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=slogin> , 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/03/21campaignmoney.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.