10.12.07
Cal Dems Go After Rudy: The Wages of Campaign Finance Laws
Of late we’ve seen a plethora of cases in which campaign finance laws are being invoked for blatantly political purposes, see here and here, or for blatant silliness. See here.
This week brings another case of what might be termed “complaint abuse,” this time in a complaint filed against Rudy Giuliani by California Democrats. “
More . . .
Here, a Democratic group calling themselves Californians for Fair Election Reform, with longtime Democratic operative Chris Lehane as spokesman, Democratic lawyer James Harrison signing the papers, and Democratic donor Tom Steyer in the Chair, has filed a complaint against Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign. It appears that their theory goes something like this: 1) An initiative was proposed in California that would award the state’s votes in the electoral college by congressional district, rather than winner takes all. As it is presumed that Democrats will take California statewide (although perhaps not, ironically, if Giuliani is the GOP nominee), dividing the vote by congressional district could give the Republican nominee approximately 20 extra electoral votes in 2008; 2) the man who provided $175,000 in funding to Take Initiative America, the Republican oriented group promoting the change, is Paul Singer; 3) Paul Singer is a friend and supporter of Rudy Giuliani.
That’s it. No wait, that’s not it - there’s more: Chuck Bell, a law partner of Tom Hiltachk, the lawyer reprsenting the petition group, has contributed to Giuliani. Wow.
Well, if that doesn’t spell illegal coordination, we don’t know what does. Paul Singer, who is according to the Hotline the “Eastern Regional Finance Chair” of the Giuliani campaign (a title that usually means he has no say whatsoever in anything the campaign does - he raises money), gives money to a group pushing a reform that is widely perceived as intended to benefit the Republican nominee, whoever that is. What a surprise that a Republican would do support a proposal that might benefit Republicans. What more do we need to prove that this is a Giuliani front? Oh, that’s right - we need this: that a partner in the law firm of the attorney representing the group also contributed to Giuliani.
It is absurd. Moreover, Democrats ought to be very worried by this, for if this is the standard for finding “coordination,” then every Democrat running for president is also open to charges of illegal coordination. The reality of politics, of course, is that major donors tend to know major candidates - it would be surprising if it were otherwise. Republican groups tend to hire law firms with Republican partners, who often contribute to Republican candidates; Democratic groups tend to hire law firms with Democratic partners, who often contribute to Democratic candidates.
Of course, we all know what is up here. Democrats are using the complaint process as a weapon to try to damage a leading Republican candidate. This is no surprise: both parties do it all the time. The goal in this case is to get some headlines, fire up Democratic base voters who want to see conspiracies in every event, and tie up the Giuliani campaign’s resources. As Mr. Lehane says, “We want to get to the bottom of this.” There probably is nothing at the bottom, but hey, while we race to the bottom to get a look it will tie up Mr. Giuliani and give him some bad press.
On the other hand, this could backfire. Under the standard that Californians for Fair Election Reform is using, they could be found to have illegally coordinated with Democratic candidates. After all, Chris Lehane is a well-known Democratic spokesman. Californians for Fair Election Reform is a “shadowy group” (go to its website and try to figure out “who is behind” them). Chris Dodd claims to “stand with” the group. FEC records show that the groups chairman, Tom Steyer, is a contributor to Hill PAC (Hillary Clinton’s PAC) and numerous Democratic candidates. And by filing a complaint against Giuliani, aren’t they helping the eventual Democratic nominee? Of Course. And there we have it. Voila! Coordination. At least, it appears, according to Californians for Fair Election Reform. Or, as Mr. Lehane might say, at a minimum, “We need to get to the bottom of this.”
What all this illustrates is the problem of “regulation” of campaigns. Give a politician a weapon, and you can’t blame him for using it. But we cannot separate policy from enforcement. One reason we have a First Amendment is that the dangers of enforcement of speech restrictions were recognized. People will file claims, and will have every incentive to file frivolous, or at least marginel, claims against their political opponents. And the government will have to investigate, or make choices, rife with political overtones, about which ones to investigate and which to pass over.
Ever since the California initiative was announced, Democrats have denounced as the lowest of low, partisan politics masquerading as good government. Just this week Howard Dean called it a “dirty trick,” although it’s hard to figure out what was dirty or tricky about it, seeing as how it was a perfectly legal and rather well publicized effort. Still, it may well be that. But so, then, must be the use of campaign finance law to harass one’s political opponents, as Californians for Fair Election Reform are now doing. It makes their complaints about the initiative ring hollow - apparently they don’t think that the California initiative was a “dirty trick,” at all: political rules of the game are just weapons to be used to bludgeon one’s opponents.
The lesson the rest of us can learn, however, is that it is best when regulation is least, when there is as little as possible that is open to manipulation. To put it another way, when we talk about regulating politics, as in campaign finance regulation, we’d best be darn sure that we have considered all the costs, and one such cost - not a trivial one - is the abuse of the law to try to silence, harass, or deplete the resources of one’s political opponents.
Originaly from Source
joreko said,
October 13, 2007 at 4:43 pm
As long as 70% of the people disapprove of the current system of electing the President, proposals to divide electoral votes (either by congressional district or proportionally) will continue to pop up in states selected for partisan reasons.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal, and to guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill would not take effect piecemeal, but only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill is enacted in a group of states possessing 270 or more electoral votes, all of the electoral votes from those states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill has 364 legislative sponsors in 47 states. It has been signed into law in Maryland. Since its introduction in February 2006, the bill has passed by 11 legislative houses (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, and North Carolina, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, and California).