The proposed assumption would only be valid if  all this money were individual funds within the hard money limits-which it clearly is not. Corporate, labor and funds over the party contribution limits could not-by definition-have gone to the parties. Further, the is evidence in the form of statements by organizers of outside groups that some of the individual money would not have been given if the identity of the donor had to be disclosed--as it would be if given to the parties.
Trevor Potter

Sent by Good Messaging (www.good.com)


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Ray French [mailto:ray.french@yahoo.com]
Sent:	Saturday, October 16, 2010 12:03 AM Eastern Standard Time
To:	Election Law
Subject:	Re: [EL] Independent Spending Dwarfs Party Spending

Here is today's blog post by the Sunlight Foundation that goes into more detail 
than the USA Today article: 


http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2010/10/15/court-rulings-change-elections-independent-spending-dwarfs-party-spending-in-midterm/


I know this topic has been talked to death here, but I think there's something 
missing from the conversation. The message seems to be that all of this "outside 
money" is "new" money to the electoral process, when in reality it is likely to 
be money that would have been largely directed to the parties. Sure, the amounts 
seem astronomical, but more money is spent in each election than in the previous 
one. So what would have been funneled to the parties is being spent by 
organizations with no disclosure obligations. Yes, disclosure has been talked to 
death here too, but the implication I keep reading from those on the left is 
that this is new money that would not otherwise be spent on the election but for 
the lack of disclosure serving as protection. Wouldn't it be a safer assumption 
that many people that would have contributed to the parties are now contributing 
to the CoC or other c4s? An interesting project after the election might be 
surveying the contribution records from the last few elections to see if there 
are any regular contributors that are missing in 2010.

I'm still new to this so I accept that I could be totally off!

Ray French
Hamline University School of Law '12





________________________________


 
"Campaign spending by outside groups skyrockets"
USA Today offers this           report.

Posted by Rick Hasen at 07:18           AM


      

<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, 
we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, 
any tax advice contained in this communication (including any 
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and 
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related 
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii)  promoting, 
marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related 
matter addressed herein. 
 
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.

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law