Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz

[johnkarls]

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


Question 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?

Answer 1

Don’t literacy and land ownership imply at least a modicum of wealth?

Question 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?

Answer 2

What do you think?

Question 3

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

Answer 3

The short answer is 12 out of 45.

The long answer is --

George Washington
James Monroe – attended college but did not graduate
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
William Henry Harrison – attended college but did not graduate
Zachary Taylor
Millard Filmore
Abraham Lincoln – despite being an attorney for which he apprenticed w/no college
Andrew Johnson
Grover Cleveland
William McKinley – attended college and law school but did not graduate from either
Harry Truman – attended business school and law school but did not graduate from either

Question 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?

Answer 4

The short answer is 3 institutions count more than 1 President among their undergraduate alumni -

Harvard –

John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Theodore Roosevelt
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
John F. Kennedy

United States Military Academy –

Ulysses S. Grant
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Yale –

William Howard Taft
George H.W. Bush
George W. Bush

So why is this so surprising???

FIRST, because Harvard always looks for ways to denigrate Yale.

And the Harvard Club of NYC, alone, had as many U.S. Presidents as club MEMBERS (both Roosevelts and JFK) as Yale College had as graduates.

AND SECONDLY, Harvard University has more U.S. Presidents among its graduate-degree holders as Yale –

Harvard Law School (Rutherford B. Hayes + Barack Obama) plus Harvard Business School (George W. Bush) vs.

Yale Law School (Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton).

Question 5

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

Answer 5

Yes and no.

Public financing with spending limits had been available since 1976 and had been used by both Republicans and Democrats in the general elections from 1976 to 2004.

Indeed, minor parties qualified for the financing in the general elections of 1980, 1996 and 2000.

And at least one minor party qualified for the financing in each of the Presidential Primary Elections every 4 years from 1984 through 2016.

It should be noted that the public financing for primary campaigns comprised MATCHING FUNDS, whereas public financing for general elections comprised SOLELY A GRANT REQUIRING RENUNCIATION OF ANY PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS.

The reason why the answer is “yes and no” is that BCRA or McCain-Feingold made substantial modifications in 2002 to the pre-existing public-finance legislation -- rather than comprising the sum total of public-finance legislation.

Question 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?

Answer 6

Yes.

And yes, it was that McConnell.

Question 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?

Answer 7

Yes.

Question 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 public financing of political campaigns by providing of financing equal to the amounts of private financing being raised by competitors (and, BTW, extend public financing to Senate & Congressional races)?

Answer 8

Yes.

Question 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?

Answer 9

Yes.

Question 10

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

Answer 10

Yes.

Question 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?

Answer 11

Yes and yes.

BTW, Black’s Law Dictionary notes that the term “felony” is feudal in origin and means giving up all of a person’s “fief” or property. But any history devotee knows that all “felonies” recognized under English “common law” were punishable by forfeiting one’s LIFE as well as one’s property.

Question 12

Do American politicians routinely engage in criminal fraud?

Answer 12

Of course!!!

Question 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”???

Answer 13

Of course!!!

Question 14

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

Answer 14

Unfortunately!!!

Question 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???

Answer 15

Of course!!!

Question 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”???

Answer 16

What do you think???

Question 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???

Answer 17

(A) Yes, the media uses “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 you think the media perpetrates and perpetuates the myth that voters simply want honesty, rather than crave honesty about substantive issues so they can make effective decisions???

Question 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!!!”

Answer 18

Unfortunately!!!

Question 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???

Answer 19

What do you think???

Question 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?

Answer 20

Yes.

Question 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)?

Answer 21

Yes.

Question 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?

Answer 22

Yes.

Question 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???

Answer 23

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Question 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?

Answer 24

Yes. Yes.

BTW, the Federal Election Commission has published an official chart showing examples of 2019-2020 limits (which are updated every 2 years for inflation) for 6 different kinds of donors and 5 different kinds of recipients -- it is available at https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-conte ... 9-2020.pdf.

Question 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)?

Answer 25

Yes.

Question 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”?

Answer 26

Yes.

Question 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”?

Answer 27

Yes.

Question 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”?

Answer 28

Yes. Yes.

Question 29

What is a “bundler”???

Answer 29

Please read on Q&A-31 and Q&A-32.

Question 30

What is a “bag man”???

Answer 30

Please read on Q&A-31 and Q&A-32.

Question 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???

Answer 31

Of course!!!

Question 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”???

Answer 32

Of course!!!

Question 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???

Answer 33

Under English-American common law, any citizen can make a “citizen’s arrest” for the breaking of any law.

[English law-enforcement officers since the Middle Ages wanted all the help they could get in apprehending miscreants.]

However, many states of the U.S. have curtailed or eliminated “citizen’s arrest” by statute.

Yours Truly is NOT aware “off the top of his head” of any state in the U.S. that permits a mere “citizen” to prosecute the transgressor after the “citizen” has arrested her/him -- but I didn’t have time to waste “chasing that rabbit”!!!

Question 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?

Answer 34

Please read on Q&A-35 through Q&A-39.

Question 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???

Answer 35

Of course not!!!

Question 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???

Answer 36

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 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???

Answer 37

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 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)???

Answer 38

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!

Question 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!!!]

Answer 39

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!


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

Question 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)?

Answer A

Yes.

Question 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???

Answer B

Unfortunately!!!

Question 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)???

Answer C

Unfortunately!!!

Question D

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

Answer D

Of course!!!

Question 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???

Answer E

Of course!!!

Question 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???

Answer F

Absolutely!!!

Question 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)???

Answer G

Yes.

Question 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???

Answer H

Yes.

Question 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???

Answer I

Yes.

Question 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???

Answer J

What do you think??? Let’s discuss!!!