3 ms·

Why do you think current campaign finance laws reinforce the existing parties? Incumbency typically means more of a fundraising base and cozy relationships wit

by jbooth 16y ago

Why do you think current campaign finance laws reinforce the existing parties? Incumbency typically means more of a fundraising base and cozy relationships with lobbyists, but I don't see how rejiggering campaign finance changes that. Rich candidates can already self-fund, and eliminating limits would just strengthen the incumbents (why bribe a potential congressman when you can bribe a sitting congressman). The highly gerrymandered districts in most states (70% are safe for one party or the other) seem to be a bigger problem to me.

protomyth 16y ago
Yes, gerrymandered districts are a huge problem, but the lack of ability for a person to act as a patron / initial investor for a new political party means that the new rich (any era) aren't able to topple existing parties. That initial pot of money could spur interest in "normal" people allowing them to believe change is possible and actually create it. The only constitutional amendment I would love at this point would be something along the lines of all districts must start at the northwest corner and be as close to boxes as community and terrain allow.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Well, we agree on the gerrymandering, but I think you're just seeing what you want to see WRT campaign finance. Why wouldn't "patrons" just favor existing congressmen? They can deliver the goods immediately, instead of having to win a race and get seated first. Eliminates a bunch of risk for a higher ROI. Basically, I can see your scenario of a noble candidate who can only get funded by one noble wealthy patron, but I think that will basically never happen compared to outright bribery which will happen all the time. I'm inherently suspicious of any politician that's funded by only a few people. You know they have the candidate/congressman on speed dial, and the candidate/congressman knows how important they are. It's a built in conflict of interest. Numerous small-dollar donations, on the other hand, tend to reflect actual democratic interest in a candidate -- even if it's a machine, at least they put in the work to build the machine, lots of retail politics helping lots of little people.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    First, I don't see what you consider the difference between bribery and campaign donation. Is it only a matter of amount? I did say full disclosure, so everyone knows the funding source. Right now the corporations, unions, and political parties have ways of spending large sums of money, but the individual doesn't. I don't see how allowing individuals changes the possibility of influence peddling. Do you not believe that a Congressman is currently capable of refusing to take a call from an important union boss? "Numerous small-dollar donations, on the other hand, tend to reflect actual democratic interest in a candidate" - maybe. Funding wise the Republicans go more that way than the Democrats (strange, but disclosures sometimes tell a weird story).
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Matter of amount and the interest of the party donating. If I'm cutting a $50 check to a candidate, I can't really expect anything back. If I'm cutting a $500,000 check, you're damn right I do (this also counts for bundling 100 couples for 460k under the current regime, it's just harder). Unions and political parties are collections of individuals who've organized for an expressly political purpose. Corporations aren't, and for everything they've accomplished, they have terrible incentives as regards the political sphere. The ROI is huge if, for a measly few million, you can swing a vote of congress. RE: Republicans and Democrats, my information was that Democrats had done better in the small-donor game since 2006, but I could be wrong. Regardless, my opinion is out of small-d democratic principles, I'd feel the same way about it if it hurt the democrats -- that would just mean we had to do a better job of appealing to ordinary people and spend less time appealing to the big money people.
      - protomyth 16y ago
        "Unions and political parties are collections of individuals who've organized for an expressly political purpose." No, unions are bargaining groups for workers. They have as much / little right to politics as corporations. Corporations are groups of shareholders and the days of normal people not owning stock are long over. Look at the hold of certain unions in California and their pension system woes for an example of undue influence that is going to bite someone. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Mead People need to be able to start revolutions without the use of arms, and for US politics that means spending money. I find the preference for parties and unions to be a poor substitute for individual rights.

by jbooth 16y ago

protomyth 16y ago

Yes, gerrymandered districts are a huge problem, but the lack of ability for a person to act as a patron / initial investor for a new political party means that the new rich (any era) aren't able to topple existing parties. That initial pot of money could spur interest in "normal" people allowing them to believe change is possible and actually create it. The only constitutional amendment I would love at this point would be something along the lines of all districts must start at the northwest corner and be as close to boxes as community and terrain allow.

jbooth 16y ago
Well, we agree on the gerrymandering, but I think you're just seeing what you want to see WRT campaign finance. Why wouldn't "patrons" just favor existing congressmen? They can deliver the goods immediately, instead of having to win a race and get seated first. Eliminates a bunch of risk for a higher ROI. Basically, I can see your scenario of a noble candidate who can only get funded by one noble wealthy patron, but I think that will basically never happen compared to outright bribery which will happen all the time. I'm inherently suspicious of any politician that's funded by only a few people. You know they have the candidate/congressman on speed dial, and the candidate/congressman knows how important they are. It's a built in conflict of interest. Numerous small-dollar donations, on the other hand, tend to reflect actual democratic interest in a candidate -- even if it's a machine, at least they put in the work to build the machine, lots of retail politics helping lots of little people.
- protomyth 16y ago
  First, I don't see what you consider the difference between bribery and campaign donation. Is it only a matter of amount? I did say full disclosure, so everyone knows the funding source. Right now the corporations, unions, and political parties have ways of spending large sums of money, but the individual doesn't. I don't see how allowing individuals changes the possibility of influence peddling. Do you not believe that a Congressman is currently capable of refusing to take a call from an important union boss? "Numerous small-dollar donations, on the other hand, tend to reflect actual democratic interest in a candidate" - maybe. Funding wise the Republicans go more that way than the Democrats (strange, but disclosures sometimes tell a weird story).
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Matter of amount and the interest of the party donating. If I'm cutting a $50 check to a candidate, I can't really expect anything back. If I'm cutting a $500,000 check, you're damn right I do (this also counts for bundling 100 couples for 460k under the current regime, it's just harder). Unions and political parties are collections of individuals who've organized for an expressly political purpose. Corporations aren't, and for everything they've accomplished, they have terrible incentives as regards the political sphere. The ROI is huge if, for a measly few million, you can swing a vote of congress. RE: Republicans and Democrats, my information was that Democrats had done better in the small-donor game since 2006, but I could be wrong. Regardless, my opinion is out of small-d democratic principles, I'd feel the same way about it if it hurt the democrats -- that would just mean we had to do a better job of appealing to ordinary people and spend less time appealing to the big money people.
    - protomyth 16y ago
      "Unions and political parties are collections of individuals who've organized for an expressly political purpose." No, unions are bargaining groups for workers. They have as much / little right to politics as corporations. Corporations are groups of shareholders and the days of normal people not owning stock are long over. Look at the hold of certain unions in California and their pension system woes for an example of undue influence that is going to bite someone. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Mead People need to be able to start revolutions without the use of arms, and for US politics that means spending money. I find the preference for parties and unions to be a poor substitute for individual rights.