Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USA

There are two separate issues:

1. Anonymous money in politics is bad

2. Disclosure doesn�t chill political speech

My point was largely directed at the second issue. I�ve heard repeatedly from the �reform� side that disclosure doesn�t chill anybody�s speech. Am I now to understand that, in fact, disclosure can indeed chill political speech by limiting the willingness of citizens to support particular speech, that Senator Schumer was right when he touted disclosure as having a �deterrent� effect?

Sean Parnell

President

Center for Competitive Politics

http://www.campaignfreedom.org

http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp

124 S. West Street, #201

Alexandria, VA 22310

(703) 894-6800 phone

(703) 894-6813 direct

(703) 894-6811 fax

From: David Levine [mailto:davidalanlevine@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 12:01 PM
To: Sean Parnell
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] interesting question regarding Priorities USA

Mr. Parnell,

I don't think the issue is whether omitting the identities of donors is an effective campaign practice -- I think substantial evidence from the 2010 elections, including from American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS donors, indicates this is a way to successfully win campaigns for a party or candidate. Rather, the issue is whether large amounts of anonymous money should play a substantial role in elections. However, until the "rules of the game change" (requiring the disclosure of donors), so to speak, there is little to no incentive for candidates and/or independent groups, regardless of their views on money and politics, to effectively handicap themselves while seeking (or assisting someone else seek) office.

David

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Sean Parnell <sparnell@campaignfreedom.org> wrote:

Many of you have no doubt read Jeanne Allen�s excellent piece in Politico revealing the creation of two independent Democratic groups that will be active in the 2012 election cycle. Both of course will accept unlimited donations, and similar to the pairing of American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, one of the Democratic groups will disclose all donors, while the other is a 501(c)4 that does not..

I don�t find anything particularly hypocritical about the decision to create these groups � whether one likes it or not, they are part of the political process now, and I can�t fault even the most diehard Democratic �reformer� for deciding not to unilaterally disarm. If Republicans are raising and spending big bucks to promote their favored candidates, it would be foolish of Democrats not to do likewise.

But I am curious about the decision of Priorities USA to not to disclose donors to the 501(c)4 group. I�ve heard repeatedly from the �reform� community that only nefarious interests would have a need to not disclose donors, and that there is no chilling of speech that occurs through disclosure. If that�s true � and while I have my doubts, �reformers� do not seem to share them � then why would a group run by �reformers� decide not to disclose their donors?

I�ve written more here, in case anyone is interested: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/why-are-reformers-making-donor-secrecy-a-priority