4 ms·

Lobbying is legal. Donating to campaigns of politicians you like is legal. I'm not sure why people are surprised. The answer isn't to kick these specific bums

Lobbying is legal. Donating to campaigns of politicians you like is legal. I'm not sure why people are surprised. The answer isn't to kick these specific bums out. It is to change campaign finance laws to make contributions illegal. I'm not sure what people here would agree to that doesn't amount to censorship though. Should the MPAA be disallowed to make a political commercial and pay for its broadcast?

jinushaun 15y ago
That is the heart of Citizens United v FEC.
- ivankirigin 15y ago
  I don't really think Citizens United has the implications people give to it. For example, there is little to stop the MPAA from giving its head a big bonus, and then that individual making a commercial or movie to political ends. What is the difference between that commercial and something I post on youtube expressing my opinion? Money flows into politics because of the power of government. One of the only ways I see to limit that money without limiting speech is to limit the power of government.
  - jbooth 15y ago
    Unless you're talking about abolishing the commerce clause and the ability of congress to make laws, good luck with that. I'd set my sights on the somewhat easier "limit the ability to bribe government".
anamax 15y ago
> Should the MPAA be disallowed to make a political commercial and pay for its broadcast? The MPAA has been known to make Dem-friendly movies. How do you distinguish between that and a commercial? Note that Citizens United was about a movie, not a commercial.
- necubi 15y ago
  People pay you to see movies. You pay other people to watch commercials.
pacemkr 15y ago
Nicely summarized and a valid question. From what I gather, direct campaign contributions and the way corporations are funneling money into elections are not connected. Corporations are NOT making direct contributions to campaigns. They are making indirect and anonymous contributions to superpacs. We don't need to "make contributions illegal." Nor do we _need_ publicly financed campaigns. That would be very hard to get. We can start by having superpacs disclose their donors. Or by setting a limit on individual, and by extension corporate, contribution to said superpacs. The loophole is that you can't make a large contribution directly to a campaign, yet you can make a contribution of any size, anonymously, indirectly to the corresponding superpac. This is why money = voice. In answer to your question: "Should the MPAA be disallowed to make a political commercial and pay for its broadcast?" They should be allowed to make a political statement by contributing to a superpac that runs the commercial, but the contribution should not be unlimited nor anonymous. In effect, they'll need other companies in the pool to get enough money for that commercial. Now we can say corporations are people, problem solved.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  How about capping the donations? I really don't like how a few entities/persons can have such a dramatic impact on elections because of how much they donate to that politician. The vote is equal in a democracy, but donations aren't, and in a way donations are like a parallel vote, which huge discrepancies between each donation. Obviously the politician will listen to his biggest donors first, even if 10,000 of his normal supporters want the opposite thing.
  - pacemkr 15y ago
    Direct contributions are capped at $5,000. SuperPAC contributions are not capped at all and are anonymous until well after the election. [wikipedia]
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  I think you are making the implicit assumption that some people should not have a greater voice than others. Is that correct? If so, do you favor removing Paul Krugman or Glenn Beck's bully pulpit? If not, why not?
gaulinmp 15y ago
I am also confused by the uproar about this, why is what Dodd said wrong? Are campaign contributions not a sign that you support the goals of the politician in question? So if that politician is no longer espousing your values, you move your contributions somewhere else. I guess my question comes down to what is the difference between contributing to whichever campaign forwards a platform and bribery (the assumption that Dodd was engaging in the latter being what caused the furor)?
- furyofantares 15y ago
  > I guess my question comes down to what is the difference between contributing to whichever campaign forwards a platform and bribery (the assumption that Dodd was engaging in the latter being what caused the furor)? Dodd's implication is that the politicians should not have listened to their constituents. Or at least that's how I pick up on it. The tone says to me that his money should have solidified or shaped the opinions of those his industry donated to. That's very different from trying to get someone elected because you believe their view of how to best serve their constituents aligns with your platform. Now, I'm sure you will find many people here who will argue that that, too, is corrupt. But it's not so blatant. However, there's one more piece to the puzzle: None of the politicians have said they are going to give up on passing legislation that fights copyright infringement. They've shelved two bills, that's it. They haven't announced any bad intentions toward his platform, and they haven't established a pattern of ignoring his platform. So to claim that they aren't supporting his platform would be a gross overreaction. It more like Dodd feels his industry is entitled to these particular bills, and he is whining that they didn't get them.
- uxp 15y ago
  > I am also confused by the uproar about this, why is what Dodd said wrong It's not that people are upset that he is freely admitting to bribery or lobbying (depending on your viewpoint), but that is should be wrong for him to be admitting it. You are totally right. If I stand behind a congressman or woman because I agree with their actions and values, then one day I notice that they are supporting things that I am against, no one should be upset if I move my donations and support elsewhere. The problem comes from how he openly admits to the influence everyone already knows the media industry has over our legislative body. If the media industry is as massive as they claim it to be, then every single one of those people employed in that industry has a right to support and back congressmen and women that support the values that help them strengthen their industry. The fact that the industry itself can, in parallel to those that work in the industry, also donate and support congressmen and women is the problem, as it creates exponential power with linear growth (if everyone was hypothetically contributing equally to the industry). The same idea applies to any industry, really. No one ideally wants to reduce the size of any industry, but to limit the power any single industry has over the direction the country drafts it's laws to help and protect to be fair to everyone.

jinushaun 15y ago

That is the heart of Citizens United v FEC.

ivankirigin 15y ago
I don't really think Citizens United has the implications people give to it. For example, there is little to stop the MPAA from giving its head a big bonus, and then that individual making a commercial or movie to political ends. What is the difference between that commercial and something I post on youtube expressing my opinion? Money flows into politics because of the power of government. One of the only ways I see to limit that money without limiting speech is to limit the power of government.
- jbooth 15y ago
  Unless you're talking about abolishing the commerce clause and the ability of congress to make laws, good luck with that. I'd set my sights on the somewhat easier "limit the ability to bribe government".

anamax 15y ago

> Should the MPAA be disallowed to make a political commercial and pay for its broadcast? The MPAA has been known to make Dem-friendly movies. How do you distinguish between that and a commercial? Note that Citizens United was about a movie, not a commercial.

necubi 15y ago
People pay you to see movies. You pay other people to watch commercials.

pacemkr 15y ago

Nicely summarized and a valid question. From what I gather, direct campaign contributions and the way corporations are funneling money into elections are not connected. Corporations are NOT making direct contributions to campaigns. They are making indirect and anonymous contributions to superpacs. We don't need to "make contributions illegal." Nor do we _need_ publicly financed campaigns. That would be very hard to get. We can start by having superpacs disclose their donors. Or by setting a limit on individual, and by extension corporate, contribution to said superpacs. The loophole is that you can't make a large contribution directly to a campaign, yet you can make a contribution of any size, anonymously, indirectly to the corresponding superpac. This is why money = voice. In answer to your question: "Should the MPAA be disallowed to make a political commercial and pay for its broadcast?" They should be allowed to make a political statement by contributing to a superpac that runs the commercial, but the contribution should not be unlimited nor anonymous. In effect, they'll need other companies in the pool to get enough money for that commercial. Now we can say corporations are people, problem solved.

nextparadigms 15y ago
How about capping the donations? I really don't like how a few entities/persons can have such a dramatic impact on elections because of how much they donate to that politician. The vote is equal in a democracy, but donations aren't, and in a way donations are like a parallel vote, which huge discrepancies between each donation. Obviously the politician will listen to his biggest donors first, even if 10,000 of his normal supporters want the opposite thing.
- pacemkr 15y ago
  Direct contributions are capped at $5,000. SuperPAC contributions are not capped at all and are anonymous until well after the election. [wikipedia]
yummyfajitas 15y ago
I think you are making the implicit assumption that some people should not have a greater voice than others. Is that correct? If so, do you favor removing Paul Krugman or Glenn Beck's bully pulpit? If not, why not?

gaulinmp 15y ago

I am also confused by the uproar about this, why is what Dodd said wrong? Are campaign contributions not a sign that you support the goals of the politician in question? So if that politician is no longer espousing your values, you move your contributions somewhere else. I guess my question comes down to what is the difference between contributing to whichever campaign forwards a platform and bribery (the assumption that Dodd was engaging in the latter being what caused the furor)?

furyofantares 15y ago
> I guess my question comes down to what is the difference between contributing to whichever campaign forwards a platform and bribery (the assumption that Dodd was engaging in the latter being what caused the furor)? Dodd's implication is that the politicians should not have listened to their constituents. Or at least that's how I pick up on it. The tone says to me that his money should have solidified or shaped the opinions of those his industry donated to. That's very different from trying to get someone elected because you believe their view of how to best serve their constituents aligns with your platform. Now, I'm sure you will find many people here who will argue that that, too, is corrupt. But it's not so blatant. However, there's one more piece to the puzzle: None of the politicians have said they are going to give up on passing legislation that fights copyright infringement. They've shelved two bills, that's it. They haven't announced any bad intentions toward his platform, and they haven't established a pattern of ignoring his platform. So to claim that they aren't supporting his platform would be a gross overreaction. It more like Dodd feels his industry is entitled to these particular bills, and he is whining that they didn't get them.
uxp 15y ago
> I am also confused by the uproar about this, why is what Dodd said wrong It's not that people are upset that he is freely admitting to bribery or lobbying (depending on your viewpoint), but that is should be wrong for him to be admitting it. You are totally right. If I stand behind a congressman or woman because I agree with their actions and values, then one day I notice that they are supporting things that I am against, no one should be upset if I move my donations and support elsewhere. The problem comes from how he openly admits to the influence everyone already knows the media industry has over our legislative body. If the media industry is as massive as they claim it to be, then every single one of those people employed in that industry has a right to support and back congressmen and women that support the values that help them strengthen their industry. The fact that the industry itself can, in parallel to those that work in the industry, also donate and support congressmen and women is the problem, as it creates exponential power with linear growth (if everyone was hypothetically contributing equally to the industry). The same idea applies to any industry, really. No one ideally wants to reduce the size of any industry, but to limit the power any single industry has over the direction the country drafts it's laws to help and protect to be fair to everyone.