I haven't seen anyone suggest that government should be in the business of deciding "who's influence is undue", only whether unlimited contributions/zero disclosure can create conditions where undue influence may exist and thrive.
Case in point:
I live in Oregon, which is one of 4 states with no limits of any kind on campaign contributions. A few years ago, I was working on some legislation as a volunteer, and was approached by a lobbyist for one of our local public employee unions who told me to stop working on the legislation. That union had recently contributed $450,000 to a candidate in a primary election in a race where the candidate's total budget was $650,000. That candidate's opponent had worked on reforms to the state's public employee retirement system that the
union had vigorously opposed.
The gist of the conversation went something like this:
"Sal, we think you have a great future in Oregon politics. It would be a shame to see that future cut short because of your work on this issue."
That particular union and its closest ally account for roughly 20 percent of all campaign spending in my state and roughly a third of the total funding for Democratic candidates in my state (I was a Democrat at the time). More importantly, their support or opposition was a bell weather for other entities in the Democratic constellation of funders for which candidates to support. So here are some basic questions that have gone through my mind as a result of that conversation:
- Does the ability of this union to contribute unlimited amounts of money to a candidate give it an opportunity to exert undue influence over an election?
- Does the fact that this union has the capacity
to contribute unlimited amounts of money in an election give it an opportunity to exert undue influence over candidates and officeholders?
- How does this union spending an unlimited amount of money to influence an election create the potential for corruption or the appearance of corruption of the winning candidate. The Oregon Republican Party pointed to several instances where the incoming officeholder in the example mentioned above had appointed people associated with the union to key positions in his administration, saying that these were examples of political payback for the union funding the candidate's campaign. Does this create the appearance of corruption and erode public confidence in the officeholder?
- Does the fact that this union weighed in on a race to the degree mentioned above have a chilling effect on other candidates or officeholders from taking positions that are contrary to those supported by the
union? Does that constitute undue influence?
In my view, the right to engage in unlimited paid political speech should be weighed against the rights of voters and candidates to have an electoral system and a political process that is as free as possible from corruption or the appearance of corruption. I do not know where any specific line in the sand should be drawn, but the ability of an individual or group to dominate an election with money, or to intimidate candidates or officeholders with the threat of overwhelming an election with money, is well past the northern border of that line.
YMMV.
________________________________
From: Sean Parnell <sparnell@campaignfreedom.org>
To: Paul Lehto <lehto.paul@gmail.com>; jon.roland@constitution.org
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Sent: Fri, April 1, 2011 2:39:54 PM
Subject: Re: [EL] WaPo op-ed on transparency
Cutting to Paul's final
point, I think that what we have a refusal to give
credit to the idea that the government should be in the business of deciding
who's influence is 'due' or 'undue' and attempt to manage who may speak, to
whom, how often, in what medium, on what topic, and what content may be
conveyed.
Nobody's denying advertising is effective, the point of contention seems to
be over whether political speech at a certain volume/quantity becomes
coercion rather than persuasion. To which, I simply ask David Donnelly (whom
I only single out because he's opined recently here on this topic): how many
advertisements from ExxonMobil/Americans for Prosperity/Snidely Whiplash
will he need to hear before he finally throws in the towel and agrees that
the proposed budget cuts being suggested these days by Republicans are too
timid, and what we really need to do is just put Rand Paul in charge of
government spending and policy?
Also
worth noting, the entire discussion seems to assume that only one side
is being heard by the public, something that is manifestly untrue. If one
really wants to talk about Hitler's ability to advance the "big lie," you
have to include the fact that tolerance of dissenting voices was not exactly
a hallmark of the Nazi regime. It wasn't just that Hitler employed really
effective propaganda techniques, it was that after a while it was illegal
for alternate views to be heard by the public.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.orghttp://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp124 S. West Street, #201
Alexandria, VA 22310
(703) 894-6800 phone
(703) 894-6813 direct
(703) 894-6811 fax
-----Original Message-----
From:
election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
[mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Lehto
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 5:01 PM
To: jon.roland@constitution.org
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] WaPo op-ed on transparency
An awful lot of people and corporations are wasting an awful lot of
money if repeated advertising (especially negative advertising) does
not have the "market"-shifting effects that are MORE than the "market"
share they would get if given, say, roughly equal time as would be
generally the case in a public debate between candidates.
Suggesting that one should give more credit to voters elides the
issue: Despite Hitler's despicable record, he spoke the truth when he
said "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it
will be believed." Hitler also is credited with: "By the skillful and
sustained use of propaganda, one can make
a people see even heaven as
hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise." Read more:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/adolf_hitler_2.html#ixzz1IJ6XRWaO
The Germans have and had their fair share of intelligence (indeed
they were considered perhaps the most educated and civilized country
in Europe) and yet the power of propaganda was a very significant
force in mobilizing a misinformed "consent" at critical pre-WWII
moments. The literature of social psychology shows that once people
"buy in" to an idea, the chance of changing their minds, even when
presented with contrary information that ought to do so, is less than
20%.
But, if money, and the propaganda or repeated advertising that it
allows, does not have an undue market shifting effect, again, a lot of
people are
wasting a lot of money, and we seem to be led inexorably to
racist or nationalist conclusions that countries that "misbehave" like
WWII Germany are full of people with sub-par intelligence.
What's happening here is a refusal to give credit to the genius, as it
were, of advertising and propaganda (which might be defined as
advertising one intensely disagrees with or sees as opinionated and
one-sided ... and many people will view as "propaganda" any given
political ad for the other side.)
Paul Lehto, J.D.
On 4/1/11, Jon Roland <jon.roland@constitution.org> wrote:
> But so does any spokesman for a block of voters, known or unknown to other
> voters. The solution is for voters to seek out and support only candidates
> who are reluctant to serve and indifferent to getting re-elected.
>
> Political corruption begins with every voter who votes his pocketbook
> instead of for
what's good for the country. There is little difference
> between the selling of his vote by an elected official and the selling of
> his vote by a voter, to whatever candidate promises him some benefit.
> - Jon Roland, speech during his campaign for Congress, 1974
>
>
> On 04/01/2011 03:14 PM, Joseph Birkenstock wrote:
>>
>> To clarify: I don't think the advertising itself is an undue influence on
>> voters; I think the payment for the advertising - especially when a
>> candidate/officeholder knows where it's coming from and his or her
>> constituents don't - creates a means of exerting an undue influence over
>> that candidate/officeholder.
>
> -- Jon
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Constitution Society
http://constitution.org> 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 twitter.com/lex_rex
> Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 jon.roland@constitution.org
> ----------------------------------------------------------
--
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI 49849
lehto.paul@gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
_______________________________________________
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