7 ms·

>campaign finance reform, perhaps? Abso-fucking-lutely. I think in order to run at any levels of office, you should be using public money. For simplification,

>campaign finance reform, perhaps? Abso-fucking-lutely. I think in order to run at any levels of office, you should be using public money. For simplification, let's say if one wants to run for president, they can only use whatever is in the FEC public coffers. In return, we levy a federal FEC tax to boost it way higher than its current rates. We replicate a similar tax at state and local levels. Completely remove private donations and PACs and all that shit from the lawbooks. A fuckload of people want to run for president? Well, you better get creative with your tiny slice of the pie. Show us how fiscally responsible you really are. People would scream and holler about it not being American, but it's one of the only ways, I think, to really take a large stab at our chronic corruption.

jimmyk 9y ago
>For simplification, let's say if one wants to run for president, they can only use whatever is in the FEC public coffers. What in particular would they not be allowed to use private money to do? Would individuals that aren't running be allowed to use private money to do those things?
- Dirlewanger 9y ago
  I never really fleshed out the idea too much in my head. It may indeed be impossible to completely get rid of private money. With shit like super-PACs and all the different shell entities that exist solely to funnel money through, all those should be struck from the books. Private donations of $3500 or whatever the limit is? Sure, keep those.
  - jimmyk 9y ago
    >With shit like super-PACs and all the different shell entities that exist solely to funnel money through, all those should be struck from the books. In regard to promoting political candidates, what in particular should individuals unaffiliated with the candidate not be allowed to spend their private money on? For example, should I be allowed to spend my own money to buy a computer which I then use to post comments on message boards which argue in favor of some candidate? Should I be allowed to spend my own money on a computer which hosts a website which argues in favor of some candidate? Should I be allowed to buy a newspaper and then selectively hire journalists who I believe are biased in favor of the candidates that I prefer?
- PeterisP 9y ago
  Countries that have limits on pre-election advertising spending generally include any and all public advertising expenses in that - TV, newspapers, online media, billboards, public space, physical mail campaigns, sponsorship of events/teams/whatever, etc. Pre-election ads by other people is limited - small amounts per person are exempted, but you can't simply buy a $10k radio ad praising whatever candidate you like, nor can a radio station do it on their own. Also, in the pre-election time mass media have to offer equal conditions for all parties - if you own a TV station and run ads for one party for $1/minute, then you have to offer the same ad slots for the same price to all other parties as well. I mean, it's not simple and it does require some limitations of what the people and media can do - which might conflict with USA 1st amendment, but in general the problem is somewhat solvable, it's somehow done elsewhere and so you can look at worldwide experience to pick out the bits that work best.
  - jimmyk 9y ago
    >but you can't simply buy a $10k radio ad praising whatever candidate you like Can I buy a $10k radio ad supporting some particular issue that the candidate also supports? Can I buy a radio station and hire talk radio hosts that argue in favor of the candidate or issues the candidate supports? >but in general the problem is somewhat solvable I think that depends on what you count as "solvable". The systems which address the problem probably work better for some people and less well for others. Which people do you have reason to believe are beneficiaries of these systems, and what reason do you have to believe that?
    - PeterisP 9y ago
      On one hand, the beneficiaries are the smaller parties, since it allows somewhat effective participation in elections without requiring that much money - they get some free airtime (gov't funds a specific amount of airtime in largest TV & radio stations for election coverage, allocated equally for parties; I'm not sure whether all applicants or all those who got some minimum number of votes in previous elections), and if you have an active volunteer force, you can get your message out without being overwhelmed by a massive campaign of the established parties. This also makes it practical for new parties to get started and get some seats whenever some voter group or key issue gets ignored by the parties in power. On the other hand, it has some advantages for the established politicians as well, after all they set the rules for this system - in essence it avoids an arms race. Lifting the limits would give them some advantage over the smaller parties and upstarts, but nothing over their real competition, but that would mean that all the major players would suddenly need to raise many times more money, making everyone more dependent on donors. Who are the losers in this case? Probably the very wealthiest individuals (not "the 1%" but the top 10-100 richest people), since it limits their influence. At any one point of time one or another party (not necessarily the largest one) may have an advantage in financial support and would be happy to lift or raise limits so that they could buy more votes, but if something like that happens, then it motivates everyone else to not let that happen. Regarding your questions - it depends, that's more a question for the lawyers. IMHO ads supporting some issue would be fine but talk hosts arguing in favor of some (any) candidate would be prohibited in pre-election campaign time window - e.g. all mass media interviews with candidates during that time would be only in the scheduled slots or as advertising. Sure, if you control important media or people then the limits can and do get bent quite a bit beyond their intent, but it still sets a limit. I mean, if the stated limit is 10 then everybody might push it to 11 by various means, but you can't really do a meaningful large scale money-influence campaign without it being obviously illegal.
bluGill 9y ago
I'm running for president, fund my trips around the country, and my ads on TV. Nobody in their right mind would elect me, but I have yet to see a fair way to exclude me.
- BearGoesChirp 9y ago
  I'm a private company (or private billionaire). I like your opponent. I put ads up on TV for them using my money. How can anyone stop me without it being a First Amendment violation? And while it isn't giving that politician money, there are plenty who will recognize that my paying for their add is giving them a service that is worth money. It isn't quite as direct as donating, but the effect is the same.
  - jimmyk 9y ago
    >I put ads up on TV for them using my money. How can anyone stop me without it being a First Amendment violation? How can we even decide whether an ad is for some candidate? If it doesn't mention them by name, but is plainly obviously talking about them, would that still count? What if it's less obvious? What if it doesn't have anything to do with the candidate, but promotes some policy that the candidate also happens to support? All seem to fall under the category of 'giving them a service that is worth money'.
  - rch 9y ago
    I'd impose a 72 hour pre-election silence to give the public time to process all the campaign noise. I believe such a ban would be in keeping with existing reasonable constraints on free speech, and help contextualize paid messaging in general.
    - BearGoesChirp 9y ago
      What is the test for reasonable constraints on free speech? And what will be the penalty for breaking the ban? If it is just a fine, you have basically just made it so the rich can pay more to have a stronger voice. If it is jail time... well we already know how well the legal system goes after the rich. A law would benefit those who have the power to break it while harming those weaker.
dmix 9y ago
If businesses have a hundred different ways to gain special market advantages by simply having political influence then 100% their money should not be able to influence politics. This should be more obvious in US (and Canadian) politics than it is. But politicians are rarely willing to admit their malleability when it comes to both businesses and non-profit organizations (or special interest groups) influencing them. So the problem persists. This is a big thing many small-government conservatives seem to miss. They think that capping financing of political parties is anti-business. But in reality it's only incumbent businesses who fleece the government for contracts or exploit government policy to create barriers of entry for their competitors who back ending these policies. Even though small/medium business represents 60%+ of employment they are largely ignored policy-wise. Then when big-corps exploit market dynamics then ever more regulation are put in place that only hurts the small businesses rather than the big corps (see: minimum wage). So those of us who support small-government, we're often left with only choosing between big government liberals who are indifferent to the ROI of ever-expanding government power/tax base or small government conservatives who let corporate influence in politics run free. It's difficult to tell which one results in the most abuse these days. Even if this stops being a problem it has existed for decades and these 'gray' connections between politics and business is everywhere in North America. It would take decades to reverse their influence which is a shame because it's very existence is self-reinforcing (much like those organizations whose very existence depends on the continuation of government financing as opposed to depending on their utility to the public).
- mark-r 9y ago
  I'm not doubting that money buys influence, but it's not even necessary. There are enough potential politicians with enough different viewpoints that all you need to do is find one already pushing your agenda, and back them.
  - dmix 9y ago
    That still would limit the number of politicians who appreciate your niche political issue. Especially considering the cliche politician is a lawyer from a well known private school who gives preference to friends or friends of friends. Eliminating money from that scenario reduces the tiny number of companies who currently influence politics and push it closer to 'interesting' or 'popular' issues rather than ones backed by incumbent connections and wealth.
pikzen 9y ago
Or do like every sensible country does, cap individual donations, forbid companies from donating, create a government entity whose goal is to ensure donations are respecting those rules, candidates having to deliver their list of donors to said entity. Make it actually illegal to get private money from PACs and other complex setups. And eventually reimburse part of the campaign past a certain percentage of votes. But that requires to unfuck the entire american political system and weird fascination for corporations being people, so this might take a while.
- kevinnk 9y ago
  Almost all of those things are already implemented in the US. > cap individual donations Direct contribution cap for individuals is $2,700 > forbid companies from donating Direct contributions are not allowed, although PACs can give up to $5000. > create a government entity whose goal is to ensure donations are respecting those rules Aka the FEC > candidates having to deliver their list of donors to said entity Already required for federal elections, also candidates must detail how they spent the money as well. > Make it actually illegal to get private money from PACs and other complex setups. PACs aren't complicated and for the most part are a positive step towards fair elections (that's why they were created in the first place). > And eventually reimburse part of the campaign past a certain percentage of votes. Federal elections already have public funding and the system in place is much better than reimbursement after the election.
  - deong 9y ago
    They're implemented, but the rise of the SuperPAC after Citizens United more or less makes the regulations pointless. I can't contribute more than $2700 to a campaign, but I can contribute $27,000,000 to a PAC that requires only the thinnest imaginable separation from the campaign. Basically, as long as the candidate isn't on TV personally endorsing my check, we're good.
    - jimmyk 9y ago
      What is your alternative to the Citizens United ruling?
kcorbitt 9y ago
Expecting Washington to determine who is a serious candidate (and then policing their use of federal funds) is a major conflict of interest, because policymakers will almost certainly set standards that benefit the two entrenched parties. I've toyed with an alternative concept, though, that might achieve the same effect with less required oversight. The idea is a sort of non-partisan "un-PAC" -- a fundraising organization explicitly dedicated to combating corporate political donations. If a presidential candidate or his affiliated PACs recieved eg. $5MM in fundraising from oil executives, the un-PAC would spend $5MM on negative advertising linking him in the public's mind with that industry. If the un-PAC raised enough money, eventually a large multiple of corporate donations could be spent counteracting them, and at some point it would become uneconomical for politicians to accept those donations at all. We spent about $6B on the 2016 federal elections (https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/cost.php https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/cost.php). That comes out to about $20 for every American. That's a big number to beat, but not impossible, and every bit along the way helps.
- koliber 9y ago
  I had an idea somewhere along the lines of your un-PAC. However, the one I imagined would hire lobbyists who would shmooze politicians to pass anti-lobbying laws. The PAC's job would get harder and harder the more successful it was.
  - int_19h 9y ago
    Something like this? https://mayday.us/the-plan/ https://mayday.us/the-plan/

jimmyk 9y ago

>For simplification, let's say if one wants to run for president, they can only use whatever is in the FEC public coffers. What in particular would they not be allowed to use private money to do? Would individuals that aren't running be allowed to use private money to do those things?

Dirlewanger 9y ago
I never really fleshed out the idea too much in my head. It may indeed be impossible to completely get rid of private money. With shit like super-PACs and all the different shell entities that exist solely to funnel money through, all those should be struck from the books. Private donations of $3500 or whatever the limit is? Sure, keep those.
- jimmyk 9y ago
  >With shit like super-PACs and all the different shell entities that exist solely to funnel money through, all those should be struck from the books. In regard to promoting political candidates, what in particular should individuals unaffiliated with the candidate not be allowed to spend their private money on? For example, should I be allowed to spend my own money to buy a computer which I then use to post comments on message boards which argue in favor of some candidate? Should I be allowed to spend my own money on a computer which hosts a website which argues in favor of some candidate? Should I be allowed to buy a newspaper and then selectively hire journalists who I believe are biased in favor of the candidates that I prefer?
PeterisP 9y ago
Countries that have limits on pre-election advertising spending generally include any and all public advertising expenses in that - TV, newspapers, online media, billboards, public space, physical mail campaigns, sponsorship of events/teams/whatever, etc. Pre-election ads by other people is limited - small amounts per person are exempted, but you can't simply buy a $10k radio ad praising whatever candidate you like, nor can a radio station do it on their own. Also, in the pre-election time mass media have to offer equal conditions for all parties - if you own a TV station and run ads for one party for $1/minute, then you have to offer the same ad slots for the same price to all other parties as well. I mean, it's not simple and it does require some limitations of what the people and media can do - which might conflict with USA 1st amendment, but in general the problem is somewhat solvable, it's somehow done elsewhere and so you can look at worldwide experience to pick out the bits that work best.
- jimmyk 9y ago
  >but you can't simply buy a $10k radio ad praising whatever candidate you like Can I buy a $10k radio ad supporting some particular issue that the candidate also supports? Can I buy a radio station and hire talk radio hosts that argue in favor of the candidate or issues the candidate supports? >but in general the problem is somewhat solvable I think that depends on what you count as "solvable". The systems which address the problem probably work better for some people and less well for others. Which people do you have reason to believe are beneficiaries of these systems, and what reason do you have to believe that?
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    On one hand, the beneficiaries are the smaller parties, since it allows somewhat effective participation in elections without requiring that much money - they get some free airtime (gov't funds a specific amount of airtime in largest TV & radio stations for election coverage, allocated equally for parties; I'm not sure whether all applicants or all those who got some minimum number of votes in previous elections), and if you have an active volunteer force, you can get your message out without being overwhelmed by a massive campaign of the established parties. This also makes it practical for new parties to get started and get some seats whenever some voter group or key issue gets ignored by the parties in power. On the other hand, it has some advantages for the established politicians as well, after all they set the rules for this system - in essence it avoids an arms race. Lifting the limits would give them some advantage over the smaller parties and upstarts, but nothing over their real competition, but that would mean that all the major players would suddenly need to raise many times more money, making everyone more dependent on donors. Who are the losers in this case? Probably the very wealthiest individuals (not "the 1%" but the top 10-100 richest people), since it limits their influence. At any one point of time one or another party (not necessarily the largest one) may have an advantage in financial support and would be happy to lift or raise limits so that they could buy more votes, but if something like that happens, then it motivates everyone else to not let that happen. Regarding your questions - it depends, that's more a question for the lawyers. IMHO ads supporting some issue would be fine but talk hosts arguing in favor of some (any) candidate would be prohibited in pre-election campaign time window - e.g. all mass media interviews with candidates during that time would be only in the scheduled slots or as advertising. Sure, if you control important media or people then the limits can and do get bent quite a bit beyond their intent, but it still sets a limit. I mean, if the stated limit is 10 then everybody might push it to 11 by various means, but you can't really do a meaningful large scale money-influence campaign without it being obviously illegal.

bluGill 9y ago

I'm running for president, fund my trips around the country, and my ads on TV. Nobody in their right mind would elect me, but I have yet to see a fair way to exclude me.

BearGoesChirp 9y ago
I'm a private company (or private billionaire). I like your opponent. I put ads up on TV for them using my money. How can anyone stop me without it being a First Amendment violation? And while it isn't giving that politician money, there are plenty who will recognize that my paying for their add is giving them a service that is worth money. It isn't quite as direct as donating, but the effect is the same.
- jimmyk 9y ago
  >I put ads up on TV for them using my money. How can anyone stop me without it being a First Amendment violation? How can we even decide whether an ad is for some candidate? If it doesn't mention them by name, but is plainly obviously talking about them, would that still count? What if it's less obvious? What if it doesn't have anything to do with the candidate, but promotes some policy that the candidate also happens to support? All seem to fall under the category of 'giving them a service that is worth money'.
- rch 9y ago
  I'd impose a 72 hour pre-election silence to give the public time to process all the campaign noise. I believe such a ban would be in keeping with existing reasonable constraints on free speech, and help contextualize paid messaging in general.
  - BearGoesChirp 9y ago
    What is the test for reasonable constraints on free speech? And what will be the penalty for breaking the ban? If it is just a fine, you have basically just made it so the rich can pay more to have a stronger voice. If it is jail time... well we already know how well the legal system goes after the rich. A law would benefit those who have the power to break it while harming those weaker.

dmix 9y ago

If businesses have a hundred different ways to gain special market advantages by simply having political influence then 100% their money should not be able to influence politics. This should be more obvious in US (and Canadian) politics than it is. But politicians are rarely willing to admit their malleability when it comes to both businesses and non-profit organizations (or special interest groups) influencing them. So the problem persists. This is a big thing many small-government conservatives seem to miss. They think that capping financing of political parties is anti-business. But in reality it's only incumbent businesses who fleece the government for contracts or exploit government policy to create barriers of entry for their competitors who back ending these policies. Even though small/medium business represents 60%+ of employment they are largely ignored policy-wise. Then when big-corps exploit market dynamics then ever more regulation are put in place that only hurts the small businesses rather than the big corps (see: minimum wage). So those of us who support small-government, we're often left with only choosing between big government liberals who are indifferent to the ROI of ever-expanding government power/tax base or small government conservatives who let corporate influence in politics run free. It's difficult to tell which one results in the most abuse these days. Even if this stops being a problem it has existed for decades and these 'gray' connections between politics and business is everywhere in North America. It would take decades to reverse their influence which is a shame because it's very existence is self-reinforcing (much like those organizations whose very existence depends on the continuation of government financing as opposed to depending on their utility to the public).

mark-r 9y ago
I'm not doubting that money buys influence, but it's not even necessary. There are enough potential politicians with enough different viewpoints that all you need to do is find one already pushing your agenda, and back them.
- dmix 9y ago
  That still would limit the number of politicians who appreciate your niche political issue. Especially considering the cliche politician is a lawyer from a well known private school who gives preference to friends or friends of friends. Eliminating money from that scenario reduces the tiny number of companies who currently influence politics and push it closer to 'interesting' or 'popular' issues rather than ones backed by incumbent connections and wealth.

pikzen 9y ago

Or do like every sensible country does, cap individual donations, forbid companies from donating, create a government entity whose goal is to ensure donations are respecting those rules, candidates having to deliver their list of donors to said entity. Make it actually illegal to get private money from PACs and other complex setups. And eventually reimburse part of the campaign past a certain percentage of votes. But that requires to unfuck the entire american political system and weird fascination for corporations being people, so this might take a while.

kevinnk 9y ago
Almost all of those things are already implemented in the US. > cap individual donations Direct contribution cap for individuals is $2,700 > forbid companies from donating Direct contributions are not allowed, although PACs can give up to $5000. > create a government entity whose goal is to ensure donations are respecting those rules Aka the FEC > candidates having to deliver their list of donors to said entity Already required for federal elections, also candidates must detail how they spent the money as well. > Make it actually illegal to get private money from PACs and other complex setups. PACs aren't complicated and for the most part are a positive step towards fair elections (that's why they were created in the first place). > And eventually reimburse part of the campaign past a certain percentage of votes. Federal elections already have public funding and the system in place is much better than reimbursement after the election.
- deong 9y ago
  They're implemented, but the rise of the SuperPAC after Citizens United more or less makes the regulations pointless. I can't contribute more than $2700 to a campaign, but I can contribute $27,000,000 to a PAC that requires only the thinnest imaginable separation from the campaign. Basically, as long as the candidate isn't on TV personally endorsing my check, we're good.
  - jimmyk 9y ago
    What is your alternative to the Citizens United ruling?

kcorbitt 9y ago

Expecting Washington to determine who is a serious candidate (and then policing their use of federal funds) is a major conflict of interest, because policymakers will almost certainly set standards that benefit the two entrenched parties. I've toyed with an alternative concept, though, that might achieve the same effect with less required oversight. The idea is a sort of non-partisan "un-PAC" -- a fundraising organization explicitly dedicated to combating corporate political donations. If a presidential candidate or his affiliated PACs recieved eg. $5MM in fundraising from oil executives, the un-PAC would spend $5MM on negative advertising linking him in the public's mind with that industry. If the un-PAC raised enough money, eventually a large multiple of corporate donations could be spent counteracting them, and at some point it would become uneconomical for politicians to accept those donations at all. We spent about $6B on the 2016 federal elections (https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/cost.php https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/cost.php). That comes out to about $20 for every American. That's a big number to beat, but not impossible, and every bit along the way helps.

koliber 9y ago
I had an idea somewhere along the lines of your un-PAC. However, the one I imagined would hire lobbyists who would shmooze politicians to pass anti-lobbying laws. The PAC's job would get harder and harder the more successful it was.
- int_19h 9y ago
  Something like this? https://mayday.us/the-plan/ https://mayday.us/the-plan/