6 ms·

Or do like every sensible country does, cap individual donations, forbid companies from donating, create a government entity whose goal is to ensure donations a

by 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?
    - int_19h 9y ago
      The exact opposite of it: money isn't speech, so restrictions on campaign financing aren't infringements on your free speech rights. Not letting you spend millions on campaign ads is not an equivalent of silencing your political opinion - you can still speak, write etc as a private individual, same as any other citizen.
      - jimmyk 9y ago
        >same as any other citizen. Hardly. Some citizens own media outlets and can hire and fire journalists based on their political leanings. Some citizens pay millions of dollars to media outlets for non-political advertising and can adjust their purchases depending on the reporting of the media outlet. Are you going to tell media outlets they can't talk about politics? Or do you disagree that media outlets have influence over elections (at least, more than I do)? I'd guess they have more influence than paid advertisements.
      - bzbarsky 9y ago
        Can I create a video and post it on my private youtube channel, as a private individual? Can I spend $10 million creating the youtube video, if I have that much money as a private individual? Can I organize a group of 10 friends to each spend $1 million on the youtube video? Can I organize 1 million people to spend $10 each on said video? Note that under McCain-Feingold (which is the law that was at issue in Citizens United) the answer to the second question is "yes", as far as I can tell: the law instituted restrictions on corporations and unions, not on rich individuals. Whether the answer is "yes" for the second and third question would have depended on whether youtube counts as "broadcast, cable, or satellite communication" as well as whether a gofundme campaign should fund under the law, and so forth. So it's really not that hard to come up with loopholes around this stuff, if you want to allow spontaneous grassroots production of political youtube videos. (Also, one person's "political ad" is another person's "documentary", often enough; this goes in both directions.)

by pikzen 9y ago

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?
  - int_19h 9y ago
    The exact opposite of it: money isn't speech, so restrictions on campaign financing aren't infringements on your free speech rights. Not letting you spend millions on campaign ads is not an equivalent of silencing your political opinion - you can still speak, write etc as a private individual, same as any other citizen.
    - jimmyk 9y ago
      >same as any other citizen. Hardly. Some citizens own media outlets and can hire and fire journalists based on their political leanings. Some citizens pay millions of dollars to media outlets for non-political advertising and can adjust their purchases depending on the reporting of the media outlet. Are you going to tell media outlets they can't talk about politics? Or do you disagree that media outlets have influence over elections (at least, more than I do)? I'd guess they have more influence than paid advertisements.
    - bzbarsky 9y ago
      Can I create a video and post it on my private youtube channel, as a private individual? Can I spend $10 million creating the youtube video, if I have that much money as a private individual? Can I organize a group of 10 friends to each spend $1 million on the youtube video? Can I organize 1 million people to spend $10 each on said video? Note that under McCain-Feingold (which is the law that was at issue in Citizens United) the answer to the second question is "yes", as far as I can tell: the law instituted restrictions on corporations and unions, not on rich individuals. Whether the answer is "yes" for the second and third question would have depended on whether youtube counts as "broadcast, cable, or satellite communication" as well as whether a gofundme campaign should fund under the law, and so forth. So it's really not that hard to come up with loopholes around this stuff, if you want to allow spontaneous grassroots production of political youtube videos. (Also, one person's "political ad" is another person's "documentary", often enough; this goes in both directions.)