17 ms·

The problem with trying to separate money and politics is that accumulating money equates to accumulating leverage/power, and that's what gets politics done. A

The problem with trying to separate money and politics is that accumulating money equates to accumulating leverage/power, and that's what gets politics done. Almost the only thing that could get money out of politics is to make holding money the most shameful thing imaginable, and even that would just force the flow of capital/power underground, not actually curtail anything. As I get older, I realize more and more that the thirst for power will never go away, and these cycles of accumulation and overthrow will be the overall flavor of human existence for the foreseeable future. Unless we figure out how to shame people out of wanting power, maybe?

maerF0x0 6y ago
Repealing citizens united, donations limits, and low limit matching on individual donations would probably go a long way to improving it.
- jlmorton 6y ago
  There's nothing to repeal. The aberration is not Citizens United, which has always been the law in the US. The aberration is the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act, which Citizens United overturned. The relevant law is the First Amendment to the US Constitution. McCain-Feingold is the thing which tried to limit this, and was tossed out by the Supreme Court in Citizens United. Most countries do not have strong protections on speech. The US does. There's no way to distinguish Fox News Media, a for-profit news organization with a distinct partisan slant, from One America News, a money-losing, overtly partisan news organization, from Citizens United, a political action committee trying to air a political documentary critical of Hillary Clinton on Pay-per-View. You can't donate unlimited sums to candidates, but you can spend as much as you want on political media, including advertising. I'd love to hear how we can overturn Citizens United, but maintain things like Fahrenheit 9/11, a different political documentary critical of George W. Bush, and released right at the height of the 2004 election campaign. Lawrence Lessig has a proposal to offer political donation vouchers to each and every private citizen. I think this is a great take on public financing that would help to level the playing field, while maintaining this country's strong protections on speech.
  - hypersoar 6y ago
    Citizens United very much has not "always been the law". Before Citizens United, there was precedent going back about a century. The first amendment does not mean and never has meant that free speech wins in all cases when balanced against other interests. The government can (and still does!) regulate campaign speech. McCain-Feingold was not out of line with that. But the conservative majority flipped the table on that precedent because they wanted to. Citizens United didn't even ask them to overturn the law. They briefed the case on narrower grounds, and then the court asked them to come back and argue to overturn the law. The facts of the case were this: Citizens United wanted to run ads for its documentary . But it was within the window of time set for increased restrictions on political ads. Citizens United crucially was not a political action committee, but just a non-profit corporation. As such, it could only run the ads by either making a PAC or using money from a segregated fund (you've seen this if you've ever signed up for a union) collected specifically for political activity. Note that the lawsuit was over the ads, not the documentary itself. Before the ruling, Citizens United was allowed to spend money on political activity. They were allowed to spend money on political activity close to an election. They were allowed to spend money, close to an election, to broadcast issue-based political advertisement (e.g., for or against a ballot initiative) on TV. They were allowed to spend money distributing their documentary in any way other than broadcasting it on TV. They could show it in theaters. They could put it on the internet. They could print DVDs and mail them out. They could distribute it to PACs and campaigns for them to spend their own money distributing it, including broadcasting by on TV. They could pay money, close to an election, from a segregated fund, to broadcast their documentary on TV. All they weren't allowed to do was spend money, close to an election, on broadcasting something expressing views for or against a political candidate, on television or radio, to an audience of at least 50,000. The courts argument hinged on the unacceptability of "identity-based" restrictions on speech. But there are such restrictions elsewhere. See you, for example, prisoners, or executive branch employees.they just invented a first amendment principle out of thin air and selectively applied it to corporations. To reach their decision, The court rejected numerous opportunities to rule on narrower grounds. They did no factfinding to determine whether or to what extent the restrictions chilled free speech, substituting congress's research for their own opinions. They gave no opportunity for the government to do their own fact-finding. And they would have if Citizens United hadn't dropped their attempt to overturn the law (until Scotus revived it) while the case was still at the District court. Scotus could have kicked it back down to do that fact-finding, but they had already made up their minds.

maerF0x0 6y ago

Repealing citizens united, donations limits, and low limit matching on individual donations would probably go a long way to improving it.

jlmorton 6y ago
There's nothing to repeal. The aberration is not Citizens United, which has always been the law in the US. The aberration is the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act, which Citizens United overturned. The relevant law is the First Amendment to the US Constitution. McCain-Feingold is the thing which tried to limit this, and was tossed out by the Supreme Court in Citizens United. Most countries do not have strong protections on speech. The US does. There's no way to distinguish Fox News Media, a for-profit news organization with a distinct partisan slant, from One America News, a money-losing, overtly partisan news organization, from Citizens United, a political action committee trying to air a political documentary critical of Hillary Clinton on Pay-per-View. You can't donate unlimited sums to candidates, but you can spend as much as you want on political media, including advertising. I'd love to hear how we can overturn Citizens United, but maintain things like Fahrenheit 9/11, a different political documentary critical of George W. Bush, and released right at the height of the 2004 election campaign. Lawrence Lessig has a proposal to offer political donation vouchers to each and every private citizen. I think this is a great take on public financing that would help to level the playing field, while maintaining this country's strong protections on speech.
- hypersoar 6y ago
  Citizens United very much has not "always been the law". Before Citizens United, there was precedent going back about a century. The first amendment does not mean and never has meant that free speech wins in all cases when balanced against other interests. The government can (and still does!) regulate campaign speech. McCain-Feingold was not out of line with that. But the conservative majority flipped the table on that precedent because they wanted to. Citizens United didn't even ask them to overturn the law. They briefed the case on narrower grounds, and then the court asked them to come back and argue to overturn the law. The facts of the case were this: Citizens United wanted to run ads for its documentary . But it was within the window of time set for increased restrictions on political ads. Citizens United crucially was not a political action committee, but just a non-profit corporation. As such, it could only run the ads by either making a PAC or using money from a segregated fund (you've seen this if you've ever signed up for a union) collected specifically for political activity. Note that the lawsuit was over the ads, not the documentary itself. Before the ruling, Citizens United was allowed to spend money on political activity. They were allowed to spend money on political activity close to an election. They were allowed to spend money, close to an election, to broadcast issue-based political advertisement (e.g., for or against a ballot initiative) on TV. They were allowed to spend money distributing their documentary in any way other than broadcasting it on TV. They could show it in theaters. They could put it on the internet. They could print DVDs and mail them out. They could distribute it to PACs and campaigns for them to spend their own money distributing it, including broadcasting by on TV. They could pay money, close to an election, from a segregated fund, to broadcast their documentary on TV. All they weren't allowed to do was spend money, close to an election, on broadcasting something expressing views for or against a political candidate, on television or radio, to an audience of at least 50,000. The courts argument hinged on the unacceptability of "identity-based" restrictions on speech. But there are such restrictions elsewhere. See you, for example, prisoners, or executive branch employees.they just invented a first amendment principle out of thin air and selectively applied it to corporations. To reach their decision, The court rejected numerous opportunities to rule on narrower grounds. They did no factfinding to determine whether or to what extent the restrictions chilled free speech, substituting congress's research for their own opinions. They gave no opportunity for the government to do their own fact-finding. And they would have if Citizens United hadn't dropped their attempt to overturn the law (until Scotus revived it) while the case was still at the District court. Scotus could have kicked it back down to do that fact-finding, but they had already made up their minds.