Subject: Re: [EL] The Millionaire's Amendment
From: David Mason
Date: 11/19/2010, 12:34 PM
To: Daniel Schuman
CC: Craig Holman <holman@aol.com>, "election-law@mailman.lls.edu" <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>

In campaign finance it appears that a rising tide lifts all boats.
 
One interesting side effect of self-funding candidates might be on broadcast rates in the areas they are seeking office.  I do not have specific figures, but I'm told, for instance, that rates in California really shot up this fall.  Driving up rates for other candidates in the same media markets may be a more significant effect than draining resources due to direct competition.
 
Dave Mason

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Daniel Schuman <dschuman@sunlightfoundation.com> wrote:
Does anyone have thoughts/analysis on whether the introduction of a millionaire in one race drains money from races in other districts from those politically aligned with the non-millionaire?   

Daniel

Daniel Schuman
Director | Advisory Committee on Transparency
Policy Counsel | The Sunlight Foundation
o: 202-742-1520 x 273 | c: 202-713-5795 | @danielschuman



On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Craig Holman <holman@aol.com> wrote:
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


-----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?
 
Adam C. Bonin | Cozen O'Connor
1900 Market Street | Philadelphia, PA, 19103 | P: 215.665.2051 | F: 215.701.2321
abonin@cozen.com | www.cozen.com

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

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



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