4 ms·

That is a good point, if all the contributions are funneled through individuals anyway, what good does the limit serve? My guess is that the standard method fo

by Benjo 16y ago

That is a good point, if all the contributions are funneled through individuals anyway, what good does the limit serve? My guess is that the standard method for contributing, say 240,000 is to hire 100 lobbyists, each of whom contribute the individual max (and take a cut as their lobbyist salary.) Certainly seems like it should be illegal, but I'm not sure it is. Limiting contributions would make that harder, as you'd have to hire 25 times as many lobbyists, but certainly not impossible. My guess is this is Lessig's compromise, considering the free speech guarantees corporations enjoy. I'm sure he'd rather use more direct methods for blocking corporate influence if he didn't think the court would overrule it.

pacemkr 16y ago
Hiring someone just to make contributions in the name of your corp would be illegal, because that's using your company's treasury to make contributions to campaigns, which is explicitly forbidden by existing law. No matter how long I stare at this I just don't see how corporations are contributing to campaigns beyond what is allowed by the PAC limit (which is a tiny sum.) This lack of data on the part of the speaker and lack of understanding on my part, prevents me from believing that corporations are the puppet masters of Congress. In a sense it's self evident, but I can't bring myself to blindly blame it on campaign money. I want to be sure of the cause so I don't, as the speaker ironically puts it, end up "hacking at the branches."
- Benjo 16y ago
  If you want to, I'd love to move this to email, as I would love to get to the bottom of it, and you've already pointed out gaps in my understanding of the problem. I can't find any language that expressly prohibits hiring lobbyists to make donations, and I'm not sure how enforceable such a law would be. Are you referring to chapter 2, section 6, "General Treasury Funds"?

by Benjo 16y ago

pacemkr 16y ago

Hiring someone just to make contributions in the name of your corp would be illegal, because that's using your company's treasury to make contributions to campaigns, which is explicitly forbidden by existing law. No matter how long I stare at this I just don't see how corporations are contributing to campaigns beyond what is allowed by the PAC limit (which is a tiny sum.) This lack of data on the part of the speaker and lack of understanding on my part, prevents me from believing that corporations are the puppet masters of Congress. In a sense it's self evident, but I can't bring myself to blindly blame it on campaign money. I want to be sure of the cause so I don't, as the speaker ironically puts it, end up "hacking at the branches."

Benjo 16y ago
If you want to, I'd love to move this to email, as I would love to get to the bottom of it, and you've already pointed out gaps in my understanding of the problem. I can't find any language that expressly prohibits hiring lobbyists to make donations, and I'm not sure how enforceable such a law would be. Are you referring to chapter 2, section 6, "General Treasury Funds"?