-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu [mailto:owner-election-
law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Smith, Brad
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 6:48 PM
To: election-law
Subject: RE: "Social Science and 'Appearance' in Campaign Finance Reform"
I think Michael misses Bob's point. It is true, as Michael notes, that
the research is out there, that it gets published, that it even gets aired
at some conferences, and that there are many people on both sides with
open minds (just as Tom Mann considers himself one of those people, so I
consider myself one). But that is a far cry from saying that scholarship
that does not support a particular type of reform agenda gets the audience
it "deserves."
Just three groups - the Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21, and the
Center for Responsive Politics, spent over $3 million in 2004 working for
greater campaign finance limitations and restrictions. These groups are
dedicated to that issue. The Campaign Finance Institute, more moderate
but still more likely to propose more regulation than less, chipped in
nearly a million more. Then there is Public Campaign and the Alliance for
Democracy, and we haven't even gotten to groups such as the Brennan Center
and Common Cause, which are not single issue groups but which devote or
have devoted substantial resources to publicizing (and financing) research
favorable to their cause, as well as press releases, op-eds, books and the
like. There are many, many, more, including many seeded by Pew and other
large foundations with the stated intent of creating the appearance of a
groundswell of support across society for campaign finance regulation, as
former Pew grant officer Sean Treglia!
has noted. With the notable exception of Common Cause, virtually none
of these groups has any membership base. But they use their funds to
advance favorable research, write op-eds, release studies and reports in a
manner congenial to the hurried folks on Capitol Hill and at the National
Press Club, lobby, and work journalists tirelessly. They even run
seminars to teach reporters how to cover campaign finance issues from
their point of view (which is presented as a neutral point of view), and
in some cases finance that coverage for press entities directly.
Moreover, they have done so for years. It is undisputed that over the
last decade they have spent in combination well over $100 million, and
probably quite a bit more.
There is no comparable group on the other side, dedicated to advancing in
the policy arena the empirical evidence and intellectual underpinnings
supportive of the free speech community. Sporadic efforts by broad-based
think tanks such as Cato and Heritage are more than offset by similar
part-time but substantial efforts by groups working the other side of the
field, such as Public Citizen and PIRG.
In 2004, John McCain went into one of his periodic temper tantrums because
I had the gall to write that BCRA passed because reform groups had spent
millions to create an intellectual climate in which free political
participation was considered a threat to democracy. But the statement is
merely a true statement of fact, and Senator McCain is the exception, I
think. Unlike Senator McCain, I think that most members of the pro-
regulatory community are quite proud - and rightly so - of having so
dominated the public policy debate through their political organization.
That they have done so does not mean that the policy and value judgments
they advance are wrong - only that, as a simple statement of fact, they
have dominated the public debate through the use of large sums of money to
promote particular views. But I can live with that. The point is, the
very fact that these groups can claim a monopoly on the term "reform" is
evidence of their stunning success.
I say above that "there is no comparable group on the other side... ." I
should correct that to say that there was no group dedicated to advancing
the evidential basis and intellectual underpinnings of the free speech
community, until formation of the Center for Competitive Politics. Part
of our belief in forming the Center was that the social science data is
actually quite friendly, on the whole, to a more balanced public debate,
and more balanced policy proposals, than we usually see or hear of in the
popular press or presented to courts of law. A major goal of the Center
is to bring that work to the forefront. But the Center has been in
operation all of 4 months. Even if the Center is wildly successful - as I
expect it will be - it will be a long time before it comes close to the
combined budget and influence of those groups that often refer to
themselves as the "reform community." (Tom has made me feel a bit like I
have to review a CD by "the Artist formerly known !
as Prince.")
Brad Smith
________________________________
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu on behalf of Michael
McDonald
Sent: Tue 3/21/2006 12:28 PM
To: election-law
Subject: RE: "Social Science and 'Appearance' in Campaign Finance Reform"
In his post, Bob Bauer briefly summarizes the work of three social
scientists who have concluded minimal or negative assessments of campaign
finance reform (Persily, Milyo, and Primo) and then concludes:
This is also "evidence," also produced by social scientists, and it
deserves the audience that it will not likely receive.
I'd strongly disagree with this conclusion. First off, the research has
been published. Furthermore, all three of these scholars presented at my
and John Samples' conference on electoral competition that was well
attended and received praise from bloggers. We made a point to bring in
conflicting voices. We plan to follow up with further dissemination of
these scholars' findings, and others at the conference, through future
events. All three presented at a conference on campaign finance held by
Ken Mayer earlier this year in Madison, Wisconsin. Although I speak for
myself in saying this: my impression from the organizations funding these
events (sometimes the same that funded campaign finance reform efforts) is
that they want to honestly assess the effects of campaign finance reform
and are open to opposing views. I should add, though, there are others
who draw different conclusions about campaign finance reform efforts, for
example, Mayer finds positive effects of pub!
lic financing.
I have said this many times, but it bears repeating: There is no perfect
electoral system. Any "reform", or more neutrally, "public policy
choice" represents a tradeoff among competing values. Thus, it is
possible for opposing scholars to highlight one value over all others and
for activists to latch on to this research as evidence one way or another
about the efficacy of a pubic policy choice. Public policy debates thus
often devolve into value debates. It is here that I've noticed a tendency
for even respectable people on this list-serve to slip a bit into the mud.
(Because of my position at the Brookings Institution, some might consider
that I am defending Tom Mann, so I'll single out his recent comments as a
bit reactionary - he's a big boy and can take it - and I'll admit that I
sometimes slip, too; but I am really speaking generally and not at any one
person.) I hope that by recognizing that sometimes debate is over values,
that we might examine the relative eff!
ects a public policy choice will have on the competing values we care
about, rather than argue about values, which are rooted in deeply held
beliefs that are difficult to change someone's mind on. A deliberative,
pluralistic system is one that attempts to develop consensus over the
tradeoffs among competing values. We might have our differences on how
that system should operate, but I hope that we can agree that we highly
value a deliberative, pluralistic system over one that shuts out voices
disagreeable to our position (obviously, this is high on my value list).
It is also important to recognize that, for better or worse, the public's
value structure can change. For example, immediately following 9/11 the
American people were willing to give up liberty for personal security,
which prior to 9/11 was arguably something the public was not agreeable
to. Being highly educated and rooted in our beliefs, the people on this
list-serve are less susceptible to external forces that might sway the
general public. But it is important to understand how public perceptions
are shaped by events and how those perceptions affect the electoral system
that we all care about. Again, for better or worse, new public policy is
made at moments when the public's overall value structure changes. I've
observed a tendency to label reform at these moments "opportunism" and I
suppose it is, in a fashion, but I hope that we will elevate discussion to
understand how the public's perceptions fit into public policy making.
Maybe I'm just whistling in the wind here. Maybe social scientists have a
different value system than those with legal training. Maybe this list-
serve is an odd mix of people such that sometimes one segment will find
the other offensive for reasons that are perfectly acceptable within their
value structure.
------------
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Assistant Professor, George Mason University
Visiting Fellow, Brookings Institution
Mailing address:
(o) 703-993-4191 George Mason University
(f) 703-993-1399 Dept. of Public and International Affairs
mmcdon@gmu.edu 4400 University Drive - 3F4
http://elections.gmu.edu Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu [mailto:owner-election-
law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu]On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 9:59 AM
To: election-law
Subject: Electionlawblog news and commentary 3/21/06
"Puerto Ricans dealt blow in U.S. presidential vote"
AP offers this report <http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/20/puerto.rico.ap/>
, which begins: "The Supreme Court turned down an appeal Monday that
sought to open U.S. presidential elections to voters in Puerto Rico."
Thanks to Ed Still for the link
<http://www.votelaw.com/blog/archives/003917.html> .
"Pastors' Get-Out-the-Vote Training Could Test Tax Rules"
The NY Times offers this report
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/21/politics/21churches.html?_r=1&oref=slog
in> , which begins: "Weeks after the Internal Revenue Service announced a
crackdown on political activities by churches and other tax-exempt
organizations, a coalition of nonprofit conservative groups is holding
training sessions to enlist Pennsylvania pastors in turning out voters for
the November elections."
"Social Science and 'Appearance' in Campaign Finance Reform"
Bob Bauer offers this post
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/news.html?AID=655> at More Soft
Money, Hard Law.
"At Schwarzenegger fundfest, fingers point at McCain"
The San Francisco Chronicle offers this report <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/03/21/MNGD8HRJ721.DTL> , which begins: "A
high-priced fundraiser Monday night in Beverly Hills for Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger featured special guest Sen. John McCain of Arizona, whose
appearance Democrats and some government watchdogs say skirted the federal
campaign finance law he helped enact. McCain, the maverick Republican who
once called Democratic Gov. Gray Davis' fundraising conduct 'disgraceful,'
was the star attraction at an event that allowed guests who contributed or
raised $100,000 or $50,000 to take photos with the governor and attend a
private reception, according to the invitations."
"Campaign Donation Plan May Not Work, Critics Say"
The Austin American-Statesman offers this report
<http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/03/21campaignmon
ey.html> , on Austin's apparently failed experiment with $100 contribution
limits in local races.
"Bet on a Bet but Not on a Ballot"
Richard Morin has written this column <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/03/15/AR2006031502318.html> for the Washington
Post. It begins: "It's easier to rig an electronic voting machine than a
Las Vegas slot machine, says University of Pennsylvania visiting professor
Steve Freeman." See also How to Steal an Election
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/graphic/2006/03/16/GR2006031600213.html> , a chart comparing
security for Las Vegas slot machines with DREs. Thanks to Bill Corbett for
the link.
"Bloggers push politics aside in fight against FEC; It's a case of strange
bedfellows, as liberals and conservatives unite against rules that could
rein in political blogs."
The Minneapolis Star-Tribune offers this report
<http://www.startribune.com/462/story/317446.html> . You can find my
earlier commentaries on this issue here
<http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20050405_hasen.html> , here
<http://www.personaldemocracy.com/node/472> and here
<http://www.personaldemocracy.com/node/416> . The election law listserv is
currently having a contentious
<http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/updates/outside_groups.html?AID=654>
debate on the question (including the competing House bills, 1606 and
4900). You can access the postings by following this thread
<http://majordomo.lls.edu/cgi-bin/lwgate/ELECTION-
LAW_GL/archives/election-law_gl.archive.0603/date/article-121.html> .
UPDATE: Writing on the election law listserv, Adam Bonin observes the
following (reprinted with permission):
There is at least one (oft-repeated) inaccuracy in that MST article. Re
"The bloggers were being paid by the Thune campaign, but that didn't come
out until Thune's campaign made an FEC filing after the election, which
Thune won".
That the Thune bloggers were paid was disclosed:
(a) in FEC filings as early as the second-quarter 2004 report:
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2005/4/4/11593/26253/61#c61
(b) in an August 9 article in the Argus-Leader:
http://www.southdakotaelections.com/Story.cfm?Type=Election&ID=2713
I think I'm unfortunately responsible for leading the reporter astray on
this point. Thanks to Adam for the correction.
--
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org