Comments on: Dumb Idea of the Day: Escrow Campaign Finance http://www.samefacts.com/2010/03/corruption-in-washington/dumb-idea-of-the-day-escrow-campaign-finance/ Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:54:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: paul http://www.samefacts.com/2010/03/corruption-in-washington/dumb-idea-of-the-day-escrow-campaign-finance/comment-page-1/#comment-38879 paul Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:17:32 +0000 http://www.samefacts.com/?p=10713#comment-38879 I think it could be done with the right wording. And with the appropriate level of trust between donors and the administrators of the account. There's a similar situation with the tax status of certain trusts set up to fund the educational and other expenses of sprogs of wealthy families: if the trustee is instructed to make payments to the sprogs at particular times and in particular amounts, then they payments are income to the sprog and taxable as such. If the money is doled out at discretion, then the money (while still income to the trust) is colorably a gift to the sprog. PACs and big donor/aggregators get away from the bribery rule by making the connection between contributions and particular votes implicit, or at least not in the form of a written or verbal contract. "This legislation is very important to us. It would be goo/bad for our industry. Our PAC has raised $X so far." Aggregators for smaller contributors simply need to do the same kinds of things. There is an agency problem, of course, but even in an escrow system you have that, because someone has to do the paperwork. I think it could be done with the right wording. And with the appropriate level of trust between donors and the administrators of the account. There’s a similar situation with the tax status of certain trusts set up to fund the educational and other expenses of sprogs of wealthy families: if the trustee is instructed to make payments to the sprogs at particular times and in particular amounts, then they payments are income to the sprog and taxable as such. If the money is doled out at discretion, then the money (while still income to the trust) is colorably a gift to the sprog.

PACs and big donor/aggregators get away from the bribery rule by making the connection between contributions and particular votes implicit, or at least not in the form of a written or verbal contract. “This legislation is very important to us. It would be goo/bad for our industry. Our PAC has raised $X so far.” Aggregators for smaller contributors simply need to do the same kinds of things. There is an agency problem, of course, but even in an escrow system you have that, because someone has to do the paperwork.

]]> By: SamChevre http://www.samefacts.com/2010/03/corruption-in-washington/dumb-idea-of-the-day-escrow-campaign-finance/comment-page-1/#comment-38875 SamChevre Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:04:31 +0000 http://www.samefacts.com/?p=10713#comment-38875 Isn't there also (in one of those distinction-without-a-difference rules) a law against conditioning donations explicitly on legislative acts? Isn’t there also (in one of those distinction-without-a-difference rules) a law against conditioning donations explicitly on legislative acts?

]]> By: Brett Bellmore http://www.samefacts.com/2010/03/corruption-in-washington/dumb-idea-of-the-day-escrow-campaign-finance/comment-page-1/#comment-38873 Brett Bellmore Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:34:10 +0000 http://www.samefacts.com/?p=10713#comment-38873 I'm pretty sure there are campaign law problems: If you're asked to deliver somebody else's campaign donation, and do anything except reliably and promptly proceed to do so, you're considered to have received the money yourself, and if you subsequently deliver it to the candidate, YOU would be considered the donor. That's what I would suspect the hitch would be. I’m pretty sure there are campaign law problems: If you’re asked to deliver somebody else’s campaign donation, and do anything except reliably and promptly proceed to do so, you’re considered to have received the money yourself, and if you subsequently deliver it to the candidate, YOU would be considered the donor. That’s what I would suspect the hitch would be.

]]> By: Andrew Sabl http://www.samefacts.com/2010/03/corruption-in-washington/dumb-idea-of-the-day-escrow-campaign-finance/comment-page-1/#comment-38848 Andrew Sabl Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:49:46 +0000 http://www.samefacts.com/?p=10713#comment-38848 It's not a dumb but a great idea--by which I mean one that somebody else and I already thought of and considered trying to set up on a free-lance basis a few weeks ago, though on reflection it's of course much easier if an established group does it. My friend and I thought of two variables: —escrow accounts for money alone, or for both money and volunteer time? The organizing model would suggest that the latter is just as important. —carrots only, or also sticks? That is: merely hold up money until the targets vote your way, or also threaten to fund primary challengers if they don't? Moveon.org is already taking pledges for the money/stick version at http://pol.moveon.org/hc_house_fund/survey.html/?rc=homepage But there's one problem: they're not taking credit card numbers, merely pledges on an honor system. So it's not a true escrow account, since pledges not backed by cash are cheap. Maybe there's a reason they're doing it this way (campaign finance laws?). But a true escrow scheme, if workable, would be more effective. It’s not a dumb but a great idea–by which I mean one that somebody else and I already thought of and considered trying to set up on a free-lance basis a few weeks ago, though on reflection it’s of course much easier if an established group does it.

My friend and I thought of two variables:
—escrow accounts for money alone, or for both money and volunteer time? The organizing model would suggest that the latter is just as important.
—carrots only, or also sticks? That is: merely hold up money until the targets vote your way, or also threaten to fund primary challengers if they don’t?

Moveon.org is already taking pledges for the money/stick version at http://pol.moveon.org/hc_house_fund/survey.html/?rc=homepage

But there’s one problem: they’re not taking credit card numbers, merely pledges on an honor system. So it’s not a true escrow account, since pledges not backed by cash are cheap.

Maybe there’s a reason they’re doing it this way (campaign finance laws?). But a true escrow scheme, if workable, would be more effective.

]]>