4 ms·

The result of the ruling, however, has put almost a billion dollars in SuperPACs (https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php https://www.opensecrets.org/pac

by joesmo 10y ago

The result of the ruling, however, has put almost a billion dollars in SuperPACs (https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php) just this election. It really doesn't matter what the details of the decision were--the outcome is selling our elections to the highest bidder.

Lazare 10y ago
> The result of the ruling, however, has put almost a billion dollars in SuperPACs. Absolutely incorrect. There are two issues with your claim: 1. The overwhelming bulk of that money comes from individuals, not corporations, and thus was not restricted by the pre-Citizens United rules. (Billionaires have always been free to spend whatever they like.) 2) Much of that money is being spent on activities which did not count as "express advocacy" or "direct electioneering" under the pre-Citizens United rules, and were thus legal for corporate money to fund. (An ad that talks about Clinton being a terrible person but doesn't expressly tell you to vote for Trump was always legal, even if paid for by corporate money, so long as it ran more than 60 days before the election.) Of the two issues, both undermine your point, but the first is by far the most important. Note, for example, that according to the WaPo, a full 41 percent of that "billion dollars" came from a mere 50 individuals. Corporate money is a sideshow; this election is all about billionaires. And Citizens United didn't change the rules governing individuals. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-new-gilded-age-close-to-half-of-all-super-pac-money-comes-from-50-donors/2016/04/15/63dc363c-01b4-11e6-9d36-33d198ea26c5_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-new-gilded-age-c... > the outcome is selling our elections to the highest bidder. Has it occurred to you that much of the outrage over Citizens United has been cynically manufactured by the super-rich to distract you from the actual issue?
- joesmo 10y ago
  Fair enough. So you're saying that the outrage is manufactured to focus people's attention on how our elections are bought (post Citizens United) instead of how our elections are bought (pre Citizens United)? Or is the actual issue not the fact that our elections are bought? Because to me that seems to have always been the issue and Citizens United just added a littler more money to the pot.
  - Lazare 10y ago
    I think the question of whether it's accurate to say our "elections are bought" is an open question, and a very subjective one. What I'm saying is that the things people talk about when they say "our elections are bought" have not changed in many years, and were entirely unaffected by Citizens United. Prior to the decision billionaires could spend unlimited funds on almost any part of the electoral process except directly contributing to the actual campaigns of individual politicians, and did so regularly. After the decision, this was still true. Conversely, I'm aware of no aspect of our political process which is 1) ethically troubling and 2) actually taking place in significant amounts that arose (or increased) only after the decision. The way our elections are bought after the decision(if they are bought, see above) is the same way they were bought before. > Citizens United just added a littler more money to the pot. I'm not even aware of evidence it did that to any meaningful extent. We're entering an era of $1 billion dollar campaigns (there was talk of Clinton running the first $2 billion dollar campaign), which is absurdly high, and clear evidence that more money is flowing into the system, but remember: Citizens United didn't change how campaigns are financed, and did not allow corporations to donate to campaigns. We're seeing a lot of extra money in the pot, and a lot of it is clearly not stemming directly from that decision. (I've seen it suggested that campaigns are having to raise more funds to compete with the "shadow" money coming from non-individuals, but as mentioned in an earlier comment, the shadow money is also overwhelmingly coming from individuals, so that doesn't seem to work either.)

by joesmo 10y ago

Lazare 10y ago

> The result of the ruling, however, has put almost a billion dollars in SuperPACs. Absolutely incorrect. There are two issues with your claim: 1. The overwhelming bulk of that money comes from individuals, not corporations, and thus was not restricted by the pre-Citizens United rules. (Billionaires have always been free to spend whatever they like.) 2) Much of that money is being spent on activities which did not count as "express advocacy" or "direct electioneering" under the pre-Citizens United rules, and were thus legal for corporate money to fund. (An ad that talks about Clinton being a terrible person but doesn't expressly tell you to vote for Trump was always legal, even if paid for by corporate money, so long as it ran more than 60 days before the election.) Of the two issues, both undermine your point, but the first is by far the most important. Note, for example, that according to the WaPo, a full 41 percent of that "billion dollars" came from a mere 50 individuals. Corporate money is a sideshow; this election is all about billionaires. And Citizens United didn't change the rules governing individuals. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-new-gilded-age-close-to-half-of-all-super-pac-money-comes-from-50-donors/2016/04/15/63dc363c-01b4-11e6-9d36-33d198ea26c5_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-new-gilded-age-c... > the outcome is selling our elections to the highest bidder. Has it occurred to you that much of the outrage over Citizens United has been cynically manufactured by the super-rich to distract you from the actual issue?

joesmo 10y ago
Fair enough. So you're saying that the outrage is manufactured to focus people's attention on how our elections are bought (post Citizens United) instead of how our elections are bought (pre Citizens United)? Or is the actual issue not the fact that our elections are bought? Because to me that seems to have always been the issue and Citizens United just added a littler more money to the pot.
- Lazare 10y ago
  I think the question of whether it's accurate to say our "elections are bought" is an open question, and a very subjective one. What I'm saying is that the things people talk about when they say "our elections are bought" have not changed in many years, and were entirely unaffected by Citizens United. Prior to the decision billionaires could spend unlimited funds on almost any part of the electoral process except directly contributing to the actual campaigns of individual politicians, and did so regularly. After the decision, this was still true. Conversely, I'm aware of no aspect of our political process which is 1) ethically troubling and 2) actually taking place in significant amounts that arose (or increased) only after the decision. The way our elections are bought after the decision(if they are bought, see above) is the same way they were bought before. > Citizens United just added a littler more money to the pot. I'm not even aware of evidence it did that to any meaningful extent. We're entering an era of $1 billion dollar campaigns (there was talk of Clinton running the first $2 billion dollar campaign), which is absurdly high, and clear evidence that more money is flowing into the system, but remember: Citizens United didn't change how campaigns are financed, and did not allow corporations to donate to campaigns. We're seeing a lot of extra money in the pot, and a lot of it is clearly not stemming directly from that decision. (I've seen it suggested that campaigns are having to raise more funds to compete with the "shadow" money coming from non-individuals, but as mentioned in an earlier comment, the shadow money is also overwhelmingly coming from individuals, so that doesn't seem to work either.)