Re: [EL] The Millionaire's Amendment

Craig makes an excellent point. I would go a step further and argue that the Millionaire�s Amendment was representative of the politicians� desire to use campaign finance laws to insulate themselves from challengers or even criticism. There was no other reason for the Millionaire�s Amendment than to act as a mechanism by which established politicians could protect themselves from competition from self-funded candidates. This is despite the fact that, as Craig correctly points out, they don�t really need the protection, given that many self-financed campaigns are like an eBay auction where the candidate spends all their money but doesn�t get with the item on which they were bidding.

From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Craig Holman
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 7:57 AM
To: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] The Millionaire's Amendment

Hi Adam:

Yes, the political science research is rich with studies documenting that self-funded candidates generally fare poorly at the polls. But this lesson has not been learned by candidates or lawmakers. Many wealthy individuals really believe they can simply buy an office -- and their opponents tend to believe likewise, resulting in an arm's race in fundraising and spending.

The Millionaire's Amendment was a very unnecessary provision of BCRA from a policy perspective, but proponents of BCRA could not convince many lawmakers of that, most of whom feared the rising phenomenon of wealthy self-funded candidates.

Craig Holman, Ph.D.

Government Affairs Lobbyist

Public Citizen

215 Pennsylvania Avenue NE

Washington, D.C. 20003

TEL: (202) 454-5182

CEL: (202) 905-7413

FAX: (202) 547-7392

Holman@aol.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Bonin, Adam C. <ABonin@cozen.com>
To: Election Law <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>
Sent: Fri, Nov 19, 2010 10:16 am
Subject: [EL] The Millionaire's Amendment

It just occurred to me that we've now completed our first full federal election cycle after Davis v FEC and, as such, with no Millionaire's Amendment in place designed to provide ameliorative measures for candidates running against self-funders. Yet unless I'm missing something (Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, *maybe*), I don't know that the lack of expanded limits hurt any candidate running against a self-funder save, perhaps, the still-being-counted TIm Bishop (D) v. challenger Randy Altschuler (R) race in NY-01; self-funders seemed to do just as poorly as they always do. http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topself.php

Has anyone given this any thought?

Notice: To comply with certain U.S. Treasury regulations, we inform you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this e-mail, including attachments, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.

Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.

_______________________________________________

election-law mailing list

election-law@mailman.lls.edu

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