3 ms·

Democrats have a long track record of trying to get money out of politics. A constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and establish public funding o

Democrats have a long track record of trying to get money out of politics. A constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and establish public funding of election campaigns has been on the platform since 2014, and it was one of Hillary Clinton's chief campaign promises. For Republicans, it is just the opposite: they voted unanimously against an amendment proposal to overturn citizens united (all Democrats in favor)[1], unanimously against a bill requiring fincial disclosures of campaign finance (all Democrats in favor)[2], twice[3], against a ban on dark money campaign ads[4], unanimously in favor of a repeal of the existing pittance of public campaign money (all Democrats against)[5], and against a bill to require auditable paper trails of elections (all Democrats in favor)[6] Money in politics is absolutely NOT a "both sides" issue. 1. https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/49906 https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/49906 2. https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/32154 https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/32154 3. https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/41152 https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/41152 4. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll034.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll034.xml 5. https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/37426 https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/37426 6. https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/21011 https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/21011

ratsmack 8y ago
Let's take a look at Democrat vs Republican fund raising: https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/ https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  The fact that PAC money is needed to win elections doesn't mean that everyone supports PAC money. There are multiple PACs whose stated goals are to abolish PACs. Look at the votes. Republicans vote to defend money in politics, Democrats vote to abolish it. The pattern has been very consistent for over a decade.
paulddraper 8y ago
Meanwhile, Republicans typically prefer term limits instead, and are typically opposed by Democrats. [1] [2] TBH it amazes me that Congress has as much power as they do over campaign finance. Ads, etc. are form of political speech. And restricting political speech is nigh unto violating the 1st Amendment. [1] https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/national-vote-advance-term-limits https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/national-... [2] https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/208395-senate-rejects-amendment-recommending-congressional-term-limit- https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/208395-senate-...
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  Well term limits are a genuinely bad idea. They make sense for the President, because the Presidency is a uniquely powerful office, and a perpetual president is a real threat to democracy. A perpetual representative, who wields 1/535th of America's executive power is not going to cause much harm, certainly not enough to justify overriding the will of the people who would keep them in office if they could. Consider also, term limits would speed up the revolving door between lobbyists and congress, by forcing people out before they're ready to leave, and replacing them with legislators who are less experienced and easier to manipulate.
  - ratsmack 8y ago
    When some people in Congress have been there for over 40 years, term limits certainly do sound reasonable.
  - paulddraper 8y ago
    > easier to manipulate If they weren't always re-campaigning, they might be less easy to manipulate.
    - hannasanarion 8y ago
      If they weren't always re-campaigning, they would not be accountable to the people for their actions, and during their statutory final term they would be actively seeking an employment guarantee from somebody once they're out, and that employer will have leverage over them during that two year term.
masonic 8y ago
it was one of Hillary Clinton's chief campaign promises And one impossible for any President to fulfill, so it was inherently dishonest. The President has no authority in amending the Constitution and does not even participate in the process.

ratsmack 8y ago

Let's take a look at Democrat vs Republican fund raising: https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/ https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/

hannasanarion 8y ago
The fact that PAC money is needed to win elections doesn't mean that everyone supports PAC money. There are multiple PACs whose stated goals are to abolish PACs. Look at the votes. Republicans vote to defend money in politics, Democrats vote to abolish it. The pattern has been very consistent for over a decade.

paulddraper 8y ago

Meanwhile, Republicans typically prefer term limits instead, and are typically opposed by Democrats. [1] [2] TBH it amazes me that Congress has as much power as they do over campaign finance. Ads, etc. are form of political speech. And restricting political speech is nigh unto violating the 1st Amendment. [1] https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/national-vote-advance-term-limits https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/national-... [2] https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/208395-senate-rejects-amendment-recommending-congressional-term-limit- https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/208395-senate-...

hannasanarion 8y ago
Well term limits are a genuinely bad idea. They make sense for the President, because the Presidency is a uniquely powerful office, and a perpetual president is a real threat to democracy. A perpetual representative, who wields 1/535th of America's executive power is not going to cause much harm, certainly not enough to justify overriding the will of the people who would keep them in office if they could. Consider also, term limits would speed up the revolving door between lobbyists and congress, by forcing people out before they're ready to leave, and replacing them with legislators who are less experienced and easier to manipulate.
- ratsmack 8y ago
  When some people in Congress have been there for over 40 years, term limits certainly do sound reasonable.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  > easier to manipulate If they weren't always re-campaigning, they might be less easy to manipulate.
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    If they weren't always re-campaigning, they would not be accountable to the people for their actions, and during their statutory final term they would be actively seeking an employment guarantee from somebody once they're out, and that employer will have leverage over them during that two year term.

masonic 8y ago

it was one of Hillary Clinton's chief campaign promises And one impossible for any President to fulfill, so it was inherently dishonest. The President has no authority in amending the Constitution and does not even participate in the process.