November, 2010

Politics as the Friend of Campaign Finance Reform

by John Samples
The Conversation
November 30th, 2010

I would like to pursue Rick Hasen’s remarks on independent spending. He argues that independent spending can be corrupting. Consider the implication of his claim. Some independent spending funds ads calling for the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office. If such spending can corrupt, Congress can regulate it. Do we really want [...]

Read: Politics as the Friend of Campaign Finance Reform

The Corruption-Disclosure Connection

by Richard Hasen
The Conversation
November 22nd, 2010

Bruce Cain’s thoughtful recent post in this series on his semi-disclosure idea provides an opportunity for me to explain more fully the connection between disclosure rules and the prevention of corruption. Let’s start with an easy case, and work our way toward Bruce’s example. In 1995, Jude Wanniski wrote a New York Times op-ed in [...]

Read: The Corruption-Disclosure Connection

Disclosure and Corruption Revisited

by Bruce Cain
The Conversation
November 19th, 2010

Thanks to all the commentators for taking the time to read and react to my proposal. As John and I mostly agree on this issue, and since Nikki Willoughby chose to ignore my arguments on the merits, I will pick on my good friend and colleague Richard Hasen. First, as to the timing of my [...]

Read: Disclosure and Corruption Revisited

Speech for Me, but Not for Thee?

by John Samples
The Conversation
November 18th, 2010

Unlike Bruce Cain and Richard Hasen, Nikki Willoughby does not offer a serious exploration of campaign finance issues. Instead she offers what amounts to a rant, heavy on “us vs. them” and light on analysis and knowledge of constitutional doctrine. Nonetheless, her essay merits close attention. Consider first Willoughby’s proposition that “Anyone who has a [...]

Read: Speech for Me, but Not for Thee?

A Semi-Objection to Bruce Cain’s Semi-Case for Semi-Disclosure

by Richard Hasen
Reaction Essay
November 15th, 2010

Richard Hasen offers some objections to Cain’s case for semi-disclosure. Cain’s plan doesn’t seem to appreciate sufficiently the benefits of disclosure; whereas public disclosure and analysis by independent watchdog groups can provide fairly sophisticated monitoring of campaign finance data, we shouldn’t expect the government to provide all the details about patterns of campaign contributions that we might desire. Further, he finds little benefit to demographic data about campaign finance shorn of names and public identities of major contributors.

Read: A Semi-Objection to Bruce Cain’s Semi-Case for Semi-Disclosure

DISCLOSE Act Is an Opening, Not a Barrier

by Nikki Willoughby
Reaction Essay
November 12th, 2010

In her response essay, Nikki Willoughby argues that anyone who opposes full disclosure of donors’ identities probably has something to hide. Spending money isn’t speech; it’s a commercial transaction, and thus regulable under our law. Moreover, even if campaign finance were a matter of speech, some speech always has been subject to regulation, including slander, libel, and speech that incites imminent acts of violence. We should likewise regulate speech that imminently threatens our democracy, by mandating that sources of such speech are disclosed. Secrecy destroys trust in government, driving citizens away from political participation. Openness wouldn’t chill participation — openness would encourage it.

Read: DISCLOSE Act Is an Opening, Not a Barrier

The Costs of Mandating Disclosure

by John Samples
Reaction Essay
November 10th, 2010

In his response essay, John Samples notes that disclosure discourages people from participating in the political process. When someone decides not to do something, that decision is all but invisible to researchers who might wish to study it. Disclosure also shifts attention from the content of speech to the identity of the speaker, which is not necessarily the best basis for decisionmaking. The paternalism of disclosure is also a problem, as he sees it: the government appears to be trying to keep you from hurting yourself, even if you decline to fulfill your responsibilities as a citizen by examining the issues on their merits.

Read: The Costs of Mandating Disclosure

Shade from the Glare: The Case for Semi-Disclosure

by Bruce Cain
Lead Essay
November 8th, 2010

Bruce Cain’s lead essay calls for a compromise on campaign finance disclosure. We want many things from our election law, he notes — the freedom to speak, a process that both is and appears to be just, a well-informed electorate, and protection for the holders of controversial opinions. Cain suggests semi-disclosure as a good way to get most of what we want. He advocates “the full reporting but only partial disclosure of campaign donor information.” Semi-disclosure of the type Cain suggests is already used in the release of census data, where individual privacy is respected even while demographers gain valuable information from the aggregate. Giving voters information about campaign contributions without giving them donors’ names would allow voters to consider the nature of a candidate’s or a measure’s supporters while shielding those supporters from personal attack, Cain argues.

Read: Shade from the Glare: The Case for Semi-Disclosure