4 ms·

Wouldn't this be solved rather easily by prohibiting fund raising and using tax dollars to finance campaigns? Everyone gets the same budget? That means money ha

by eloff 4y ago

Wouldn't this be solved rather easily by prohibiting fund raising and using tax dollars to finance campaigns? Everyone gets the same budget? That means money has no sway over politicians and money can't influence the result unfairly.

Pulcinella 4y ago
Would you enforce that on “friends of the campaign” as well? E.g. Political Action Committees. John Jackson is running for political office using only public money. However, Big Titanium Inc. creates the privately run and funded “Friends of John Jackson” organization that is entirely unaffiliated with John Jackson but nevertheless runs pro-John Jackson ads in TV.
- caymanjim 4y ago
  And if that's clamped down on, they just run increasingly vague ads that don't mention a candidate by name, but are clearly boosting the person/party/side they want to see succeed. A lot of people--particularly Democrats--like to say the Supreme Court got Citizens United wrong, but there's no way to get money out of politics while still maintaining any level of free speech.
- eloff 4y ago
  Yes.
saxonww 4y ago
The issue with this and any proposal is that the people making the decision have no incentive to make it. Politicians limiting their own fundraising, establishing term limits, eliminating gerrymandering, etc. - it goes against their interests. It's up to us to vote in people who would do this, but as pointed out, it's become difficult to do so in one election for one candidate, let alone the hundreds over the span of several years necessary to get people in place to actually make something positive happen.
nradov 4y ago
That would presumably require a Constitutional amendment to carve out an exception in the 1st Amendment. So not easy. https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec/ https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-uni...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
techdragon 4y ago
Unless Citizens United is overturned, this would take a constitutional amendment, "money is speech" per that Supreme Court verdict and so... > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. So this puts us as requiring a constitutional amendment since only that can carve out an exception to something earlier in the constitution (see the 21st amendment which repealed prohibition) and unfortunately constitutional amendments have an extremely high bar to clear to make them happen. Not just a "half of the bastards finally agree" like a regular law ... Per article 5 of the constitution: > Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; or by a convention to propose amendments called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must then be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-quarters of the states or by ratifying conventions conducted in three-quarters of the states 75 percent of the state congresses have to agree to it on top of 2/3 of the federal congress. It will never happen short of some apocalyptic social shift.
- eloff 4y ago
  Yeah, I don't like your odds here. Your politicians can barely agree on a budget these days. Constitutional amendments seem like a thing of the past now. But it's likely the only good solution here, and on other issues too, like abortion.
  - techdragon 4y ago
    They really do seem like a thing from history. If you chart both how far apart each of them are in ratification date and time from the start of the process for ratification to the fine they get finally ratified you see this steady increase over time.

by eloff 4y ago

Pulcinella 4y ago

Would you enforce that on “friends of the campaign” as well? E.g. Political Action Committees. John Jackson is running for political office using only public money. However, Big Titanium Inc. creates the privately run and funded “Friends of John Jackson” organization that is entirely unaffiliated with John Jackson but nevertheless runs pro-John Jackson ads in TV.

caymanjim 4y ago
And if that's clamped down on, they just run increasingly vague ads that don't mention a candidate by name, but are clearly boosting the person/party/side they want to see succeed. A lot of people--particularly Democrats--like to say the Supreme Court got Citizens United wrong, but there's no way to get money out of politics while still maintaining any level of free speech.
eloff 4y ago
Yes.

saxonww 4y ago

The issue with this and any proposal is that the people making the decision have no incentive to make it. Politicians limiting their own fundraising, establishing term limits, eliminating gerrymandering, etc. - it goes against their interests. It's up to us to vote in people who would do this, but as pointed out, it's become difficult to do so in one election for one candidate, let alone the hundreds over the span of several years necessary to get people in place to actually make something positive happen.

nradov 4y ago

That would presumably require a Constitutional amendment to carve out an exception in the 1st Amendment. So not easy. https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec/ https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-uni...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

techdragon 4y ago

Unless Citizens United is overturned, this would take a constitutional amendment, "money is speech" per that Supreme Court verdict and so... > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. So this puts us as requiring a constitutional amendment since only that can carve out an exception to something earlier in the constitution (see the 21st amendment which repealed prohibition) and unfortunately constitutional amendments have an extremely high bar to clear to make them happen. Not just a "half of the bastards finally agree" like a regular law ... Per article 5 of the constitution: > Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; or by a convention to propose amendments called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must then be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-quarters of the states or by ratifying conventions conducted in three-quarters of the states 75 percent of the state congresses have to agree to it on top of 2/3 of the federal congress. It will never happen short of some apocalyptic social shift.

eloff 4y ago
Yeah, I don't like your odds here. Your politicians can barely agree on a budget these days. Constitutional amendments seem like a thing of the past now. But it's likely the only good solution here, and on other issues too, like abortion.
- techdragon 4y ago
  They really do seem like a thing from history. If you chart both how far apart each of them are in ratification date and time from the start of the process for ratification to the fine they get finally ratified you see this steady increase over time.