Oops, I guess I did use the word “sleazy” in my post, but not in regard to Rick but to the attacks on the Chamber alleging they are using foreign money for politics.  My apologies for that inaccuracy.  That said, I still don’t know what Rick is talking about.

 

 

Listers,

 

I don’t know what Rick is talking about, since a) my post says nothing about the DISCLOSE act; b) my post says nothing about the 2008 Obama campaign; and c) I don’t say anything about Rick being “sleazy” (indeed that word isn’t used in my post at all) or engaging in demagoguery.

 

Other than that, I am pleased that Rick has decided to engage.

 

 

 

Listers:

I usually don't respond to Brad (for reasons I've given), but this is a point of general interest to list members.  My response to this point about my call for effective disclosure in my earlier post (which I explained last night in an email to a CCP staffer when queried about this), is the following.

I did not say in my post that the DISCLOSE Act would solve this problem.  I said we need effective disclosure.  A similar issue arose with allegations of foreign contributions to the Obama campaign in 2008, and Republicans argued for audits.  (See this Wall Street Journal article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122324885800205919.html). (Contributions to the campaign under $200 in the aggregate do not need to be disclosed in detail to the FEC, and some Republicans alleged there could be foreign money coming into the campaign.)

My initial response to the Obama issue was that audits were not necessary, but in seeing the public concern over the issue I changed my mind.   Speaking at the COGEL conference on this issue soon after the Obama controversy, I agreed with the audit suggestion: I suggested that we needed fuller disclosure to the FEC of the accounting practices, or giving the FEC the ability to perform random audits of campaigns. The information in these audits would not be made public, except in the event the FEC found wrongdoing.  I think a similar process (either to the FEC or IRS or other government agency) is appropriate.

Whether this is sleazy and demagoguery I leave for others to decide.

Rick






On 10/8/2010 11:22 AM, Smith, Brad wrote:

Rick asserts:

 

"Dems Say U.S. Chamber Using Foreign Money on U.S. Races"

McClatchy offers this report. CCP asks if the Chamber is guilty until proven innocent. My view: If we had effective disclosure laws, no one would need to wonder about foreign spending by the Chamber, labor unions, or anyone else.

This is wrong for two reasons.  First, the Chambers donors here are disclosed – indeed, that disclosure is the trigger for this baseless accusation that the law is being violated.  Second, the approach of Think Progress and the President of the United States is that we shouldn’t believe what the Chamber reports without a full investigation first.  But if that’s the view, it would be true with or without added disclosure – the point is very simple… “you’ve disclosed your donors, and you say your disclosure is accurate, but how do we know without a full audit?”  (Note, by the way, that the same accusation can be made against every political group out there – “whatever you report, how do we know it’s true?  Why should we trust you?”  It could also be used to attack Think Progress – how do we know – absent a full investigation – that they aren’t engaging in illegal political activity or in political activity that violates their tax status?)

 

Once again, I think what this really points up is a) the tendency to believe that disclosure can do far more than it can do; and b) the tendency to use campaign finance laws and disclosure laws as partisan weapons. Indeed, this case may make an argument against disclosure – only because the donors to the Chamber were disclosed are we having this episode of demagoguery and threats by public officials against groups exercising First Amendment liberties.

 

Rather than use this episode to beat the drums for more disclosure, which would make no difference to the tactics being used by liberal advocacy groups and the President and various other U.S. officeholders, as experts I would think we ought to be pointing out both the absurdity of the charge (the Chamber, after all, has a budget in excess of $150 million – pretty tough to argue with a straight face that they are financing their political efforts with a couple hundred grand in dues from American Chambers Abroad) and the danger of abuse of power by federal officials trying to silence people they see as their political opponents.

 

One expects lots of sleazy attacks and demagoguery during the political season, but this episode is pretty low by any standard.

 

 

October 08, 2010

October 07, 2010

_______________________________________________

election-law mailing list

election-law@mailman.lls.edu

http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law

-- 

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