3 ms·

Result: instead of donating to their preferred candidate's campaign, donors will now run their own campaign promoting that candidate. Try banning that without r

by brazzy 15y ago

Result: instead of donating to their preferred candidate's campaign, donors will now run their own campaign promoting that candidate. Try banning that without running into the First Amendement...

fauigerzigerk 15y ago
I think banning direct donations would at least make it more difficult for those politicians that are motivated by financial gain. Money can buy all kinds of things, not just campaign ads. Also, running an effective campaign for someone else without central coordination of the message is a lot more difficult than what's going on now. Such campaigns can easily backfire. That's why I think the extent of political corruption could be reduced by banning donations.
- snowwrestler 15y ago
  Only a truly stupid person would run for political office in search of financial gain. The level of work is extremely high (hours like a startup) but the amounts of money are small. For instance the average House campaign is just a bit over $1 million, and that funds dozens of people working very long hours for almost a year. Compare to capital funding or revenue levels in business. People willing to work that hard could make a lot more money in almost any industry. As hokey as it sounds, people get involved in politics because they want to change the world. It is the natural end result of activism like we are seeing around SOPA. It's possible that at some point, someone fighting SOPA will decide to work for a candidate or run for office themselves. At that point they'll need to start raising funds. Will that corrupt them automatically? I don't think so.
  - fauigerzigerk 15y ago
    I believe they want to feel the power, they believe they're "serving" the public, making a financial sacrifice exactly because they could earn a lot more outside of politics. I think this combination could lead some of them to believe that they deserve to earn more money for their hard work. Also, it's not unheard of that some politicians are opportunists without very strong convictions one way or the other. At least that's what I sometimes feel when I hear them talk about stuff in a way that betrays utter incompetence.
tehwalrus 15y ago
A law stating/clarifying that only individuals, not companies, have first amendment rights would sort much of it out, coupled with caps on political donations per individual, including donations in kind (like sympathetic campaigns.) (I'm from UK, by the way, so I'm no expert on the US constitution, but we have similar issues here. Just trying to be logical - which always works in politics...)

by brazzy 15y ago

Result: instead of donating to their preferred candidate's campaign, donors will now run their own campaign promoting that candidate. Try banning that without running into the First Amendement...

fauigerzigerk 15y ago

I think banning direct donations would at least make it more difficult for those politicians that are motivated by financial gain. Money can buy all kinds of things, not just campaign ads. Also, running an effective campaign for someone else without central coordination of the message is a lot more difficult than what's going on now. Such campaigns can easily backfire. That's why I think the extent of political corruption could be reduced by banning donations.

snowwrestler 15y ago
Only a truly stupid person would run for political office in search of financial gain. The level of work is extremely high (hours like a startup) but the amounts of money are small. For instance the average House campaign is just a bit over $1 million, and that funds dozens of people working very long hours for almost a year. Compare to capital funding or revenue levels in business. People willing to work that hard could make a lot more money in almost any industry. As hokey as it sounds, people get involved in politics because they want to change the world. It is the natural end result of activism like we are seeing around SOPA. It's possible that at some point, someone fighting SOPA will decide to work for a candidate or run for office themselves. At that point they'll need to start raising funds. Will that corrupt them automatically? I don't think so.
- fauigerzigerk 15y ago
  I believe they want to feel the power, they believe they're "serving" the public, making a financial sacrifice exactly because they could earn a lot more outside of politics. I think this combination could lead some of them to believe that they deserve to earn more money for their hard work. Also, it's not unheard of that some politicians are opportunists without very strong convictions one way or the other. At least that's what I sometimes feel when I hear them talk about stuff in a way that betrays utter incompetence.

tehwalrus 15y ago

A law stating/clarifying that only individuals, not companies, have first amendment rights would sort much of it out, coupled with caps on political donations per individual, including donations in kind (like sympathetic campaigns.) (I'm from UK, by the way, so I'm no expert on the US constitution, but we have similar issues here. Just trying to be logical - which always works in politics...)