4 ms·

> the band must be a nonprofit Sure! So, I'll start a software company, let's call it Maxisoft. Then, I'll start a non-profit, "the Maxisoft benefactor's mutu

> the band must be a nonprofit Sure! So, I'll start a software company, let's call it Maxisoft. Then, I'll start a non-profit, "the Maxisoft benefactor's mutual benefit corporation" (A non-profit producing body) who just happens to share officers with Maxisoft (after all, since we're all in business together, it makes sense that we're all friends, right). > limits on the type and amount of spending Why? Don't individuauls have an unlimited right to spend as much as they want seeking redress of grievances? Board members could just vote officers a higher salary and then the officers can simply use the corporation's assets (now their own via the magic of payroll) to do the same lobbying, and certainly, you cannot be against the right of an individual (in this case an officer of the corporation) from asking his/her representative for change? > they're required to publish sources and destination of income I fail to see how this isn't a massive breach of an individual's right to privacy, but either way, for the most part, donations to a political campaign are public. Ultimately, IMO, your regulations fall flat, because they all get in the way of an individual right to seek redress. In every case, there is a straightforwards way around the regulation, and there is no way to stop what you are trying to stop without stripping some people of their individual right to petition their government. Thus, we ought to reject all the regulation as an unnecessary overreach.

harimau777 7y ago
I don't think that the degree to which an individual has a right to reek redress of grievances is determined by the amount of money they can spend. I agree that no restriction will be perfect; however, I think that it's likely that restrictions could be crafted that are better than what we have now. For example, maybe something like: - A non-profit can spend as much as they want on politics as long as the money comes from individuals. - There is a restriction on how much an individual can give to any given non-profit. Or perhaps there would be restrictions on what percent of the PACs spending comes from any one person. It is illegal for non-profits to collaborate to bypass these rules (in the similar way to how it is illegal for corporations to collaborate to fix prices). That being said, what's your solution if you are opposed to campaign finance regulations?
- tathougies 7y ago
  > I don't think that the degree to which an individual has a right to reek redress of grievances is determined by the amount of money they can spend. I mean, I agree, but money is going to buy influence whether you believe in some sense of noble politics or not. Without severely and arbitrary restricting even more rights it's impossible to get around this. Those with more money can make friends with influencers, buy advertising space, produce media, etc, at far greater rates. Even without direct lobbying, they're going to be more influential > There is a restriction on how much an individual can give to any given non-profit. Or perhaps there would be restrictions on what percent of the PACs spending comes from any one person. It is illegal for non-profits to collaborate to bypass these rules (in the similar way to how it is illegal for corporations to collaborate to fix prices). No there isn't. There's just taxes on contributions if you give more. > - A non-profit can spend as much as they want on politics as long as the money comes from individuals. I already gave a few ways around this legislation above.
  - harimau777 7y ago
    I think that I explained myself poorly. I was trying to describe a starting point for a system that would be less easy to work around. We're never going to be able to eliminate every abuse of the law, but I think a valid strategy might be to try to make it so that the abuse doesn't scale. So for instance, a corporation could still have their executives donate to PACs and they could create dozens of PACs in order to be able to donate more overall. However, there is a limit to how many executives and PACs they can juggle so it at least doesn't scale the way the current abuses do.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      > So for instance, a corporation could still have their executives donate to PACs and they could create dozens of PACs in order to be able to donate more overall. However, there is a limit to how many executives and PACs they can juggle so it at least doesn't scale the way the current abuses do. Nah, someone will just offer a service to those executives to manage their PAC contributions. But, I mean, job creation is great, so I guess that makes sense.
state_less 7y ago
You might not be aware, but for some politicians, they won’t give you an audience if you don’t donate and spend to lobbying them. Unlimited spending means citizen's voices aren’t heard. It’s a real problem, so let’s work on some solutions. Mercenary sock puppets should be limited, no?

harimau777 7y ago

I don't think that the degree to which an individual has a right to reek redress of grievances is determined by the amount of money they can spend. I agree that no restriction will be perfect; however, I think that it's likely that restrictions could be crafted that are better than what we have now. For example, maybe something like: - A non-profit can spend as much as they want on politics as long as the money comes from individuals. - There is a restriction on how much an individual can give to any given non-profit. Or perhaps there would be restrictions on what percent of the PACs spending comes from any one person. It is illegal for non-profits to collaborate to bypass these rules (in the similar way to how it is illegal for corporations to collaborate to fix prices). That being said, what's your solution if you are opposed to campaign finance regulations?

tathougies 7y ago
> I don't think that the degree to which an individual has a right to reek redress of grievances is determined by the amount of money they can spend. I mean, I agree, but money is going to buy influence whether you believe in some sense of noble politics or not. Without severely and arbitrary restricting even more rights it's impossible to get around this. Those with more money can make friends with influencers, buy advertising space, produce media, etc, at far greater rates. Even without direct lobbying, they're going to be more influential > There is a restriction on how much an individual can give to any given non-profit. Or perhaps there would be restrictions on what percent of the PACs spending comes from any one person. It is illegal for non-profits to collaborate to bypass these rules (in the similar way to how it is illegal for corporations to collaborate to fix prices). No there isn't. There's just taxes on contributions if you give more. > - A non-profit can spend as much as they want on politics as long as the money comes from individuals. I already gave a few ways around this legislation above.
- harimau777 7y ago
  I think that I explained myself poorly. I was trying to describe a starting point for a system that would be less easy to work around. We're never going to be able to eliminate every abuse of the law, but I think a valid strategy might be to try to make it so that the abuse doesn't scale. So for instance, a corporation could still have their executives donate to PACs and they could create dozens of PACs in order to be able to donate more overall. However, there is a limit to how many executives and PACs they can juggle so it at least doesn't scale the way the current abuses do.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    > So for instance, a corporation could still have their executives donate to PACs and they could create dozens of PACs in order to be able to donate more overall. However, there is a limit to how many executives and PACs they can juggle so it at least doesn't scale the way the current abuses do. Nah, someone will just offer a service to those executives to manage their PAC contributions. But, I mean, job creation is great, so I guess that makes sense.

state_less 7y ago

You might not be aware, but for some politicians, they won’t give you an audience if you don’t donate and spend to lobbying them. Unlimited spending means citizen's voices aren’t heard. It’s a real problem, so let’s work on some solutions. Mercenary sock puppets should be limited, no?