will do so later in the
day, with more time to do so. But I cannot help noting this passage:
BCRA was not designed to reduce the amount of money in campaigns.
Many
of us involved in the effort believe more money is needed. The
problem
is with how it is raised and distributed. Hyperbolic floor
statements
by some supporters cannot undue this reality.
In an astute comment passed on to me by colleague Brian Svoboda (which I
will simply restate more in my terms, through no fault of his own), the
statements of those who passed the bill simply count for me than the
intentions of private citizens and organizations that lobbied for its
passage. However the law was designed, many of the Members of Congress
supporting the law believed that it would have the effect of reducing the
amount of money in politics. Dismissing their beliefs as "hyperbolic"--and I
do not believe that the adjective fits--ignores one salient point: since
these are the men and women who have the elected authority to pass the law,
their motivations and views actually matter.
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Mann [mailto:TMANN@brookings.edu]
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 2:23 PM
To: Rick.Hasen@lls.edu; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu; Bauer, Bob-WDC
Subject: RE: news of the day 5/20/04
Bob,
Sorry that you didn't engage any of the points Corrado (not Ornstein)
and I made in this morning's Roll Call. A few points about your defense
of Broder.
Bush opted out of public financing before BCRA. He would have done so
again with it. Fortunately for Democrats, Kerry followed suite.
Anything else would be irrational, not because of BCRA, but because the
presidential public financing program is hopelessly out of date and in
need of major repair. BCRA supporters correctly calculated that reform
had to be deferred.
I see a big difference between between elected and party officials
soliciting unlimited contributions from corporate and union treasuries
and wealthy individuals, on the one hand, and presidential campaigns
enlisting fundraisers/bundlers. The latter is a longstanding practice
and fully anticipated by BCRA's authors.
BCRA was not designed to reduce the amount of money in campaigns. Many
of us involved in the effort believe more money is needed. The problem
is with how it is raised and distributed. Hyperbolic floor statements
by some supporters cannot undue this reality.
The activities of outside groups were fully anticipated by BCRA
architects, Remember, the focus was on party soft money and
electioneering communications (60/30 day windows). The latter
constraints remain in effect, even for your 527 clients. We kept saying
the bill was modest; critics never accepted that.
Bottom line: the parties and candidates, working entirely with hard
money, are dwarfing the soft-money efforts of the new 527s. For the
relevant numbers, see
http://www.brook.edu/views/papers/20040519corrado.htm It's not even
close. BCRA is alive and well.
Tom Mann
"Bauer, Bob-WDC" <RBauer@perkinscoie.com> 05/20/04 01:34PM >>>
Not one to complain: but I cannot help but try to remedy the
difference
between the Ornstein/Mann posting, and the Broder posting. The one is
excerpted at some length, and the other is posted, then followed by a
rebuttal, and a caustic one, from a reader.
I increasingly hear from reform supporters that they did after all
separate
officeholders from the soft money. And indeed they did. In return, the
law
invited them to follow the Bush campaign in raising hundreds of
millions of
dollars, by the hands of Pioneers and Rangers and the like, and decline
the
public funding process, So now, if one is to take the corruption
argument
seriously, one can take little comfort in the fact that a federal
elected
officials cannot raise raise $100,000 from a corporation, but instead
pursue
the same amount through the individual efforts of one of its
executives.
The "fundraising race" goes on, unabated, not because this law, in some
way
specific to it, has failed to curb it, but because fundraising races
follow
politics and not the dictates of legislators and think-tanks.
Another mistaken prediction only months ago: that negative campaigns
would
be limited by the "stand by your ad" requirement. Senator McCain even
took
to the floor to celebrate this turn of events. This position might
still
seem plausible to someone without access to electricity or struggling
with
their cable or satellite reception.
Finally, Broder is not wrong: backers of the bill denied that the
statute
would work unintended effects, that is, that any flow of funds away
from
parties, to independent organizations, would undermine the objectives
of the
statute. They might have "anticipated" it, but they dismissed its
significance. In recent months, they have complained bitterly about
it, and
so undercut their ability to argue that they knew all along that this
might
happen and that it didn't threaten the overall coherence and viability
of
the reform. And Broder is correct that one of the objectives of the
bill
was to limit the amount of money in politics, and skeptics are advised
to
read the floor debates.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu]On Behalf Of Rick
Hasen
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 10:46 AM
To: election-law
Subject: news of the day 5/20/04
"Time Off Urged for Voting Work"
A.P. offers this
<http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-pollworkers20may20,0,754381
4.story?coll=la-politics-pointers> report.
"Banned E-Voting Systems Likely to Be Ready Nov. 2"
The Los Angeles Times offers this
<http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-evotes20may20,1,1279831.story?co
ll=la-home-politics> report.
"Flap Over 527s Aside, McCain-Feingold is Working as Planned"
Anthony Corrado and Tom Mann have this
<http://www.rollcall.com/issues/49_128/guest/5646-1.html> Roll Call
oped
(paid subscription required). A snippet:
McCain-Feingold was not written to bring every source of
unregulated
federal campaign funding within the scope of the law. Rather, it was
designed to end the corrupting nexus of soft money that ties together
officeholders, party officials and large donors. The law's principal
goal
was to prohibit elected officials and party leaders from extracting
unregulated gifts from corporations, unions and individual donors in
exchange for access to and influence with policymakers.
Indeed, the law has accomplished this objective. Members of
Congress
and national party officials are no longer soliciting unlimited
contributions for the party committees, nor are they involved in the
independent fundraising efforts of the leading 527 groups. The FEC's
decision to defer action, therefore, does not pose the same risk of
corruption as did the soft-money decisions of the past.
Hatch Puts on Hold 'Arnold '08"
Roll Call offers this report
<http://www.rollcall.com/issues/49_128/news/5653-1.html> , which
begins:
"California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) shouldn't start planning a
2008
presidential campaign just yet. Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch
(R-Utah), who first raised such a possibility last year, said Wednesday
that
it may take a while to remove the constitutional obstacle preventing
Schwarzenegger or any other foreign-born U.S. citizen from running for
president of the United States." I'm sure our governor's reaction will
be
that the news is "fantastic."
BM_001219
"What McCain-Feingold Didn't Fix"
David Broder offers this
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41360-2004May19.html>
column. About the column, a blog reader writes:
Check out this David Broder column today, the upshot of which is
the
surprising -- and to my mind ridiculous -- conclusion that BCRA has
"produce[d] more unintended negative consequences than benefits."
Broder seems to assume -- without even providing any arguments in
support on
the points -- that the spending of money on elections (including by
the
candidates) necessarily is in and of itself a bad thing, and that a (or
the)
purpose of BCRA was to get money out of campaigns. No mention of
corruption,
of the role of parties in making officeholders beholden to
contributors,
etc.
And he is shocked, shocked, by the "unanticipated" phenomenon that
folks are
actually raising hard money (including on the Internet!) in amounts
permitted by BCRA, and choosing not to accept public financing when
hard
money contributions are more lucrative -- as though the statute
doesn't
contemplate exactly that.
Thanks for writing. I would add that Broder is simply wrong as a
factual
matter that McCain-Feingold backers "did not anticipate that the ban
would
simply divert the flow of big contributions into other channels."
Indeed,
this was one of the main arguments made against the law when it was
being
debated.
"FEC Ruling Mocks Campaign Reform"
The Virginia Pilot offers this
<http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=70562&ran=23785>
editorial.
Canadian Free Speech Decision Roundup
Brett Marston has it all here
<http://marston.blogspot.com/2004/05/canadian-electioneering-speech.html>
.
Solum on Developments in Judicial Appointments Process
Larry Solum concludes that despite much talk about compromise in
yesterday's
developments, not much has changed. See here
<http://lsolum.blogspot.com/archives/2004_05_01_lsolum_archive.html#10849831
1114258112> .
Corrado on Soft Money
Anthony Corrado has posted National
<http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/20040519corrado.htm> Party
Fundraising Remains Strong, Despite Ban on Soft Money on the Brookings
website.
Electronic Voting Machine Humor from The Onion
See here
<http://www.theonion.com/lib/pdf.php?type=ia&cat=Infograph&img_id=2383>
.
Anderson and Richie on Vieth
See this <http://fairvote.org/commentary/betterwaytovote.pdf>
commentary by
John Anderson and Rob Richie that appeared in this week's Legal Times.
"Skirting law, some shift use of campaign funds for primary"
The Miami Herald offers this
<http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/states/florida/counties/bro
ward_county/8698746.htm?1c> report, with the following subhead: "The
federal
campaign finance law allows candidates to raise -- and sometimes to
spend --
money during a primary even if it's earmarked for the general
election."
Thanks to Dan Smith for the pointer.