Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Limits on Federal Campaign Contributions(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Limits on Federal Campaign Contributions
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html
86 comments
Anyone that wants to hack this system of corruption, should join Lawrence Lessig (Aaron Swartz)'s cause:
http://www.nhrebellion.org/
http://www.nhrebellion.org/
As a law-talking-guy, I can say: this is really, really bad. It's really unusual to see such a split (4-1-4) in such an important decision, and it's tough to say for sure what the law actually is now. One thing that's clear: this doesn't bode well for American democracy UNLESS the legislature takes the clear signal the Court appears to be trying to send and crafts new law to fix the problems this decision creates.
The signal the Court appears to be trying to send is "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". It's not a new message, and not new that Congress is inclined to abridge it.
Corporations enjoy a legalized fiction as persons, but I don't think their role as citizens has been questioned enough. Non-citizen natural persons aren't allowed to make political donations. Should international corporations who funnel their profits to offshore entities be treated as persons as well as having the speech protections of citizens?
Citizens, by birth or going through the effort of naturalization have a bond to their nation. And so we trust that collectively, the political speech from those citizens serves the long term interests of the nation. Corporations have no such bond, so an essential element that is provided with live citizens is missing.
Citizens, by birth or going through the effort of naturalization have a bond to their nation. And so we trust that collectively, the political speech from those citizens serves the long term interests of the nation. Corporations have no such bond, so an essential element that is provided with live citizens is missing.
Money is not speech.
No, but many useful, protected forms of speech and the press require money. Congress couldn't constitutionally shut down the New York Times by making it illegal for them to purchase ink.
Paper is not speech too. Radiowaves is not speech. Electrons is not speech. IP addresses are not speech. Speech is an abstraction, which is realized with material means - including, yes, money. If you ban technical means with which speech is achieved - including banning using paper, or ink, or IP addresses, or money to achieve speech - you are infringing freedom of speech. If you have theoretical right to speak, but are prohibited from spending any money on it, you right remains only theory and can not effectively be realized, and as such worth nothing. If you're allowed to publish your views but aren't allowed to pay for an ad - what use it is, who's going to read it? Limits on spending on speech is effectively limits on speech, plain and simple.
I would love to think that way as well, but it looks like most justices (not just the majority) do agree that there is a free speech issue at play here (without saying "money is speech", however). Reading the majority opinion and Breyer's dissent ("collective good should overrule free speech"), I'm inclined to agree with majority as in the current political climate the alternative is much scarier.
It's worth noting, that while Breyer is often considered a liberal, he has also dissented (with similar logic) in favour of upholding a ban on violent videogames: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchant...
Additionally, ACLU did file an amicus brief in Citizens United case (although the law in question was much more unambigious restriction of speech) in favour of Citizens United and while they did not do so in this case, there does seem to be an internal split on the matter:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/the-aclu-the-mccutcheon-ca...
An analogous situation may be access to abortion: opening an abortion cleaning is not the same as getting an actual abortion, but restricting the clinics severely curtail the options available to women (I can't find the citation now, but this was the logic used in a recent decision in a federal court about an AZ law). Keep in mind that abortion is a non-enumerated right, in theory enumerated rights like free speech are held to even tighter standards.
Ezel vs. Chicago (also from a district court, but drawing on SCOTUS precedents) is also similar: while the right to open a shooting range is not equivalent to the right to bear arms, the court ruled that since a Chicago requires range practice in order to receive a firearm license, the city must allow ranges within its limits. So far there isn't a clear scrutiny standard set for the second amendment, but it seems to be converging on "heightened scrutiny" which (again) is less than the strict scrutiny standard applied to the first.
Don't get me wrong, I am not happy about money in politics, but I am not willing to jeopardize the right to free speech (or general way individual vs. collective equation is evaluated in regards to constitutional rights) to fight it.
It's worth noting, that while Breyer is often considered a liberal, he has also dissented (with similar logic) in favour of upholding a ban on violent videogames: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchant...
Additionally, ACLU did file an amicus brief in Citizens United case (although the law in question was much more unambigious restriction of speech) in favour of Citizens United and while they did not do so in this case, there does seem to be an internal split on the matter:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/the-aclu-the-mccutcheon-ca...
An analogous situation may be access to abortion: opening an abortion cleaning is not the same as getting an actual abortion, but restricting the clinics severely curtail the options available to women (I can't find the citation now, but this was the logic used in a recent decision in a federal court about an AZ law). Keep in mind that abortion is a non-enumerated right, in theory enumerated rights like free speech are held to even tighter standards.
Ezel vs. Chicago (also from a district court, but drawing on SCOTUS precedents) is also similar: while the right to open a shooting range is not equivalent to the right to bear arms, the court ruled that since a Chicago requires range practice in order to receive a firearm license, the city must allow ranges within its limits. So far there isn't a clear scrutiny standard set for the second amendment, but it seems to be converging on "heightened scrutiny" which (again) is less than the strict scrutiny standard applied to the first.
Don't get me wrong, I am not happy about money in politics, but I am not willing to jeopardize the right to free speech (or general way individual vs. collective equation is evaluated in regards to constitutional rights) to fight it.
Correct. Money is commerce. While it is true that people have as much freedom to engage in commerce as they have to speak, candidates for public office do not.
I can offer a candidate as much money as I please, as is my right, but in the interest of providing equal protection under the law to the voters, the public may choose to prevent the candidate from accepting more than a certain amount from a single source.
Campaign contributions limits are not restrictions upon the rights of the public; they are restrictions upon the privilege of representing other people as part of the government. If you wish to retain your unlimited ability to speak as a private individual, do not enter the public sector.
The same principle, applied by the courts elsewhere, would also strike down laws preventing public servants from engaging in certain forms of political activity. After all, they have freedom of speech as well, don't they?
I think that the most likely and most damaging response to this will be a decreasing engagement by career politicians with near-the-median people and increasing engagement with wealthy patrons. The interests represented will shift accordingly.
I can offer a candidate as much money as I please, as is my right, but in the interest of providing equal protection under the law to the voters, the public may choose to prevent the candidate from accepting more than a certain amount from a single source.
Campaign contributions limits are not restrictions upon the rights of the public; they are restrictions upon the privilege of representing other people as part of the government. If you wish to retain your unlimited ability to speak as a private individual, do not enter the public sector.
The same principle, applied by the courts elsewhere, would also strike down laws preventing public servants from engaging in certain forms of political activity. After all, they have freedom of speech as well, don't they?
I think that the most likely and most damaging response to this will be a decreasing engagement by career politicians with near-the-median people and increasing engagement with wealthy patrons. The interests represented will shift accordingly.
You're looking at it wrong. Nobody gives the candidate a suitcase packed with dollar bills, not usually anyhow. The money is spent on ads, materials, events, etc. Now, if I spend money on expressing my point of view that X is true, and the candidate Y happens to make the point that X is true centerpiece of his campaign, can you prohibit me from expressing my point of view? I never gave a dime to Y, I may not even have met Y once, but we happen to agree on point X. That is the question which Supreme Court is deciding - can my freedom of speech be restricted if it benefits some politician? I say if you value your freedom of speech, you can answer anything but "NO!". Otherwise, you'd be able only speak about nonsense things like celebrity gossip and lolcats - as soon as you get to serious things, there would be a politician whose view aligns with yours or is opposite to yours, and as soon as that happens, your speech would be either contributing to her campaign or to her opponent's, and you'll be banned from speaking on the grounds of the limits to campaign contributions.
>>> would also strike down laws preventing public servants from engaging in certain forms of political activity
This is not the same. While everybody has right to free speech, nobody has right to be a public servant. So once the person resigns from his public servant position, she has full right to speak her mind. But while occupying that position, certain restrictions - taken voluntarily as condition for this assignment - may apply as long as you want to keep that position. You have the full right to make face tattoos and avoid bathing, but if you join customer service in a bank, they may not accept you unless you look and smell in a way that don't make their clients faint. And if you are being appointed the head of the IRS, it's better that you avoid political campaigning as long as you are in that post. Not that it is easy to achieve, as it turns out, but we should at least try. When we are employed, we give up certain freedoms - freedom to choose where we are, what we do, what we say, to some measure, etc. - in exchange for money. Not all employment requires this, but some do, and it's nothing out for the ordinary. We are not employees of the Congress, however - on the contrary, the Congress are employees of the citizens.
>>> would also strike down laws preventing public servants from engaging in certain forms of political activity
This is not the same. While everybody has right to free speech, nobody has right to be a public servant. So once the person resigns from his public servant position, she has full right to speak her mind. But while occupying that position, certain restrictions - taken voluntarily as condition for this assignment - may apply as long as you want to keep that position. You have the full right to make face tattoos and avoid bathing, but if you join customer service in a bank, they may not accept you unless you look and smell in a way that don't make their clients faint. And if you are being appointed the head of the IRS, it's better that you avoid political campaigning as long as you are in that post. Not that it is easy to achieve, as it turns out, but we should at least try. When we are employed, we give up certain freedoms - freedom to choose where we are, what we do, what we say, to some measure, etc. - in exchange for money. Not all employment requires this, but some do, and it's nothing out for the ordinary. We are not employees of the Congress, however - on the contrary, the Congress are employees of the citizens.
If you are referring to in-kind donations, elections laws require that such donations be treated as though the donor wrote the candidate a check, and the candidate endorsed it right back over to them in exchange for the goods and services actually rendered.
Direct support to a campaign and political advocacy are two different things. This is why I can believe that the Citizens United case was not completely ridiculous, and that this one is beyond reason. Your right to free speech ends at the tip of your own tongue. If you give your words to someone else, he might not be able to speak them.
In the same way, if you give control of some money to someone else, they will be the ones responsible for how it gets spent, not you. They may be under different contractual and legal obligations.
As is the case for people seeking public office. They must follow rules that ordinary people will probably never even need to know.
Direct support to a campaign and political advocacy are two different things. This is why I can believe that the Citizens United case was not completely ridiculous, and that this one is beyond reason. Your right to free speech ends at the tip of your own tongue. If you give your words to someone else, he might not be able to speak them.
In the same way, if you give control of some money to someone else, they will be the ones responsible for how it gets spent, not you. They may be under different contractual and legal obligations.
As is the case for people seeking public office. They must follow rules that ordinary people will probably never even need to know.
>>> Direct support to a campaign and political advocacy are two different things.
No, not really. Giving candidate the money to buy ads and directly buying ads is essentially the same thing from any aspect that may interest us.
>>> Your right to free speech ends at the tip of your own tongue.
This is obviously false. If that were true, we could not have free press, or free TV, or any electronic or paper media. What we would have is what people in USSR had - they were free to talk about politics in their own kitchen, but once they said anything in public or tried any political action, they were suppressed. This is not freedom, this is a mockery of it. And Founding Fathers clearly never intended to treat freedom of speech that narrow - as a freedom to produce any sounds you like with your throat and tongue. For a functioning democracy, much broader freedoms - freedoms to publish your opinion as widely as you can and engage in discussion with as many people as you can, and exercise any political actions you can (excluding violence and other rights violations, of course) - are absolutely necessary.
>>> if you give control of some money to someone else, they will be the ones responsible for how it gets spent, not you
This is false, too. If you give somebody money and say "I want you to hire a killer to murder this guy", you both would be part of criminal conspiracy. That's how mafia bosses get jailed.
>>> As is the case for people seeking public office. They must follow rules that ordinary people will probably never even need to know.
People seeking office have same rights as everybody else - because they are everybody else. Any citizen can seek office and has right to do so. When in the office, they have to accept certain limits that come with the job, but when seeking office they are not under any obligation yet, and have absolutely equal rights with any random citizen. All those "campaign finance" laws are just a futile populistic attempt to control political discourse, and Supreme Court is routinely shutting them down as infringing people's liberties, and rightfully so.
No, not really. Giving candidate the money to buy ads and directly buying ads is essentially the same thing from any aspect that may interest us.
>>> Your right to free speech ends at the tip of your own tongue.
This is obviously false. If that were true, we could not have free press, or free TV, or any electronic or paper media. What we would have is what people in USSR had - they were free to talk about politics in their own kitchen, but once they said anything in public or tried any political action, they were suppressed. This is not freedom, this is a mockery of it. And Founding Fathers clearly never intended to treat freedom of speech that narrow - as a freedom to produce any sounds you like with your throat and tongue. For a functioning democracy, much broader freedoms - freedoms to publish your opinion as widely as you can and engage in discussion with as many people as you can, and exercise any political actions you can (excluding violence and other rights violations, of course) - are absolutely necessary.
>>> if you give control of some money to someone else, they will be the ones responsible for how it gets spent, not you
This is false, too. If you give somebody money and say "I want you to hire a killer to murder this guy", you both would be part of criminal conspiracy. That's how mafia bosses get jailed.
>>> As is the case for people seeking public office. They must follow rules that ordinary people will probably never even need to know.
People seeking office have same rights as everybody else - because they are everybody else. Any citizen can seek office and has right to do so. When in the office, they have to accept certain limits that come with the job, but when seeking office they are not under any obligation yet, and have absolutely equal rights with any random citizen. All those "campaign finance" laws are just a futile populistic attempt to control political discourse, and Supreme Court is routinely shutting them down as infringing people's liberties, and rightfully so.
I am not able to comprehend the confusion of ideas required to formulate such opinions.
Just from what I see here, there are contradictions. Political candidates are at once both ventriloquist dummies and freewilled adults. Donors are potentially liable for fraudulent campaigning. Challengers and incumbents should play by a different set of rules.
I'm sure that we both consider ourselves fortunate that the other is not a Supreme Court Justice.
Just from what I see here, there are contradictions. Political candidates are at once both ventriloquist dummies and freewilled adults. Donors are potentially liable for fraudulent campaigning. Challengers and incumbents should play by a different set of rules.
I'm sure that we both consider ourselves fortunate that the other is not a Supreme Court Justice.
Speaking to more than a few people requires money.
You have a right to speech. You DO NOT have a right to be heard.
You have a right to speak to those who choose to hear you (to wit: not be punished for doing so). That is the point of the ruling in question: Citizens United made a film (acknowledged by the court as none other than a 90 minute campaign commercial directed at a particular candidate) and accepted money to "speak" (via pay-per-view, prepaid by corporate supporters) to those who made a deliberate and positive effort to listen; current law forbade them from doing so, and there was no other way to allow it while preserving the bulk of the abridging law without instilling a "chilling effect" on other lawful political speech (which would be deemed so by voluminous case-by-case analysis, there being no bright line).
So is it OK for Congress to ban New York Times from distributing their paper? After all, they still can speak as much as they want, and if you want to listen to them you can come to their office or to their homes and listen, and nobody has right to be heard beyond that?
Haven't you ever heard the phrase: Money talks, bulls--t walks?
Money is the ONLY speech heard by career politicians
Money is the ONLY speech heard by career politicians
This is the kind of knee jerk panic comment I expect to find in the comments section of NYT, not voted up on HN.
Why is this "really, really bad?" You talk about how bad this is with a bunch of FUD language about how this is a threat to democracy and there are a bunch of problems with this decision but you never actually explain why.
I don't necessarily approach this as the worst thing that has ever happened, and not everyone here does either, so it might help to explain something you seem to assume everyone knows.
Why is this "really, really bad?" You talk about how bad this is with a bunch of FUD language about how this is a threat to democracy and there are a bunch of problems with this decision but you never actually explain why.
I don't necessarily approach this as the worst thing that has ever happened, and not everyone here does either, so it might help to explain something you seem to assume everyone knows.
Please amend the headline# to the actual one:
Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Limits on Federal Campaign Contributions
So, at the end of the day individuals can spread their influence "a mile wide and an inch deep". But this does not imply that such individuals can spend in both unlimited depth and breadth. The primary limits (<$3K/per) remain inplace. And the article also notes that this does not impact groups.
Wednesday’s decision concerned only contributions from individuals. Federal law continues to ban contributions by corporations and unions.
Whether this is a good idea or not is debatable. But the editorialized headline doesn't help communicate the actual news.
____________
# HN submitted> "Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits on Federal Campaign Contributions"
Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Limits on Federal Campaign Contributions
So, at the end of the day individuals can spread their influence "a mile wide and an inch deep". But this does not imply that such individuals can spend in both unlimited depth and breadth. The primary limits (<$3K/per) remain inplace. And the article also notes that this does not impact groups.
Wednesday’s decision concerned only contributions from individuals. Federal law continues to ban contributions by corporations and unions.
Whether this is a good idea or not is debatable. But the editorialized headline doesn't help communicate the actual news.
____________
# HN submitted> "Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits on Federal Campaign Contributions"
The headline I originally submitted was the headline used by the NY Times at the time the story was published. I've updated the submission to match the change made by the NY Times per your suggestion.
Great news. The headline is misleading. Congress again was trying to play games with who could donate to who/what and when they could and so and so on. They were not interested in a level playing field, they were again protecting their interest.
Restricting how money is spent in political races only protects incumbents and their party. It in no way protects the right of the people to vote for whom they want. The costs involved in modern campaigns can be insurmountable with the restrictions placed on donations and expenditures. The costs have exceed inflation, the limits have not.
Never ever support such restrictions just because you don't like the message or messenger because you are merely handing someone the means to do the same to you.
Restricting how money is spent in political races only protects incumbents and their party. It in no way protects the right of the people to vote for whom they want. The costs involved in modern campaigns can be insurmountable with the restrictions placed on donations and expenditures. The costs have exceed inflation, the limits have not.
Never ever support such restrictions just because you don't like the message or messenger because you are merely handing someone the means to do the same to you.
The ruling ends with
When word concerning the plot of the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington reached the circles of Government, some officials sought, by persuasion, to discourage its distribution. ... Under Austin [(the basis for the campaign finance restriction discussed)], though, officials could havedone more than discourage its distribution — they could have banned the film. After all, it, like [the movie] _Hillary_, was speech funded by a corporation that was critical of Members of Congress. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington may befiction and caricature; but fiction and caricature can be a powerful force. Modern day movies, television comedies, or skits on Youtube.com might portray public officials or public policies in unflattering ways. Yet if a covered transmission during the blackout period creates the background for candidate endorsement or opposition, a felony occurs solely because a corporation, other than an exempt media corporation, has made the “purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value” in order to engage in political speech. ... Speech would be suppressed in the realm where its necessity is most evident: in the public dialogue preceding a real election. Governments are often hostile to speech, but under our law and our tradition it seems stranger than fiction for our Government to make this political speech a crime. Yet this is the statute’s purpose and design.
Some members of the public might consider _Hillary_ to be insightful and instructive; some might find it to beneither high art nor a fair discussion on how to set the Nation’s course; still others simply might suspend judgment on these points but decide to think more about issues and candidates. Those choices and assessments, however, are not for the Government to make. “The First Amend-ment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression ofideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it.”
When word concerning the plot of the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington reached the circles of Government, some officials sought, by persuasion, to discourage its distribution. ... Under Austin [(the basis for the campaign finance restriction discussed)], though, officials could havedone more than discourage its distribution — they could have banned the film. After all, it, like [the movie] _Hillary_, was speech funded by a corporation that was critical of Members of Congress. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington may befiction and caricature; but fiction and caricature can be a powerful force. Modern day movies, television comedies, or skits on Youtube.com might portray public officials or public policies in unflattering ways. Yet if a covered transmission during the blackout period creates the background for candidate endorsement or opposition, a felony occurs solely because a corporation, other than an exempt media corporation, has made the “purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value” in order to engage in political speech. ... Speech would be suppressed in the realm where its necessity is most evident: in the public dialogue preceding a real election. Governments are often hostile to speech, but under our law and our tradition it seems stranger than fiction for our Government to make this political speech a crime. Yet this is the statute’s purpose and design.
Some members of the public might consider _Hillary_ to be insightful and instructive; some might find it to beneither high art nor a fair discussion on how to set the Nation’s course; still others simply might suspend judgment on these points but decide to think more about issues and candidates. Those choices and assessments, however, are not for the Government to make. “The First Amend-ment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression ofideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it.”
>Restricting how money is spent in political races only protects incumbents and their party.
This is false.
http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-election-money-2012-...
People who spend more money win. So the rich and powerful can completely override the majority of people. People with no connection to a race can invest large amounts of money to secure a win. In fact, if you look around the world, the only way to make sure incumbents aren't over-protected is to restrict money. Looking at the American system, I don't see how anyone could utter the above line seriously. How has more money not protected incumbents?
This is false.
http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-election-money-2012-...
People who spend more money win. So the rich and powerful can completely override the majority of people. People with no connection to a race can invest large amounts of money to secure a win. In fact, if you look around the world, the only way to make sure incumbents aren't over-protected is to restrict money. Looking at the American system, I don't see how anyone could utter the above line seriously. How has more money not protected incumbents?
People who spend more money win.
This is intuitive, and almost universally believed. But all actual data I'm aware of doesn't support this.
for example [1]
conventional wisdom, especially among progressives, is that money can buy elections. The Citizens United case was supposed to be the end of democracy since it meant unlimited corporate spending on elections. If money really did buy office, 2012 should have been great evidence for the hypothesis.
Instead 2012 looks like a case study in the powerlessness of money, in the triumph of the autonomous voter. For instance, the Sunlight Foundation reports that 2/3 of outside cash was spent on losers.
[1] http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/11/money_has_littl....
This is intuitive, and almost universally believed. But all actual data I'm aware of doesn't support this.
for example [1]
conventional wisdom, especially among progressives, is that money can buy elections. The Citizens United case was supposed to be the end of democracy since it meant unlimited corporate spending on elections. If money really did buy office, 2012 should have been great evidence for the hypothesis.
Instead 2012 looks like a case study in the powerlessness of money, in the triumph of the autonomous voter. For instance, the Sunlight Foundation reports that 2/3 of outside cash was spent on losers.
[1] http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/11/money_has_littl....
2012 didn't necessarily prove that money has little effect on elections, it proved that money doesn't completely cover-up being a total jackass.
The best funded campaign still convinced ~47% of voters to vote for a candidate that stated he didn't care about 47% of the country. That should be downright scary.
The best funded campaign still convinced ~47% of voters to vote for a candidate that stated he didn't care about 47% of the country. That should be downright scary.
Really. Really? Are you honestly proposing that campaign finance was responsible for a Republican presidential candidate getting roughly half the vote, just like in every other election in recent history? Come on. Do you remember George W Bush's campaign in 2000? That was before Super PACs and after the most prosperous 8 years in American history. There are valid arguments for campaign finance reform, "the guy I don't like didn't lose by a wide enough margin" is not one of them.
Unlike "every other election in recent history" 2012 had a candidate that openly stated that he did not care about roughly half the country. A rational voting base would not be expected to throw a lot of support behind someone taking that position, but they did.
So what I am suggesting is that throwing a shit-ton of money promoting a horrible person worked, it brought a person who said "veterans, disabled people, seniors, you know what guys, fuck you" on even standing with someone who didn't. It just didn't convince enough people.
So what I am suggesting is that throwing a shit-ton of money promoting a horrible person worked, it brought a person who said "veterans, disabled people, seniors, you know what guys, fuck you" on even standing with someone who didn't. It just didn't convince enough people.
So for starters, just mathematically, your arguments don't necessarily hold up, or rather aren't mutually exclusive. "This person said he didn't support roughly half the people in this country, yet he got roughly half the vote". OK, so maybe the other half voted for him... There's nothing fundamentally "irrational" about the results per se. Also, it almost sounds like you're too young to have lived through other elections. This event clearly stands out in your mind as the political faux pas of the century or something, but I can assure you in every election most candidates say or do stupid things of this caliber and its par for the course for people to forgive them (What else are you going to do? Sacrifice your personal identity and vote for the other guy???).
Other things you're forgetting:
1. Only 62.3% of eligible voters even voted. So its not like half the country sided with him, its more like half of half (.47 * .623 = 29%). This also ignores all the people that disagreed with him that weren't eligible to vote, which is likely a LOT since it includes the undocumented and youth -- which theoretically fall into the category he doesn't care about. Right there alone you have a better explanation than "money".
2. Most people probably never even found out about Romney's comment, because they never find out about anything. You seem to be politically motivated and informed, you're making the mistake of assuming most other people are too.
3. You ignore that many people have deal-breaker issues and will give their guy a pass on literally everything else, ON BOTH SIDES. If I could somehow scientifically prove that a candidate would completely eliminate unemployment and poverty, he'd probably still lose a significant portion of the vote if he was overly pro-choice or pro-gay marriage. Same goes if he was pro-life or anti-gay marriage.
4. Both sides basically have half the media working for them spinning regardless of how much money they have. So in an environment where the media is constantly blowing out of proportion what "the other guy said" and going to absurd lengths to rationalize what "our guy said", it is not unexpected that the voting population becomes exhausted and skeptical about these events (this is a rational response btw).
5. People have their personal identities tied up in their political positions. Its not just this Romney comment, most times people prefer to defend their wrong positions than deal with the existential crisis that they were "wrong". This has way more to do with politics being treated as a team than as something external to yourself. You speak of a rational voting base? A rational voting base would have no party affiliation whatsoever, it makes no sense. You should be voting each time based on what is offered to you. Instead they see their party as their family. In the same way that if your dad said something unkosher you would take pains to understand what he "meant" while others would not, so too do people of a party try to rationalize what their candidate said vs what the other candidate said.
And so on. I'll reiterate that I'm making no comment on whether campaign finance is good or bad, just suggesting that Romney losing by "not enough" is just not a solid argument.
Other things you're forgetting:
1. Only 62.3% of eligible voters even voted. So its not like half the country sided with him, its more like half of half (.47 * .623 = 29%). This also ignores all the people that disagreed with him that weren't eligible to vote, which is likely a LOT since it includes the undocumented and youth -- which theoretically fall into the category he doesn't care about. Right there alone you have a better explanation than "money".
2. Most people probably never even found out about Romney's comment, because they never find out about anything. You seem to be politically motivated and informed, you're making the mistake of assuming most other people are too.
3. You ignore that many people have deal-breaker issues and will give their guy a pass on literally everything else, ON BOTH SIDES. If I could somehow scientifically prove that a candidate would completely eliminate unemployment and poverty, he'd probably still lose a significant portion of the vote if he was overly pro-choice or pro-gay marriage. Same goes if he was pro-life or anti-gay marriage.
4. Both sides basically have half the media working for them spinning regardless of how much money they have. So in an environment where the media is constantly blowing out of proportion what "the other guy said" and going to absurd lengths to rationalize what "our guy said", it is not unexpected that the voting population becomes exhausted and skeptical about these events (this is a rational response btw).
5. People have their personal identities tied up in their political positions. Its not just this Romney comment, most times people prefer to defend their wrong positions than deal with the existential crisis that they were "wrong". This has way more to do with politics being treated as a team than as something external to yourself. You speak of a rational voting base? A rational voting base would have no party affiliation whatsoever, it makes no sense. You should be voting each time based on what is offered to you. Instead they see their party as their family. In the same way that if your dad said something unkosher you would take pains to understand what he "meant" while others would not, so too do people of a party try to rationalize what their candidate said vs what the other candidate said.
And so on. I'll reiterate that I'm making no comment on whether campaign finance is good or bad, just suggesting that Romney losing by "not enough" is just not a solid argument.
[deleted]
That is some seriously sloppy "evidence" to be citing.
It makes no reference to any accounting for the popularity of the candidates before and after ad campaigns, the competitiveness of their districts (for House campaigns), incumbent status, and so on.
It also says
> Also interesting is that this doesn't even include outside independent spending, like money from Super PACs.
as if to imply outside spending (a) is totally proportional to direct campaign spending and (b) has the same effects, to the same degrees, as direct campaign spending, neither of which is necessarily true.
> People who spend more money win.
The shoddy evidence you cited directly contradicts your absolute.
EDIT: toned down wording of the last sentence
It makes no reference to any accounting for the popularity of the candidates before and after ad campaigns, the competitiveness of their districts (for House campaigns), incumbent status, and so on.
It also says
> Also interesting is that this doesn't even include outside independent spending, like money from Super PACs.
as if to imply outside spending (a) is totally proportional to direct campaign spending and (b) has the same effects, to the same degrees, as direct campaign spending, neither of which is necessarily true.
> People who spend more money win.
The shoddy evidence you cited directly contradicts your absolute.
EDIT: toned down wording of the last sentence
How has more money not protected incumbents?
Plenty often, when enough people speak up (or contribute to others' costs of speaking up). Of late, numerous anti-gun incumbents are being recalled and replaced for enacting right-transgressing legislation.
Plenty often, when enough people speak up (or contribute to others' costs of speaking up). Of late, numerous anti-gun incumbents are being recalled and replaced for enacting right-transgressing legislation.
I... uh... I don't know how to respond to this. Are you trying to argue a political ideology or do you genuinely believe the argument you've stated? It is provably false as other commenters have shown. So I don't know if you are just misinformed or you are trying to form an argument for a biased position.
In an ideal system, all voters would digest accurate information and make informed decisions, but we know this is not the case. Media has bias and political ads are misleading... plus people don't have the time or impetus to spend vast amounts of time 'sorting the wheat from the chaff.' Many people aren't even skeptics... which is a requisite for being able to filter the signal through that noise.
Yes, there is a strong free speech argument for donating money to campaigns, but make no mistake... oligarchs would (maybe already do?) run our country without any restrictions in place. Go read about Thomas Jefferson and the history of the estate tax before you try to argue this ideology because it is simply wrong and a danger to democracy.
In an ideal system, all voters would digest accurate information and make informed decisions, but we know this is not the case. Media has bias and political ads are misleading... plus people don't have the time or impetus to spend vast amounts of time 'sorting the wheat from the chaff.' Many people aren't even skeptics... which is a requisite for being able to filter the signal through that noise.
Yes, there is a strong free speech argument for donating money to campaigns, but make no mistake... oligarchs would (maybe already do?) run our country without any restrictions in place. Go read about Thomas Jefferson and the history of the estate tax before you try to argue this ideology because it is simply wrong and a danger to democracy.
> Yes, there is a strong free speech argument for donating money to campaigns, but make no mistake... oligarchs would (maybe already do?) run our country without any restrictions in place.
I think that the one thing that efforts at campaign finance limitations has done is underline that wealth is fungible power, and that restricting the manner in which it is premitted to be applied to politics does very little to limit the influence it has in politics.
I think that the one thing that efforts at campaign finance limitations has done is underline that wealth is fungible power, and that restricting the manner in which it is premitted to be applied to politics does very little to limit the influence it has in politics.
This. Its just like rich people gaming college admissions or yacht racing. Its basically an arms race. Money buys weapons. And when you put a limit on weapons, money buys training. And once you level that playing field, money buys freedom from other things.
I agree. It is a market system which will accomodate regulation and there is no perfect solution.
If what you're saying is true, democracy is worthless. Decreasing the amplitude of political discourse would have no effect on the ignorance of the general population and their lack of skepticism and poor decision making. It would just create a new game of regulations that rich individuals could play around and avoid to get the result they want anyway.
It is not an uncommon belief that laws like BCRA were designed to entrench incumbents.
"The history of campaign finance reform is the history of incumbent politicians seeking to muzzle speakers, any speakers, particularly those who might publicly criticize them and their legislation. It is a lot easier to legislate against unions, gun owners, 'fat cat' bankers, health insurance companies and any other industry or 'special interest' group when they can't talk back." Jan Baran, a member of the Commission on Federal Ethics Law Reform
It is not an uncommon belief that laws like BCRA were designed to entrench incumbents.
"The history of campaign finance reform is the history of incumbent politicians seeking to muzzle speakers, any speakers, particularly those who might publicly criticize them and their legislation. It is a lot easier to legislate against unions, gun owners, 'fat cat' bankers, health insurance companies and any other industry or 'special interest' group when they can't talk back." Jan Baran, a member of the Commission on Federal Ethics Law Reform
I agree with you. I mean consider 'single issue voters' as a perfect example of this failure of democracy. I consider my vote MUCH more thoughtfully than others, maybe that's bias... but in my defense I have a higher education, read many different news sources and discuss political issues with people who have contrarian viewpoints... if those things are worth nothing, then so be it.
And yet objectively, my vote is worth exactly the same as someone who is voting only to keep gay marriage illegal, let's say. I don't know if the policical discourse changes much except for that thin sliver of 'moderates' and swing voters... as emphasized in elections of late. People do change their ideologies--I've seen it. But it's a minority.
And yet objectively, my vote is worth exactly the same as someone who is voting only to keep gay marriage illegal, let's say. I don't know if the policical discourse changes much except for that thin sliver of 'moderates' and swing voters... as emphasized in elections of late. People do change their ideologies--I've seen it. But it's a minority.
> * They were not interested in a level playing field, they were again protecting their interest.*
A system where the person with the most money wins is a level playing field?
I'm very happy I'm not playing your silly game.
A system where the person with the most money wins is a level playing field?
I'm very happy I'm not playing your silly game.
The most money does not win, the most votes does. Advertisements, books, DVDs... do not translate into votes. They are a part of public discourse that can be as easily celebrated as ignored.
If the people are too stupid to make wise decisions, and only go where the most funding is, then we may as well throw in the towel on democracy right now; what's the point?
Come on now. It's not this black and white. Political campaign teams are masters at manipulating public perception and obscuring facts. Even for an informed voter, it's hard to tell whose facts are true given the media bias, corporate bias, and various other misinformation out there. Pumping more money into this machine doesn't seem to me to be a good idea.
Being propagandized into voting against one's interests != stupidity.
If you accept the premise that you can just buy votes with money, then it's not even stupid. Soda machine is not stupid for reliably giving your soda for your money - it's just a mindless robot. If people are mindless robots, there's no point in voting anyway. If people can be convinced to take decisions which you wouldn't like - that's life for you. Money or no money, that's always going to happen. People take bad decisions all the time, and money has nothing to do with it.
The people should have open access to all the information they need to make wise decisions, rather than people with money manipulating the information and access to it, so they can manipulate the people.
We will have the best democracy money can buy
>Never ever support such restrictions just because you don't like the message or messenger because you are merely handing someone the means to do the same to you.
Great point. The only way to limit contributions from the likes of the NRA but not from groups like the EFF is to focus regulations on the message or messenger itself. That kind of thinking goes completely against free speech. It is also dangerous. Your message may get preferential treatment today, but not necessarily tomorrow.
Great point. The only way to limit contributions from the likes of the NRA but not from groups like the EFF is to focus regulations on the message or messenger itself. That kind of thinking goes completely against free speech. It is also dangerous. Your message may get preferential treatment today, but not necessarily tomorrow.
BTW, this decision doesn't touch on PAC contributions, just ones from individuals.
Although it should be pointed out the NRA's contributions are subject to these individual limits, per http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml it looks like $5K per election.
Which is not a lot of money, more of a signal of approval. Which is important, because the IRS is promulgating regulations to enshrine their abuse of "Tea Party" groups, which much like the ones struck down in Citizens United would prevent it from making communications about candidates 60 days before an election (30 before a primary; see http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Treasury,-IRS-Will-Issue-Pro... ).
It's hard to express how dangerous this is....
Although it should be pointed out the NRA's contributions are subject to these individual limits, per http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml it looks like $5K per election.
Which is not a lot of money, more of a signal of approval. Which is important, because the IRS is promulgating regulations to enshrine their abuse of "Tea Party" groups, which much like the ones struck down in Citizens United would prevent it from making communications about candidates 60 days before an election (30 before a primary; see http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Treasury,-IRS-Will-Issue-Pro... ).
It's hard to express how dangerous this is....
Citizens United and other campaign "finance" rulings are poorly understood by the public still today. Most Americans probably still believe Citizens United had anything to do with contribution limits, or stating "money is speech", or that corporations are people.
A cursory read of the wikipedia article would clear this up, but the media narrative surrounding these rulings will dominate for some time.
A cursory read of the wikipedia article would clear this up, but the media narrative surrounding these rulings will dominate for some time.
This is another blow against what remains of a sane US political dialog. The door has been further opened to the cheapening of American political discourse by monied interests, who are able to overwhelm the public with their carefully shaped messaging and attack ads. The current US Supreme Court is doing quite a lot to move the US to a "one-dollar-one-vote" business model.
> The current US Supreme Court is doing quite a lot to move the US to a "one-dollar-one-vote" business model.
Can you name one federal government body in the US that takes its job more seriously, or understands its limits and bounds more thoroughly, than the SCOTUS?
Go ahead and try to find one. The SCOTUS is not perfect, it's made mistakes in the past, but please understand that you have a nation of people looking to them to make reasonable applications of law in extremely intricate situations.
Read the SCOTUS transcripts sometime of a polarizing issue and pay particular attention to the questions that the justices who oppose your own viewpoint will raise. They're deliberate, and precise, and unyielding to sensationalism. I think you'll be surprised to find much less judicial agenda than you seem to think SCOTUS is guilty of.
Can you name one federal government body in the US that takes its job more seriously, or understands its limits and bounds more thoroughly, than the SCOTUS?
Go ahead and try to find one. The SCOTUS is not perfect, it's made mistakes in the past, but please understand that you have a nation of people looking to them to make reasonable applications of law in extremely intricate situations.
Read the SCOTUS transcripts sometime of a polarizing issue and pay particular attention to the questions that the justices who oppose your own viewpoint will raise. They're deliberate, and precise, and unyielding to sensationalism. I think you'll be surprised to find much less judicial agenda than you seem to think SCOTUS is guilty of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee#Supe...
Practically speaking, as long as some needed transparency is in place, is there much of a real difference to how things are currently run?
Also, the rash of 5-4 decisions in the supreme court lately bothers me. Was there ever a time where the supreme court was this polarized?
Practically speaking, as long as some needed transparency is in place, is there much of a real difference to how things are currently run?
Also, the rash of 5-4 decisions in the supreme court lately bothers me. Was there ever a time where the supreme court was this polarized?
We hear about the 5-4 decisions because they are often the most controversial ones and ones that the media will report on.
Based on last year's statistics (http://scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/agreement_O...), even between the two Justices who disagree with each other the most (Ginsburg and Alito), they agree on the same judgment in 58% of cases.
Based on last year's statistics (http://scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/agreement_O...), even between the two Justices who disagree with each other the most (Ginsburg and Alito), they agree on the same judgment in 58% of cases.
>Also, the rash of 5-4 decisions in the supreme court lately bothers me.
I believe this is actually the first 5-4 decision in the current term, which has been going since October: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_term_opinions_of_the_Supre...
There have been a lot of 9-0 decisions, and several 6-3.
I believe this is actually the first 5-4 decision in the current term, which has been going since October: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_term_opinions_of_the_Supre...
There have been a lot of 9-0 decisions, and several 6-3.
I'm guessing that 5-4 decisions tend to be more polarizing to the public as well, generating more news, while 9-0 decisions The more controversial tend to be more mundane, generating little attention.
And a lot of Supreme Court decisions don't even make the news, because they are deciding small bits of law that don't affect many people. Like the other case decided today was about whether an airline could terminate someone's membership in a frequent flyer program. The law was unclear, so the SCOTUS ruled on it, but it's not something that means anything to most people.
Good to hear. I must have imprinted that opinion from some scaremongering headlines earlier. Doing a search for 'Supreme Court 5 4' or similar yields a lot of spin.
I think as the NYT article states, it will likely funnel some money away from the super-PACs. This just brings the donor and the candidate closer together.
People like Sheldon Adelson will still continue to contribute huge sums of money to candidates, he'll just be able to do it directly now.
People like Sheldon Adelson will still continue to contribute huge sums of money to candidates, he'll just be able to do it directly now.
It really just means an individual can donate to a lot more individual campaigns now, as the aggregate limit has been struck down. I doubt this will increase any transparency, as current rules are barely enforced to begin with, and the real money is coming from PACs.
I threw this together a couple years ago to demonstrate how a foreign company, if they wished, could donate funds which in the eyes of the law would be "untraceable" (even if it really is obvious).
http://i.imgur.com/Hjp1b.gif
It also just shows how quickly money gets "disguised". I should have put something in there about limits, but I forgot at the time.
I threw this together a couple years ago to demonstrate how a foreign company, if they wished, could donate funds which in the eyes of the law would be "untraceable" (even if it really is obvious).
http://i.imgur.com/Hjp1b.gif
It also just shows how quickly money gets "disguised". I should have put something in there about limits, but I forgot at the time.
The percentage of 5-4 decisions being handed down is practically meaningless without relating it to how controversial or "hard" the questions being decided are. That of course, is fundamentally hard to quantify, although you may make some headway by dividing up decisions based on whether there were circuit splits, how (in)consistent the decisions of lower courts that evaluated the case were, the splits for the lower courts, etc.
Moreover, cases often address multiple questions and a 5-4 decision can be handed down even when many or most of the questions answered were subject unanimous or nearly unanimous agreement. By the same token, a unanimous or near-unanimous decision could have been reached in spite of radically diverging rationales from the various justices.
Moreover, cases often address multiple questions and a 5-4 decision can be handed down even when many or most of the questions answered were subject unanimous or nearly unanimous agreement. By the same token, a unanimous or near-unanimous decision could have been reached in spite of radically diverging rationales from the various justices.
Also, the rash of 5-4 decisions in the supreme court lately bothers me. Was there ever a time where the supreme court was this polarized?
I don't think it's particularly polarized. If Antonin Scalia is your benchmark for a "polarizing" figure, the # of 5-4 cases where he was in the majority appear to have been trending downward:
http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisOverview.php?sid=1301-TICTAC-7...
I don't think it's particularly polarized. If Antonin Scalia is your benchmark for a "polarizing" figure, the # of 5-4 cases where he was in the majority appear to have been trending downward:
http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisOverview.php?sid=1301-TICTAC-7...
A win for freedom of speech, and of the press. Running a press costs money, as does speaking to more than a few people; if a group of people with common interests choose to fund & pool their money to promote a message, they have the right to do so.
Ruling here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Crux of argument:
First Amendment protections do not depend on the speaker’s “financial ability to engage in public discussion.” ... Distinguishing wealthy individuals from corporations based on the latter’s special advantages of, e.g., limited liability, does not suffice to allow laws prohibiting speech. It is irrelevant for First Amendment purposes that corporate funds may “have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” Austin, supra, at 660. All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech.
That and related points go on in detail for 57 pages.
Ruling here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Crux of argument:
First Amendment protections do not depend on the speaker’s “financial ability to engage in public discussion.” ... Distinguishing wealthy individuals from corporations based on the latter’s special advantages of, e.g., limited liability, does not suffice to allow laws prohibiting speech. It is irrelevant for First Amendment purposes that corporate funds may “have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” Austin, supra, at 660. All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech.
That and related points go on in detail for 57 pages.
Freedom of speech? It essentially turns individual voters without deep pockets into the citizen equivalents of flyover states. All the Supreme Court did was eliminate any pretense that the US isn't quickly turning into an oligarchy.
This is very much a speech issue.
Citizens United overturned provisions in BCRA which prevented corporations (which happens to include unions and non-profits) from speaking about a candidate 60 days before an election -- in the form of outlawed "electioneering communications". That was the crux of the decision; the law displayed speaker discrimination. It had nothing to do with monetary limits.
After Citizens United it's much easier for individuals without deep pockets to pool their money together to run advertising campaigns or other forms of political speech. Anyone can start a Super PAC and crowd fund for their cause, and they have to do so independently of any related candidate.
Regardless, nobody's votes are being bought. You still control the outcome of the election, nobody is forced to vote for anyone because they saw a campaign ad for them.
Citizens United overturned provisions in BCRA which prevented corporations (which happens to include unions and non-profits) from speaking about a candidate 60 days before an election -- in the form of outlawed "electioneering communications". That was the crux of the decision; the law displayed speaker discrimination. It had nothing to do with monetary limits.
After Citizens United it's much easier for individuals without deep pockets to pool their money together to run advertising campaigns or other forms of political speech. Anyone can start a Super PAC and crowd fund for their cause, and they have to do so independently of any related candidate.
Regardless, nobody's votes are being bought. You still control the outcome of the election, nobody is forced to vote for anyone because they saw a campaign ad for them.
It is definitely a free speech issue, however, I’d argue that the compelling state interests in preventing corruption and ensuring fairness and access in elections, is a great enough one to merit modest limitations. Indeed so did the Supreme Court until only recently, after the upholding in Buckley. My comment is more about the overall nature of the issue, but I do want to point out first that today’s ruling over aggregate monetary limits, is frankly a small issue in the overall challenges faced in reform.
I understand your point, but I think it belies the reality of what takes place in most campaigns from my professional experience here in DC, though yes it is anecdotal of course. Yes, a small group of individuals can seek and gain funding, and they do, but in order to have a serious outcome on a race, you need to be able to shift vast sums of money and fast, often in the last 2 months. The Tea-Party influence on the 2010 midterm elections is a great example, the money that supported those candidates, did not come from the tea-party grassroots, but from a band of very rich donors, with very vested interests in legislative outcomes. And I don’t mean to single out the GOP here, the DNC has it’s own fair share of lobbied well-connected interests. Then of course there are the industries and organizations that simply fund the most likely to win in many races, ensuring candidate support for their industry when the time comes for considering legislation.
If I was to start a Super PAC for lower class family concerns, say universal Pre-K, how much of their disposable income do you think they could afford to donate to a political cause? It’d be no where near the vast checks that can be written by opposition groups. And even if successful, I will still likely get outplayed in the long game with legislative lobbying since I don’t have the continued funds to support an ongoing effort.
Now what would be a solution that doesn’t infringe on individual rights to free-speech, I’m not sure. Perhaps we should go back to completely publicly financed elections, though that obviously benefits the current two-party dichotomy over independent challengers, and would likely require serious constitutional amendments to be considered. I admit that more thinking would be required here, but I don’t think its a stretch to say the current system is severely broken, and in fairness to all here, was broken well before this relatively modest change.
Finally, of course votes aren’t being bought in the election - but a campaign costs a lot of money. http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/congress-election-cos... The average US House race will cost 1.6M to win and the Senate 10.4M to win, and that increase far outpaces the rate of inflation. That money coming in is critical to reaching voters, paying for GOTV, and ensuring victory, beyond just the money spent on ads and outside group advertising. Then of course, all of that money these candidates raise, it’s not free money from well meaning corporations, they will expect to be repaid when the time comes, and they are.
I understand your point, but I think it belies the reality of what takes place in most campaigns from my professional experience here in DC, though yes it is anecdotal of course. Yes, a small group of individuals can seek and gain funding, and they do, but in order to have a serious outcome on a race, you need to be able to shift vast sums of money and fast, often in the last 2 months. The Tea-Party influence on the 2010 midterm elections is a great example, the money that supported those candidates, did not come from the tea-party grassroots, but from a band of very rich donors, with very vested interests in legislative outcomes. And I don’t mean to single out the GOP here, the DNC has it’s own fair share of lobbied well-connected interests. Then of course there are the industries and organizations that simply fund the most likely to win in many races, ensuring candidate support for their industry when the time comes for considering legislation.
If I was to start a Super PAC for lower class family concerns, say universal Pre-K, how much of their disposable income do you think they could afford to donate to a political cause? It’d be no where near the vast checks that can be written by opposition groups. And even if successful, I will still likely get outplayed in the long game with legislative lobbying since I don’t have the continued funds to support an ongoing effort.
Now what would be a solution that doesn’t infringe on individual rights to free-speech, I’m not sure. Perhaps we should go back to completely publicly financed elections, though that obviously benefits the current two-party dichotomy over independent challengers, and would likely require serious constitutional amendments to be considered. I admit that more thinking would be required here, but I don’t think its a stretch to say the current system is severely broken, and in fairness to all here, was broken well before this relatively modest change.
Finally, of course votes aren’t being bought in the election - but a campaign costs a lot of money. http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/congress-election-cos... The average US House race will cost 1.6M to win and the Senate 10.4M to win, and that increase far outpaces the rate of inflation. That money coming in is critical to reaching voters, paying for GOTV, and ensuring victory, beyond just the money spent on ads and outside group advertising. Then of course, all of that money these candidates raise, it’s not free money from well meaning corporations, they will expect to be repaid when the time comes, and they are.
> It is definitely a free speech issue, however, I’d argue that the compelling state interests in preventing corruption and ensuring fairness and access in elections, is a great enough one to merit modest limitations. Indeed so did the Supreme Court until only recently, after the upholding in Buckley. My comment is more about the overall nature of the issue, but I do want to point out first that today’s ruling over aggregate monetary limits, is frankly a small issue in the overall challenges faced in reform.&
Thank you. My opinion is the opposite of yours: I think this and Citizens United are the right decisions and free speech should be only be limited in a few restricted circumstances like immediate incitement to violence or terroristic threats. Yet, it's important to be honest about the trade off here and not misrepresent the decisions (e.g., saying that CU determined that "money is speech", etc...)
> Now what would be a solution that doesn’t infringe on individual rights to free-speech, I’m not sure. Perhaps we should go back to completely publicly financed elections, though that obviously benefits the current two-party dichotomy over independent challengers, and would likely require serious constitutional amendments to be considered. I admit that more thinking would be required here, but I don’t think its a stretch to say the current system is severely broken, and in fairness to all here, was broken well before this relatively modest change.
Ideal solution for me would allow donations to political organizations, including those that endorse candidates or lobby for bills (I don't like rent-seeking by Comcast, but I very much like the ACLU, EFF, and others). At the same time, the candidates themselves would rely (as you suggested) on public financing. I think this would take a constitutional amendment (as would overturning CU, but unlike an amendment to overturn CU it wouldn't set the precedents of amending the constitution to curtail rights when they are inconvenient), which should also mandate non-partisan drawing of electoral districts (California went that route and with great results).
Thank you. My opinion is the opposite of yours: I think this and Citizens United are the right decisions and free speech should be only be limited in a few restricted circumstances like immediate incitement to violence or terroristic threats. Yet, it's important to be honest about the trade off here and not misrepresent the decisions (e.g., saying that CU determined that "money is speech", etc...)
> Now what would be a solution that doesn’t infringe on individual rights to free-speech, I’m not sure. Perhaps we should go back to completely publicly financed elections, though that obviously benefits the current two-party dichotomy over independent challengers, and would likely require serious constitutional amendments to be considered. I admit that more thinking would be required here, but I don’t think its a stretch to say the current system is severely broken, and in fairness to all here, was broken well before this relatively modest change.
Ideal solution for me would allow donations to political organizations, including those that endorse candidates or lobby for bills (I don't like rent-seeking by Comcast, but I very much like the ACLU, EFF, and others). At the same time, the candidates themselves would rely (as you suggested) on public financing. I think this would take a constitutional amendment (as would overturning CU, but unlike an amendment to overturn CU it wouldn't set the precedents of amending the constitution to curtail rights when they are inconvenient), which should also mandate non-partisan drawing of electoral districts (California went that route and with great results).
> Regardless, nobody's votes are being bought
OF COURSE votes are being bought. There's more than enough evidence that shows that he who spends more wins. There's also plenty of evidence showing that he who spends more on a candidate has a sympathetic candidate.
This is a systemic issue that is one step away from being full on bribery without impunity.
OF COURSE votes are being bought. There's more than enough evidence that shows that he who spends more wins. There's also plenty of evidence showing that he who spends more on a candidate has a sympathetic candidate.
This is a systemic issue that is one step away from being full on bribery without impunity.
> Regardless, nobody's votes are being bought. You still control the outcome of the election, nobody is forced to vote for anyone because they saw a campaign ad for them.
Even if that is true, the current system of campaign finance results in large corporations dictating the laws because they fund the campaigns of the legislators.
Even if that is true, the current system of campaign finance results in large corporations dictating the laws because they fund the campaigns of the legislators.
If individual voters are contributing nothing to the speech/press promoting the candidate/cause of their choice, they have nothing to complain about.
Just because some don't exercise their rights doesn't mean they can suppress the rights of those who do.
Just because some don't exercise their rights doesn't mean they can suppress the rights of those who do.
"A win for freedom of speech, and of the press."
I'll agree on the speech part since it allows for groupings and patrons of movements to be more effective, but I think the press just lost some of its influence. Given the partisanship in the press, this isn't such a bad thing. They've been pushing their influence for years and can basically spend unlimited money on politics so its fine for "non-press" to be given the same ability.
I'll agree on the speech part since it allows for groupings and patrons of movements to be more effective, but I think the press just lost some of its influence. Given the partisanship in the press, this isn't such a bad thing. They've been pushing their influence for years and can basically spend unlimited money on politics so its fine for "non-press" to be given the same ability.
This ongoing conflation of free speech and political participation via campaign contributions has got to end. All of these restrictions were put into place after Watergate for a reason; campaign contributions are a corrupting influence in politics.
> This ongoing conflation of free speech and political participation via campaign contributions has got to end.
Should people be limited by how much time they can donate to volunteering for a candidate? How about how many words they can write in favor of a candidate? Why should someone who doesn't have the time to do those things but does have the time to write a check be prohibited from participating in the campaign process?
Should people be limited by how much time they can donate to volunteering for a candidate? How about how many words they can write in favor of a candidate? Why should someone who doesn't have the time to do those things but does have the time to write a check be prohibited from participating in the campaign process?
However, unlike money, time is limited. No one person can contribute more than 24 hours in a single day.
Are you implying that money is unlimited?
In this context, money is effectively unlimited. Not sure why people are ok with allowing unlimited funding of campaigns by individuals or corporations while on the other hand accepting similar contributions for anything but a campaign is a felony (ie. bribery)
From the ruling's summary:
the Government’s other arguments [reason] that corporate political speechcan be banned to prevent corruption or its appearance. The Buckley Court found this rationale “sufficiently important” to allow contribution limits but refused to extend that reasoning to expenditure limits, and the Court does not do so here. While a single Bellotti footnote purported to leave the question open, this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. Later the Court elaborates on the reasoning behind this; I suggest you read it.
the Government’s other arguments [reason] that corporate political speechcan be banned to prevent corruption or its appearance. The Buckley Court found this rationale “sufficiently important” to allow contribution limits but refused to extend that reasoning to expenditure limits, and the Court does not do so here. While a single Bellotti footnote purported to leave the question open, this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. Later the Court elaborates on the reasoning behind this; I suggest you read it.
I have read it and I do not agree with the court. This is a cherry picked example so I will try to get some more later: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Vesco#Nixon_scandal
I must say I was quite worried when I woke up and saw the headlines. They originally made it seem as though the Court struck down all contribution limits, even to individual candidates. Was relieved to learn that wasn't the case. I wonder if we're headed down that road, though.
I understand there's a 2600US$ cap on "each gift to a political candidate" and today's ruling doesn't affect this cap. I presume a donor could still give make a very high donation in multiples of 2600US$. Am I right?
No, the caps on contributions to each "point source", you might call it, e.g. each candidate, remain the same.
What was overturned was overall spending limits, that you could only donate a total of X dollars per election or whatever.
What was overturned was overall spending limits, that you could only donate a total of X dollars per election or whatever.
NPR is reporting otherwise
> Overby says that even with the individual candidate limit still in place, the ruling "[makes] it possible for a donor to give a party leader a check for more than $1 million, with the money getting parceled out in $2,600 amounts to the candidates."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/02/298326893/sup...
I'm confused!
> Overby says that even with the individual candidate limit still in place, the ruling "[makes] it possible for a donor to give a party leader a check for more than $1 million, with the money getting parceled out in $2,600 amounts to the candidates."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/02/298326893/sup...
I'm confused!
So am I (well, not that much, that NPR would make a mistake biased towards their bias, or outright lie, would be nothing new). That's another "point source", of course, but per this (now slightly out of date) chart from the FEC: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml there would seem to be a limit to how much you could send to a "party leader".
Maybe it would have to be washed though 200 (!) "political committees" to allow for 1M in 5K max chunks ... which would seem to be a bit obvious.
Although that would be a loophole the Congress could close up, assuming it exists. E.g. a limit to the total to a "party leader" or PACs he controls would fly with 8 of the Supremes.
Maybe it would have to be washed though 200 (!) "political committees" to allow for 1M in 5K max chunks ... which would seem to be a bit obvious.
Although that would be a loophole the Congress could close up, assuming it exists. E.g. a limit to the total to a "party leader" or PACs he controls would fly with 8 of the Supremes.
[deleted](1)
Politicians get the lion's share of that money from people expecting an ROI.
Our political system literally has a mandatory bribe quota.
> but in the case of company X the lobbying ROI is a net positive for everyone, so the system can't be all bad
Please list the top 10 donors (heck, I'll be generous: any 10 consecutive donors) to any seat-holding political party of your choice, along with your opinion of whether or not the policy they're after is net-beneficial to society (+), zero sum (0), or a net loss to society (-). Alternatively, pick the +/0/- labels according to your unapologetic self-interest, since it's reasonable to vote on that basis rather than trying to work out the whole "net benefit to society" thing.
Let's focus on what lobbying IS instead of hoping (for example) that google will displace comcast from the gravy train.