"I suspect that counting all resources - candidates, parties, and groups -
and examining receipts and expenditures will reveal more parity than
partisan advantage."
I think this is right, but it's also exactly what gives me such concern over
the ways in which BCRA is changing the world of politics and money.
"Counting all resources" was the only way in which the Democratic party ever
approached financial parity with the Republicans, but prior to BCRA those
"other resources" mostly consisted of the soft money accounts of the
national party committees. Reformers objected to the ways in which that
money was raised, but (IMO) they also overlooked the fact that they were
able to raise those concerns in the first place.
Nick Confessore hit this nail on the head in his Washington Monthly piece -
the pre-BCRA concentration of soft money at the party committees allowed
journalists and reformers to beat up on those committees *and their
candidates* for the ways in which that money was raised and spent. They
would point out that they did so because that's where the action was, but I
would suggest the possibility that it may just have looked that way because
"the light was better there."
It seems to me that as we further the distance between these activities and
the candidates and officeholders they are designed to affect, the
constitutional arguments against compulsory disclosure (under McIntyre,
NAACP v. Alabama, etc.) get stronger and stronger. Tom Mann rightly points
out that the money will still pile up anyway, but it's going to get harder
and harder to justify the right to know where it's coming from, and how it's
being raised, and it's going to take real mental gymnastics to keep
insisting, for example, that candidates should be held as accountable for
the activities of Republicans for Clean Air, or ACT, or next week's
527/501(c)x flavor of the month as they were before BCRA for the DNC or the
RNC.
This is one of the main ways that I think, as Justice Scalia put it, the
juice may not be worth the squeeze.
________________________________
Joseph M. Birkenstock, Esq.
Special Counsel
Smith Kaufman LLP
777 S. Figueroa St., Suite 4050
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 452-6576
*only admitted to practice in DC
-----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, May 21, 2004 9:35 AM
To: baileyma@georgetown.edu; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: news of the day 5/20/04
Michael,
Encouraging small donations was not an explicit objective of the law but a
welcome consequence. The objective was to take politicians out of the
business of extorting unlimited contributions from corporations, unions, and
wealthy invidividuals. With these large donations closed off, party leaders
have naturally increased their investment in small-donor fundraising. The
incentive to do so is stronger with BCRA than without it. Of course, the
effort and its success was facilitated by the broader political context of
the 2004 elections (intense partisan
sentiments) and the lead of Howard Dean. What has happened is perfectly
rational and understandable.
As far as partisan advantage is concerned, let's wait to view the whole
election cycle in its totality. I suspect that counting all resources -
candidates, parties, and groups - and examining receipts and expenditures
will reveal more parity than partisan advantage.
Tom Mann
Michael Bailey <baileyma@georgetown.edu> 05/21/04 11:24AM >>>
My point is that the parties could have made this change themselves.
At
least, the overwhelming majorities in the Democratic caucus that
supported BCRA could have mandated the DSCC and DCCC to turn to small
donors w/o a law.
The idea that party members in Congress had to pass a law to change
their own party committees' behavior strikes me as odd.
Trevor Potter wrote:
I believe the answer to Michael Bailey's question about why the
Democrats did not emphasize small donor fundraising from individuals prior
to BCRA is that the incentives ran the other way-it was much easier to raise
money from a (relative) handful of known major doners-wealthy individuals,
large corporations with business interests regulated by the federal
government, and unions-in $100,000 and up contributions. Only when those
sources were removed was the Democratic Party forced to turn to the harder
task of building a small donor base.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Bailey [mailto:baileyma@georgetown.edu]
Sent: Fri May 21 02:00:26 2004
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: news of the day 5/20/04
A couple of comments on the Corrado piece:
- The increase in small money donors is often highlighted as an
achievement of BCRA. What prevented the parties and/or individual
canddiates from targeting small contributors before BCRA? Nothing in
the law. There may have been cultural or organizational issues in
the
parties, but these issues could have been overcome by lobbying the
parties to change their fundraising tactics, rather than creating
BCRA
and its attendant compexities. For the Democrats, at least, it seems
that the congressional caucus should have been more than willing the
support changes in party fundraising, in light of their support of
BCRA.
- Corrado reports that the Democrats are down $12 million relative to
2000 and the Republicans are up $62 million relative to 2000. As
Corrado points out, some portion of this net drop of $74 million for
Democrats is attributable to BCRA and was predictable in light of
Republicans' hard money advantages. In light of developments in
corporate tax policy, energy policy and other areas, it seems clear
the
Republicans are friendly to corporations in many areas. Hence, to
what
extent should we question the wisdom of trying the reduce the
influence
of corporations on policy by predictably advantaging the party more
supportive of corporate-favored policies?
--
Michael Bailey
Associate Professor
Department of Government
Georgetown University
ICC, Suite 681
Washington, DC 20057
(202) 687-6021
baileyma@georgetown.edu
http://www.georgetown.edu/bailey/
Thomas Mann wrote:
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
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
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.