Skepticseye.com

It’s here.

The smart and nifty Bob Lenhard supports the presidential public funding system. Among other reasons:

… by many measures, the program has worked quite well. In presidential elections from 1976 until 2000, every major-party nominee chose to accept public financing, with its accompanying rules, in both the primary and general elections.

As one wag noted to me, if the test of an effective program is that people will take funding, then wouldn’t that mean pretty much any program is a demonstrated success? The DC revenue department? Someone took the money . . .

Lenhard continues . . .

Since 1976, six presidential elections have pitted incumbents against challengers; in those contests in which both accepted public financing, the challengers won half the time.

That may be, but would we predict that in th absence of public financing, Gerald Ford (1976) and Jimmy Carter (1980) would have won?

Yes, it is possible to have a calm and respectful panel discussion of voter fraud, election integrity, and election administration, as we proved yesterday at the Harvard Journal on Legislation’s Symposium.  The gentlemen on the campaign finance panel, however, had a rougher go of it.

Their exchange made me feel five years younger (at least)!  Which may say something about the finality potential (low) of poorly reasoned opinions.

Larry Gold (pictured here, ironically hosted by the CLC web page) former student of Hadley Arkes (yes, it’s true!) and all-around smart puppy, has posted this piece to the world via the Election Law Blog. Larry is a shy and demure type, and apparently reluctant to start a blog of his own.

Larry’s inquiry? Where, or where have the reforms groups gone? Will they speak up about McCain’s entanglement in the public funding program? Do the have a view about McCain’s relationship to lobbyists?

As if summoned by Zeus, we now read in the Hill that, yes, they do. Public Citizen, at least, wants the world to know that, however corrupting lobbyists might be, McCain himself is uncorruptable.

That’s a relief.

Don’t get me wrong - I think the allegation that campaign actors who are also registered lobbyists pose a problem is probably spurious, in a day and age where lobbyist registration is, for many people a precaution not (necessarily) a career. This reminds me of the “lobbyist as treasurer” kerfuffle from a while back. Some registered lobbyists are real inside baseball players, while others have occasional and isolated contact with the Hill or agencies. Unless you distinguish between the two, you aren’t saying anything interesting.

What does Public Citizen think about the expansive application of the “lobbyist” epithet? Hmmm.

Readers: I am presently engaged in an “information gathering exercise.” Below you will see an informal questionnaire. If you give money to political recipients, or work for them or for people who do, you probably have information I can use. Feel free to copy the survey text, answer the questions, and email it back to me.

Here it is:

Please complete as many of the following questions as you can. If you include your name, we will be able to follow up with you later. Your information will be kept confidential (I will see it, but no one else), and any reported results from this project will feature no names or other identifying information. Return your completed survey by email to Allison Hayward, GMU Law School, ahayward - at - gmu -dot - edu. If you need to mail it, send to 3301 Fairfax Dr. MS 1G3, Arlington, VA 22201.

1. Do you contribute money to federal candidate campaign, party and/or political committees?

Yes____ No _____

If yes, please answer A-G below (if no, proceed to #2 below):

A. Please indicate the amount of your total aggregate contributions to federal candidate campaign, party and/or political committees in the 2007-08 cycle so far.

Under $100___ $100 to $1,000 ____ $1,000 to $5,000____

$5,000 to $10,000 ____ Over $10,000 ___ Uncertain/Don’t Know _____

B. When making a contribution, do you consider whether it will, either by itself or added to other funds you have already contributed, exceed $200 to the recipient, and thus require the recipient to list your name, address, occupation and employer information on their FEC reports (if they have it)?

Yes_____ No_____ Uncertain/Don’t Know ____

C. Has the fact your personal information would be reported to the FEC ever caused you to contribute less (or more) that you otherwise would? Or does it make no difference?

Less ____ More ____ It depends (explain)

No Difference ____ Uncertain/Don’t Know ____

D. Have you ever purposefully chosen not to provide a federal political committee to which you contributed with your occupation and/or employer information?

Yes ____ No ____ Uncertain/Don’t Know _____

E. Have you ever reviewed FEC reports, or FEC material online, to see whether friends, acquaintances, or other individuals have made contributions, and/or to whom?

Yes ____ No ____ Uncertain/Don’t Know _____

F. Please add any additional comments here:

2. Have you made contributions to political organizations that are not federal (or state) committees but are exempt from income tax under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code (popularly known as “527s”)?

Yes _____ No _____ Uncertain/Don’t Know _____

If yes, answer A-D below; if no skip to #3 below:

A. When making a contribution, do you consider whether it will, either by itself or added to other funds you have already contributed, exceed $200 to the recipient, and thus require the recipient to list your personal identification information on their IRS reports?

Yes_____ No_____ Uncertain/Don’t Know ____

B. Has the fact your personal information would be reported to the IRS ever caused you to contribute less (or more) that you otherwise would? Or caused you to seek from the group their agreement to pay tax on the funds, in return for your identity remaining confidential? Or does it make no difference?

Less ____ More ____ It depends (explain)

Sought Anonymity/Group Pay Tax ____

No Difference ____ Uncertain/Don’t Know ____

C. Have you ever reviewed IRS reports, or IRS material reproduced online, to see whether friends, acquaintances, or other individuals have made contributions, and to whom?

Yes ____ No ____ Uncertain/Don’t Know _____

D. Please add any additional comments here:

3. As part of your occupation, do you work for or advise federal candidate campaign, party, or political committees?

Yes ____ No ____

If yes, please answer A-F below: (If no, please return as instructed at the top of the survey)

A. In the course of your work, have you prepared or assisted in preparing federal disclosure reports filed with the FEC?

Yes_____ No_____ Uncertain/Don’t Know ____

B. In the course of your work, have you prepared or assisted in preparing federal disclosure reports filed with the IRS?

Yes_____ No_____ Uncertain/Don’t Know ____

C. Have you observed instances where donors try to keep their contributions under $200 so as to remain free from itemized disclosure?

Yes_____ No_____ Uncertain/Don’t Know ____

D. Has a recipient asked you how a donor’s identity could be kept confidential?

Yes_____ No_____ Uncertain/Don’t Know ____

What was the reason(s) for seeking anonymity, if you know:

E. Has a donor asked you how his or her identity could be kept confidential?

Yes_____ No_____ Uncertain/Don’t Know ____

What was the reason(s) for seeking anonymity, if you know:

F. Please add any additional comments here:

(Optional) Please provide your name and email address

Parody site Scoop takes on spending limits.

Sinister news from, where else, New Jersey.

Of course, 527s can keep donors secret, too, if they are willing to pay tax.  And c4s can owe tax, too, in certain circumstances where they engage in 527-like activity,  And, at least as of now, the IRS is more interested in revenue than “transparency.” And that’s a good thing, too.

Another fine poetic offering from the most talented FOTS we are honored to know:

Kubla McKhain

(with apologies to Samuel Taylor Coleridge)

In Washington did Kubla McKhain
A stately campaign-finance law decree:
Where Potomac, the sacred river, ran
Through Capitol buildings measureless to man
Down to a sunless Chesapeake.

So twice five miles of bureaucratic ground
With lawyers and civil servants were girdled round:
And there were offices bright with those who lobby,
Where blossomed ideas that caused fierce fights
And here were protections that shouldn’t be wobbly,
Enfolded in amendments in the Bill of Rights.

But oh! Those deep rights to speak and petition did cost soft money
And Kubla McKhain in his incumbency did disdain the right
That created a wild marketplace! Of ideas and criticisms funny
As e’er beneath a national media market that shined too bright
A light on his and others’ doings in the Halls of Congress!
Electioneering communications caused turmoil seething
And the mention of his name led to rage and heavy breathing,
A mighty fountain of these Communications must be damned
And comments on congressional doings must be condemned,
Sharp fragments vaulted like rebounding hail,
In chatty ads beneath the attacker’s flail:
So mute these communications at once and ever
Stop those nonprofits quartered on the sacred river.
Five miles meandering with a mazy motion
Through Unions and Corporations the sacred river ran,
Then reached the Trade Associations measureless to man,
And sank in tumult to a lifeless ocean:
And ‘mid this tumult Kubla McKhain heard from far
The Reformers’ voices prophesying war!

The shadow of the campaign reforms
Floated midway on the waves;
Where was heard the critics’ storms
From Wertheimer in his raves.
It was a new Sedition Act to stem the tide,
A dark campaign-reform we were forced to abide!

A lawyer with a brief
At the Supreme Court I sought:
He was Bopp from Indiana,
And for WRTL he fought,
Arguing for the First Amendment.
Could he revive within our system
The symphony resplendent,
Of political speech, chaotic as it may be?
Would be a deep delight ‘twould win me,
That with Justices holding so loud and long,
We could rebuild our ancient rights, bar the FEC,
That great Constitution! The First Amendment!
And all who speak should know they are there,
And all should cry, Beware! Beware!
That McCain-Feingold law, those holier-than-thou Reformers!
Weave a brief round them thrice,
Bind them tight with Justice Robert’s thread,
For they on Pew-money hath been fed,
And drunk the fantasy of Election-Paradise.

From one of my more-gifted FOTS:

The Pirates of Campaign Reform (with due apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan)

I am the very model of a modern Reform-General,
I’ve campaign information that is topical and political,
I know the Senators of reform, and I quote the scandals historical,
From Watergate to Norman Hsu, in order categorical;

I think I’m well acquainted, too, with matters constitutional,
But misunderstand the Bill of Rights, the simple and amendable,
About the First Amendment I’m teeming with some narrow views,
With many cheerful facts about its unimportance in the news.

I’m very good at spinning and convincing the main Media,
I know the names of reporters many think are Foolish Id-ia:
In short, in campaign matters that are topical and political,
I am the very model of a modern Reform-General.

I know our mythic history, King Feingold’s and Sir Wertheimer’s;
I can answer softball questions, I know reporters’ deadline-rs,
I can quote ad nauseum the crimes of all the candidates,
On NPR I criticize their quests for money in the states;

I can tell undoubted Crooks from the other candidate spenders,
I know the croaking chorus from the Campaign Legal Center!
I can hum a violation when I’ve heard a complaint before,
And whistle up an editorial from the New York Times Pinafore.

I can write a campaign reform bill in legislative doublespeak,
Yet tell Democracy 21’s contributors the situation still looks bleak:
Please send us some more money so that I can raise my salary,
And send myself and Linda to the beach in style that none will see.

In short, in campaign matters that are topical and political,
I am the very model of a modern Reform-General.

In fact, when I know what is meant by “FECA” and “BCRA”,
When I can tell at sight a campaign scandal from some OKRA,
When such affairs as fund-raisers and other things are prohibited,
And when I know precisely what is meant by party “coordinated,”

When I have been successful in completely criminalizing politics,
When I have shorn elections from the money-sucking poli-ticks
In short, when I’ve smashed all First Amendment rights—
You’ll say a better Reform-General has never seen the lights!

For my political knowledge, because I’m close-minded and a snot,
I only see the polemical and not the freedom for which we fought,
But still, in campaign matters that are topical and political,
I am the very model of a modern Reform-General.

Insurance policies, that is.  You know, if this catches on, savvy insiders will start demanding that campaigns buy this stuff before signing on to help.  Campaigns will need to meet certain requirements to demonstrate they should be insured.

Market forces may succeed in imposing discipline and responsible behavior yet!  Who knew?