5 ms·

It all comes down to campaign finance. We need pblicly funded elections with absolutely no tolerance for private money, and a set equal amount for each major pa

It all comes down to campaign finance. We need pblicly funded elections with absolutely no tolerance for private money, and a set equal amount for each major party candidate. Until Citizens United is overturned, and we get some kind of legislation like this, money will continue to dominate everything. And as long as that’s the case, there will always be unethical behavior because the incentives are too great.

orangecat 9y ago
money will continue to dominate everything The Clinton campaign raised and spent much more money than the Trump campaign: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/ https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia...
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  Yes, and? This problem goes well beyond any single political candidate.
  - orangecat 9y ago
    The claim is that campaign spending is so determinative of election results that we have to throw people in prison for spending money to express their political opinions in unapproved ways. Both the primaries and general election in 2016 are strong evidence against this. (Sanders outspent Clinton: https://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476047822/sanders-campaign-has-spent-50-percent-more-than-clinton-in-2016 https://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476047822/sanders-campaign-ha.... Jeb Bush spent a fortune: http://time.com/money/4231669/election-2016-money-spent/ http://time.com/money/4231669/election-2016-money-spent/).
    - chillwaves 9y ago
      Sanders outspent Clinton but Clinton (like Trump) was a well known and established public figure reaping in huge benefits from free media coverage. You need to think about these things in nuance rather than just looking at hard numbers. People say Sanders got crushed by Clinton, ignoring the media blackout on his campaign for the first half of the primary and the fact that he started in the low single digits for name ID and ended with 45% of the votes. Context matters.
      - orangecat 9y ago
        Sanders outspent Clinton but Clinton (like Trump) was a well known and established public figure reaping in huge benefits from free media coverage. Yes, that's part of my point. Suppose you overcome the many Constitutional and logistical problems and pass campaign finance laws that limit candidates to spending a fixed amount of money and prohibit third party spending. This would give an even bigger advantage to candidates who are already well known, political insiders, and those the media chooses to give attention to. People say Sanders got crushed by Clinton, ignoring the media blackout on his campaign for the first half of the primary and the fact that he started in the low single digits for name ID and ended with 45% of the votes. And the DNC blatantly putting their thumb on the scale. Sanders did as well as he did largely because ordinary people were able to contribute to his campaign and help get his message out.
        chillwaves 9y ago
        This does not support the argument that money does not matter in politics. It clearly does. It is not everything, but it is something and something huge. Money is a proxy to power. Power can be expressed in different ways, such as influence as seen by both Clinton and Trump. How does this refute that money from any source can influence elections? We need campaign finance reform now.
        djrogers 9y ago
        GP does not appear to be disputing the claim that money matters in politics, (s)he appears to be disputing the insistence that this is a bad thing which must be removed. Currently the only leverage that someone from outside the government class has is money, and reform that takes all of that power from the citizenry and puts it in the hands of the government is downright scary.
- siidooloo 9y ago
  How does that contradict what the other person said?
  - bduerst 9y ago
    It doesn't, it's just more whataboutism. It also ignores that one campaign was being assisted by a foreign power, the extent of which is still being investigated and not fully known. The U.S. desperately needs campaign finance reform.
    - orangecat 9y ago
      It also ignores that one campaign was being assisted by a foreign power To the extent that this is true, campaign finance laws couldn't have stopped it. If anything, restricting the ability of Americans to express their opinions makes foreign propaganda even stronger.
      - bduerst 9y ago
        >To the extent that this is true, campaign finance laws couldn't have stopped it Again, the investigation is still underway and the full extent of the assistance is still unknown, meaning you can't assert that until the findings are released.
        thesis 9y ago
        You can't assert that they were assisted by a foreign government until the investigation is over either... since the extent was unknown aka maybe not at all.
        espadrine 9y ago
        That is the first time I have heard this position, and I find it indefensible. “You can't assert that kids died in this school shooting until the investigation is over, since the extent was unknown.” It similarly does not work if parents are preparing the funerals. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a report back in January 2017 decisively stating this: > We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. > Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. > […] We [CIA, FBI, NSA] have high confidence in these judgments. > We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
- stordoff 9y ago
  That the two major candidates raised so much money means that other candidates barely even get a look in. Arguably a different facet of the same problem / part of a much broader problem that the two major parties are so entrenched.
- threeseed 9y ago
  There was far more money spent by third parties e.g. PACs, NRA, Special Interests etc and so without including those this statement isn't a true reflection of the campaign.
  - geowwy 9y ago
    Do you have the figures? According to this Hillary got more support from PACs etc too: https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/ https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/
- specialist 9y ago
  Sure. If you exclude PACs, dark money, earned media...
oblib 9y ago
"Citizens United is overturned, and we get some kind of legislation like this..." My own opinion is that asking politicians who take "Big Money" to pass legislation to put a stop to that is unrealistic. It will never, ever, happen. What is realistic is to personally pledge and publicly announce that you will stop voting for any politician who takes or uses Big Money and urge others to do the same. When you get enough representatives elected who don't take that Big Money, and defeat enough who do, passing that legislation will be possible. But not before then. This is happening right now. People are beginning to do this. We all need to do this.
djrogers 9y ago
> a set equal amount for each major party candidate So the government gets to decide which political parties can run candidates? That sounds a little too much like certain 'democratic' dictatorships. I don't think we want to (or can) put that much power in the hands of the government.

orangecat 9y ago

money will continue to dominate everything The Clinton campaign raised and spent much more money than the Trump campaign: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/ https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia...

enraged_camel 9y ago
Yes, and? This problem goes well beyond any single political candidate.
- orangecat 9y ago
  The claim is that campaign spending is so determinative of election results that we have to throw people in prison for spending money to express their political opinions in unapproved ways. Both the primaries and general election in 2016 are strong evidence against this. (Sanders outspent Clinton: https://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476047822/sanders-campaign-has-spent-50-percent-more-than-clinton-in-2016 https://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476047822/sanders-campaign-ha.... Jeb Bush spent a fortune: http://time.com/money/4231669/election-2016-money-spent/ http://time.com/money/4231669/election-2016-money-spent/).
  - chillwaves 9y ago
    Sanders outspent Clinton but Clinton (like Trump) was a well known and established public figure reaping in huge benefits from free media coverage. You need to think about these things in nuance rather than just looking at hard numbers. People say Sanders got crushed by Clinton, ignoring the media blackout on his campaign for the first half of the primary and the fact that he started in the low single digits for name ID and ended with 45% of the votes. Context matters.
    - orangecat 9y ago
      Sanders outspent Clinton but Clinton (like Trump) was a well known and established public figure reaping in huge benefits from free media coverage. Yes, that's part of my point. Suppose you overcome the many Constitutional and logistical problems and pass campaign finance laws that limit candidates to spending a fixed amount of money and prohibit third party spending. This would give an even bigger advantage to candidates who are already well known, political insiders, and those the media chooses to give attention to. People say Sanders got crushed by Clinton, ignoring the media blackout on his campaign for the first half of the primary and the fact that he started in the low single digits for name ID and ended with 45% of the votes. And the DNC blatantly putting their thumb on the scale. Sanders did as well as he did largely because ordinary people were able to contribute to his campaign and help get his message out.
      - chillwaves 9y ago
        This does not support the argument that money does not matter in politics. It clearly does. It is not everything, but it is something and something huge. Money is a proxy to power. Power can be expressed in different ways, such as influence as seen by both Clinton and Trump. How does this refute that money from any source can influence elections? We need campaign finance reform now.
        djrogers 9y ago
        GP does not appear to be disputing the claim that money matters in politics, (s)he appears to be disputing the insistence that this is a bad thing which must be removed. Currently the only leverage that someone from outside the government class has is money, and reform that takes all of that power from the citizenry and puts it in the hands of the government is downright scary.
siidooloo 9y ago
How does that contradict what the other person said?
- bduerst 9y ago
  It doesn't, it's just more whataboutism. It also ignores that one campaign was being assisted by a foreign power, the extent of which is still being investigated and not fully known. The U.S. desperately needs campaign finance reform.
  - orangecat 9y ago
    It also ignores that one campaign was being assisted by a foreign power To the extent that this is true, campaign finance laws couldn't have stopped it. If anything, restricting the ability of Americans to express their opinions makes foreign propaganda even stronger.
    - bduerst 9y ago
      >To the extent that this is true, campaign finance laws couldn't have stopped it Again, the investigation is still underway and the full extent of the assistance is still unknown, meaning you can't assert that until the findings are released.
      - thesis 9y ago
        You can't assert that they were assisted by a foreign government until the investigation is over either... since the extent was unknown aka maybe not at all.
        espadrine 9y ago
        That is the first time I have heard this position, and I find it indefensible. “You can't assert that kids died in this school shooting until the investigation is over, since the extent was unknown.” It similarly does not work if parents are preparing the funerals. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a report back in January 2017 decisively stating this: > We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. > Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. > […] We [CIA, FBI, NSA] have high confidence in these judgments. > We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
stordoff 9y ago
That the two major candidates raised so much money means that other candidates barely even get a look in. Arguably a different facet of the same problem / part of a much broader problem that the two major parties are so entrenched.
threeseed 9y ago
There was far more money spent by third parties e.g. PACs, NRA, Special Interests etc and so without including those this statement isn't a true reflection of the campaign.
- geowwy 9y ago
  Do you have the figures? According to this Hillary got more support from PACs etc too: https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/ https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/
specialist 9y ago
Sure. If you exclude PACs, dark money, earned media...

oblib 9y ago

"Citizens United is overturned, and we get some kind of legislation like this..." My own opinion is that asking politicians who take "Big Money" to pass legislation to put a stop to that is unrealistic. It will never, ever, happen. What is realistic is to personally pledge and publicly announce that you will stop voting for any politician who takes or uses Big Money and urge others to do the same. When you get enough representatives elected who don't take that Big Money, and defeat enough who do, passing that legislation will be possible. But not before then. This is happening right now. People are beginning to do this. We all need to do this.

djrogers 9y ago

> a set equal amount for each major party candidate So the government gets to decide which political parties can run candidates? That sounds a little too much like certain 'democratic' dictatorships. I don't think we want to (or can) put that much power in the hands of the government.