Short Quiz – Money in Politics

[johnkarls]

.
Short Quiz – Money in Politics: Michael Bloomberg & Tom Steyer, et al.


Question Zero --

In order to get everyone thinking, here is an UNRELATED BUT AMUSING question --

Are the news media WRONG once again, this time by claiming that AOC can NOT be Bernie Sanders’ running mate in 2020 because, since she was born 10/13/1989, she will NOT be 35 years of age on Inauguration Day 1/20/2021?

[Hint for “cheaters” who want to “past post” the rest of us by researching -- please Google Henry Kissinger’s campaign to be elected Vice President in 1976 despite not being born a U.S. citizen.]


NOW DOWN TO BUSINESS!!!

1. Did our Founding Fathers (women did not have the right to vote until ratification of the 19th Amendment on 8/18/1920 whose 100th Anniversary is coming up this summer) want “money out of politics” since they typically limited the right to vote to landowners who were literate?

2. Even if our Founding Fathers wanted “money” NOT to be a hurdle for candidates (vs. voters), isn’t college graduation a significant “money” hurdle since it strongly implies loving parents of means?

3. BTW, how many of our U.S. Presidents did NOT graduate from college?

4. How many, and which, institutions of “higher learning” are able to boast (honestly) more than one U.S. President as holding one of their undergraduate degrees? Why is the answer to this question so surprising?

5. Did the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 impose overall spending limits on Presidential campaigns?

6. Did the U.S. Supreme Court in McConnell vs. Federal Election Commission (2003) uphold McCain-Feingold in all important respects because its spending limits were optional – candidates could accept public financing if they renounced private financing? BTW, was the McConnell in that law suit the Senate Republican Whip who has since become Senate Majority Leader?

7. Before the 2008 campaign progressed very far, did Candidate Barack Obama famously announce that he would violate his pledge and accept campaign contributions instead of public financing?

8. Did our organization adopt a Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaign on 5/16/2018 to Sen. McCain imploring him to lead a campaign to resurrect and reinvigorate McCain-Feingold by providing levels of financing equal to the amounts of private financing being raised by competitors (and, BTW, extend McCain-Feingold to Senate & Congressional races)?

9. And did our e-mail campaign to Sen. McCain point out that ultimate success could result from the ability of his daughter, Meghan, as Co-Host of ABC’s “The View” (with, hopefully, support from her Co-Hosts who are presumably patriotic) to marshal public opinion for as long as it takes?

10. Is criminal fraud one of the felonies under English Common-Law?

11. Did “felony” under English/American Common-Law (vs. statutory modifications by various states of the U.S.) mean any crime punishable by death? And did “misdemeanor” mean any crime whose maximum punishment did not include death?

12. Do American politicians routinely engage in criminal fraud?

13. Is the reason why American pols routinely engage in criminal fraud “money in politics” -- that they finance their campaigns from private donors to whom the politicians “sell their souls”???

14. Do the courts interpret the criminal law of corruption as requiring a politician to explicitly agree to a “quid pro quo”???

15. Is this test absolutely silly because every pol knows that s/he can betray voters with de facto impunity, whereas s/he can NOT betray a campaign contributor despite the lack of a legally-enforceable (“quid pro quo”) contract because betrayal of a campaign contributor means s/he will NEVER AGAIN be able to raise a penny from serious campaign contributors???

16. So why don’t public prosecutors want to bring criminal charges against their bosses for criminal FRAUD if they know charges for criminal CORRUPTION are “whistling Dixie”???

17. Today’s media likes to rhapsodize about how they claim the American public has come to prize “authenticity” which seems to be limited to Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders -- (A) Do they use “authenticity” as a euphemism for “honesty” because the media are too embarrassed to admit that virtually all pols are dishonest, at least toward their voters??? (B) Why do the media perpetrate and perpetuate the myth that voters simply want honesty, rather than crave honesty about substantive issues so they can make effective decisions???

18. After all, before Messrs. Trump and Sanders, wasn’t the STANDARD POLITICAL JOKE – “How can you tell when a pol is lying”??? To which the answer was – “When they are moving their lips!!!”

19. BTW isn’t this the reason why the Mainstream Media (and “Never Trumpers”) have perpetrated and perpetuated the narrative that President Trump is a liar???

20. Did the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission (2010) hold that “Freedom of Speech” extends to juridical entities (specifically corporations and labor unions as were involved in that case) so that they can make political contributions?

21. If the U.S. Supreme Court had been honest (rather than viewing itself as an unelected legislative body), would they have decided Citizens United with a one-sentence opinion saying the issue had already been decided in NAACP vs. Button (U.S. Supreme Court 1963)?

22. When faced for the first time by the question whether a particular constitutional right applies only to human beings or extends to juridical entities, does the U.S. Supreme Court feel empowered as an unelected legislative body to go either way depending on the result it wants to achieve in the particular case before it?

23. Prior to 1963, had the NAACP in violation of the law of virtually every state against attorneys advertising for clients, been advertising for African-American individuals who had been treated illegally to step forward and permit the NAACP to provide them with legal representation? Did the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decide that it liked the civil rights movement and, therefore, that those state laws were an unconstitutional infringement of “Free Speech”? Which BTW meant that the U.S. Supreme Court was holding that “Free Speech” extended to JURIDICAL ENTITES such as the NAACP???

24. Does the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 impose various limits on campaign contributions such as $2,800 per election per candidate by a “person” (which includes juridical entities)? And such as $35,500 per calendar year by a “person” to national party committees?

25. In Buckley vs. Valeo (1976), did the U.S. Supreme Court HOLD that SOME of FECA’s campaign-contribution limits do NOT impermissibly limit “Freedom of Speech” (which Law School 101 has always taught does NOT entail the right to shout “fire” in a crowded theater)?

26. Did Buckley vs. Valeo HOLD that SOME of FECA’s limits were permissible because “Congress may regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption”?

27. Did Buckely vs. Valeo ALSO HOLD that SOME of FECA’s limits were NOT permissible because Congress “may not, however, regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others”?

28. Did the U.S. Supreme court 38 years later in McCutchen vs. Federal Election Commission (2014) distinguish between so-called “base limits” approved in Buckley vs. Valeo and so-called “aggregate limits”??? In other words, did the Court hold that the “base limit” of $2,800 per “person” per candidate per election is OK in order to prevent corruption or its appearance, BUT HOLD THAT AN “AGGREGATE LIMIT” prohibiting a “person” from contributing $2,800 to each of a ZILLION different candidates DOES VIOLATE “Freedom of Speech”?

29. What is a “bundler”???

30. What is a “bag man”???

31. If serious campaign contributors want to bribe a pol, is it “child’s play” for them to inquire who the “bundler” or “bag man” is for that particular issue vis-à-vis which they want to bribe the pol so that a sufficient amount of “contributions” (aka, bribes) can be “bundled” to bribe the pol without violating campaign-contribution limits???

32. And, as previously mentioned, is it “child’s play” for the pols and the “bundlers” (“bag men”) representing the contributors to avoid a legally-enforceable contract (which is what “quid pro quo” or “bargained-for consideration” means) because both the pol and the “contributors” know the pol will never receive another “contribution” if the pol “double crosses” her/his “contributors”???

33. Since public prosecutors won’t prosecute their bosses (the pols) for criminal fraud which, unlike criminal corruption, should be a “slam dunk” legal case, can any citizen make a “citizen’s arrest”??? Following a “citizen’s arrest,” can the citizen prosecute the case or must the case be turned over to public prosecutors???

34. Can “money be taken out of politics” -- or at least pols be forced TO REFRAIN FROM CRIMINAL FRAUD OF VOTERS – without a constitutional amendment?

35. In other words, would it take a constitutional amendment to lobby for a law appointing a public prosecutor with jurisdiction over prosecuting pols for criminal fraud of voters???

36. And wouldn’t enactment of such a law be hard for pols to kill because, after all, voters are aware that virtually every federal agency has an “Inspector General” and those posts were created by mere statutes???

37. So wouldn’t voters be likely to join a crusade to create by statute a “Public Prosecutor” with jurisdiction over criminal fraud by pols against voters???

38. On another tack, wouldn’t it be possible to test the conventional wisdom that SELF-FINANCE cannot be restricted by statute SIMPLY BECAUSE it is NOT currently restricted in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (even though we know from the Michael Cohen - Stormy Daniels imbroglio that SELF-FINANCE is subject to REPORTING requirements WHICH ONLY APPLY, under the FEC’s “dual purpose” rule, to expenditures that are SOLELY motivated by campaign considerations (rather than ALSO motivated by non-campaign considerations such as domestic tranquility which are NOT, then, campaign contributions even though there was also a campaign motive)???

39. In other words, isn’t there a limit to a BILLIONAIRE having his minions buy up all available advertising “from now until Kingdom come” so that anyone who wants to challenge her/him has to travel the country with nothing but a bull horn??? [This would be a fantastic question for a final law-school exam even if the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to consider it!!!]

********************
EXTRA-CREDIT QUESTIONS

A. Have we studied the foregoing issues in the past, such as for our 4/20/2016 meeting which focused on “Dark Money” (Doubleday - 3/21/2016)?

B. Each time we have studied campaign finance, have we always found that “campaign contributions” are just as likely to be EXTORTION BY THE POLS as bribery of the pols???

C. In other words, don’t pols love to PRESERVE HONEYPOTS that they can threaten to eliminate if the beneficiaries of the “honeypots” don’t fork over “campaign contributions” (aka extortion payments)???

D. Isn’t one of the most notorious “honeypots” so-called “carried interests”???

E. Isn’t a “carried interest” simply a RUSE pursuant to which, for example, a hedge-fund manager takes her/his compensation in the form of a “partnership interest” in the hedge fund where the “carried” partnership interest of the manager begins with NO CAPITAL ACCOUNT but a HEFTY profit percentage – enabling the hedge-fund manager to convert ordinary compensation to capital gains upon sale of pieces of the “carried” partnership interest after s/he has earned hefty profits for the fund???

F. In considering this EXTORTION BY POLS, didn’t two of our 4/20/2016 participants who were NYC partners in one of the world’s “Big Four” CPA Firms opine that it would be MALPRACTICE for the tax advisors of HOLLYWOOD STARS to permit them to accept their compensation in any form OTHER THAN “carried interests” entitling them to long-term capital-gain treatment for their income from making movies???

G. After all, don’t Hollywood stars take a percentage of gross profits (NB: historical “carried interests” pre-dated the federal income tax in the oil patch and comprised “earning an interest” in a potential but unproven oil & gas reservoir by drilling and such interests were “net profits interests” or, in other words, royalties or, in other words, a portion of gross profits)???

H. And doesn’t every Hollywood star’s “Filmography” per IMDb.com show NOT ONLY her/his historical movies BUT ALSO her/his future movies -- presumably so that the “partnerships” for which s/he will earn a “carried interest” in those future movies will have enough time to age so that the Hollywood star can claim LONG-TERM capital gains treatment for her/his compensation???

I. For example, does the IMDb.com “Filmography” for Tom Cruise currently list NOT ONLY 44 historical movies BUT ALSO (1) “Top Gun: Maverick” for release in 2020 but announced long ago, (2) “Live Die Repeat and Repeat” which is rumored to be in pre-production but was announced long ago, (3) “Mission Impossible 7” for release in 2021 but announced long ago, (4) “Mission Impossible 8” for release in 2022 but announced long ago, and (5) “Luna Park” whose release date has not even been set but was announced some time ago???

J. So why does anyone think that hedge-fund managers or Hollywood stars really support liberal pols when they may be merely submitting to extortion by those pols???