11 ms·

Great news. The headline is misleading. Congress again was trying to play games with who could donate to who/what and when they could and so and so on. They wer

Great news. The headline is misleading. Congress again was trying to play games with who could donate to who/what and when they could and so and so on. They were not interested in a level playing field, they were again protecting their interest. Restricting how money is spent in political races only protects incumbents and their party. It in no way protects the right of the people to vote for whom they want. The costs involved in modern campaigns can be insurmountable with the restrictions placed on donations and expenditures. The costs have exceed inflation, the limits have not. Never ever support such restrictions just because you don't like the message or messenger because you are merely handing someone the means to do the same to you.

ewillbefull 13y ago
Citizens United and other campaign "finance" rulings are poorly understood by the public still today. Most Americans probably still believe Citizens United had anything to do with contribution limits, or stating "money is speech", or that corporations are people. A cursory read of the wikipedia article would clear this up, but the media narrative surrounding these rulings will dominate for some time.
ctdonath 13y ago
The ruling ends with When word concerning the plot of the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington reached the circles of Government, some officials sought, by persuasion, to discourage its distribution. ... Under Austin [(the basis for the campaign finance restriction discussed)], though, officials could havedone more than discourage its distribution — they could have banned the film. After all, it, like [the movie] _Hillary_, was speech funded by a corporation that was critical of Members of Congress. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington may befiction and caricature; but fiction and caricature can be a powerful force. Modern day movies, television comedies, or skits on Youtube.com might portray public officials or public policies in unflattering ways. Yet if a covered transmission during the blackout period creates the background for candidate endorsement or opposition, a felony occurs solely because a corporation, other than an exempt media corporation, has made the “purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value” in order to engage in political speech. ... Speech would be suppressed in the realm where its necessity is most evident: in the public dialogue preceding a real election. Governments are often hostile to speech, but under our law and our tradition it seems stranger than fiction for our Government to make this political speech a crime. Yet this is the statute’s purpose and design. Some members of the public might consider _Hillary_ to be insightful and instructive; some might find it to beneither high art nor a fair discussion on how to set the Nation’s course; still others simply might suspend judgment on these points but decide to think more about issues and candidates. Those choices and assessments, however, are not for the Government to make. “The First Amend-ment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression ofideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it.”
crazy1van 13y ago
>Never ever support such restrictions just because you don't like the message or messenger because you are merely handing someone the means to do the same to you. Great point. The only way to limit contributions from the likes of the NRA but not from groups like the EFF is to focus regulations on the message or messenger itself. That kind of thinking goes completely against free speech. It is also dangerous. Your message may get preferential treatment today, but not necessarily tomorrow.
- hga 13y ago
  BTW, this decision doesn't touch on PAC contributions, just ones from individuals. Although it should be pointed out the NRA's contributions are subject to these individual limits, per http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml it looks like $5K per election. Which is not a lot of money, more of a signal of approval. Which is important, because the IRS is promulgating regulations to enshrine their abuse of "Tea Party" groups, which much like the ones struck down in Citizens United would prevent it from making communications about candidates 60 days before an election (30 before a primary; see http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Treasury,-IRS-Will-Issue-Proposed-Guidance-for-Tax-Exempt-Social-Welfare-Organizations http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Treasury,-IRS-Will-Issue-Pro... ). It's hard to express how dangerous this is....
chez17 13y ago
>Restricting how money is spent in political races only protects incumbents and their party. This is false. http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-election-money-2012-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-election-money-2012-... People who spend more money win. So the rich and powerful can completely override the majority of people. People with no connection to a race can invest large amounts of money to secure a win. In fact, if you look around the world, the only way to make sure incumbents aren't over-protected is to restrict money. Looking at the American system, I don't see how anyone could utter the above line seriously. How has more money not protected incumbents?
- ctdonath 13y ago
  How has more money not protected incumbents? Plenty often, when enough people speak up (or contribute to others' costs of speaking up). Of late, numerous anti-gun incumbents are being recalled and replaced for enacting right-transgressing legislation.
- CWuestefeld 13y ago
  People who spend more money win. This is intuitive, and almost universally believed. But all actual data I'm aware of doesn't support this. for example [1] conventional wisdom, especially among progressives, is that money can buy elections. The Citizens United case was supposed to be the end of democracy since it meant unlimited corporate spending on elections. If money really did buy office, 2012 should have been great evidence for the hypothesis. Instead 2012 looks like a case study in the powerlessness of money, in the triumph of the autonomous voter. For instance, the Sunlight Foundation reports that 2/3 of outside cash was spent on losers. [1] http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/11/money_has_littl.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/11/money_has_littl....
  - mhurron 13y ago
    2012 didn't necessarily prove that money has little effect on elections, it proved that money doesn't completely cover-up being a total jackass. The best funded campaign still convinced ~47% of voters to vote for a candidate that stated he didn't care about 47% of the country. That should be downright scary.
grecy 13y ago
> * They were not interested in a level playing field, they were again protecting their interest.* A system where the person with the most money wins is a level playing field? I'm very happy I'm not playing your silly game.
- ewillbefull 13y ago
  The most money does not win, the most votes does. Advertisements, books, DVDs... do not translate into votes. They are a part of public discourse that can be as easily celebrated as ignored.
- CWuestefeld 13y ago
  If the people are too stupid to make wise decisions, and only go where the most funding is, then we may as well throw in the towel on democracy right now; what's the point?
  - deelowe 13y ago
    Come on now. It's not this black and white. Political campaign teams are masters at manipulating public perception and obscuring facts. Even for an informed voter, it's hard to tell whose facts are true given the media bias, corporate bias, and various other misinformation out there. Pumping more money into this machine doesn't seem to me to be a good idea.
  - ambler0 13y ago
    Being propagandized into voting against one's interests != stupidity.
    - smsm42 13y ago
      If you accept the premise that you can just buy votes with money, then it's not even stupid. Soda machine is not stupid for reliably giving your soda for your money - it's just a mindless robot. If people are mindless robots, there's no point in voting anyway. If people can be convinced to take decisions which you wouldn't like - that's life for you. Money or no money, that's always going to happen. People take bad decisions all the time, and money has nothing to do with it.
Shinkei 13y ago
I... uh... I don't know how to respond to this. Are you trying to argue a political ideology or do you genuinely believe the argument you've stated? It is provably false as other commenters have shown. So I don't know if you are just misinformed or you are trying to form an argument for a biased position. In an ideal system, all voters would digest accurate information and make informed decisions, but we know this is not the case. Media has bias and political ads are misleading... plus people don't have the time or impetus to spend vast amounts of time 'sorting the wheat from the chaff.' Many people aren't even skeptics... which is a requisite for being able to filter the signal through that noise. Yes, there is a strong free speech argument for donating money to campaigns, but make no mistake... oligarchs would (maybe already do?) run our country without any restrictions in place. Go read about Thomas Jefferson and the history of the estate tax before you try to argue this ideology because it is simply wrong and a danger to democracy.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Yes, there is a strong free speech argument for donating money to campaigns, but make no mistake... oligarchs would (maybe already do?) run our country without any restrictions in place. I think that the one thing that efforts at campaign finance limitations has done is underline that wealth is fungible power, and that restricting the manner in which it is premitted to be applied to politics does very little to limit the influence it has in politics.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    This. Its just like rich people gaming college admissions or yacht racing. Its basically an arms race. Money buys weapons. And when you put a limit on weapons, money buys training. And once you level that playing field, money buys freedom from other things.
  - Shinkei 13y ago
    I agree. It is a market system which will accomodate regulation and there is no perfect solution.
- ewillbefull 13y ago
cia_plant 13y ago
> The costs involved in modern campaigns can be insurmountable with the restrictions placed on donations and expenditures. The costs have exceed inflation, the limits have not. Uh, what? How can campaign financing sources even conceivably fail to keep pace with campaign costs? It's an accounting identity.

ewillbefull 13y ago

Citizens United and other campaign "finance" rulings are poorly understood by the public still today. Most Americans probably still believe Citizens United had anything to do with contribution limits, or stating "money is speech", or that corporations are people. A cursory read of the wikipedia article would clear this up, but the media narrative surrounding these rulings will dominate for some time.

ctdonath 13y ago

The ruling ends with When word concerning the plot of the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington reached the circles of Government, some officials sought, by persuasion, to discourage its distribution. ... Under Austin [(the basis for the campaign finance restriction discussed)], though, officials could havedone more than discourage its distribution — they could have banned the film. After all, it, like [the movie] _Hillary_, was speech funded by a corporation that was critical of Members of Congress. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington may befiction and caricature; but fiction and caricature can be a powerful force. Modern day movies, television comedies, or skits on Youtube.com might portray public officials or public policies in unflattering ways. Yet if a covered transmission during the blackout period creates the background for candidate endorsement or opposition, a felony occurs solely because a corporation, other than an exempt media corporation, has made the “purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value” in order to engage in political speech. ... Speech would be suppressed in the realm where its necessity is most evident: in the public dialogue preceding a real election. Governments are often hostile to speech, but under our law and our tradition it seems stranger than fiction for our Government to make this political speech a crime. Yet this is the statute’s purpose and design. Some members of the public might consider _Hillary_ to be insightful and instructive; some might find it to beneither high art nor a fair discussion on how to set the Nation’s course; still others simply might suspend judgment on these points but decide to think more about issues and candidates. Those choices and assessments, however, are not for the Government to make. “The First Amend-ment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression ofideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it.”

crazy1van 13y ago

>Never ever support such restrictions just because you don't like the message or messenger because you are merely handing someone the means to do the same to you. Great point. The only way to limit contributions from the likes of the NRA but not from groups like the EFF is to focus regulations on the message or messenger itself. That kind of thinking goes completely against free speech. It is also dangerous. Your message may get preferential treatment today, but not necessarily tomorrow.

hga 13y ago
BTW, this decision doesn't touch on PAC contributions, just ones from individuals. Although it should be pointed out the NRA's contributions are subject to these individual limits, per http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml it looks like $5K per election. Which is not a lot of money, more of a signal of approval. Which is important, because the IRS is promulgating regulations to enshrine their abuse of "Tea Party" groups, which much like the ones struck down in Citizens United would prevent it from making communications about candidates 60 days before an election (30 before a primary; see http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Treasury,-IRS-Will-Issue-Proposed-Guidance-for-Tax-Exempt-Social-Welfare-Organizations http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Treasury,-IRS-Will-Issue-Pro... ). It's hard to express how dangerous this is....

chez17 13y ago

>Restricting how money is spent in political races only protects incumbents and their party. This is false. http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-election-money-2012-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-election-money-2012-... People who spend more money win. So the rich and powerful can completely override the majority of people. People with no connection to a race can invest large amounts of money to secure a win. In fact, if you look around the world, the only way to make sure incumbents aren't over-protected is to restrict money. Looking at the American system, I don't see how anyone could utter the above line seriously. How has more money not protected incumbents?

ctdonath 13y ago
How has more money not protected incumbents? Plenty often, when enough people speak up (or contribute to others' costs of speaking up). Of late, numerous anti-gun incumbents are being recalled and replaced for enacting right-transgressing legislation.
CWuestefeld 13y ago
People who spend more money win. This is intuitive, and almost universally believed. But all actual data I'm aware of doesn't support this. for example [1] conventional wisdom, especially among progressives, is that money can buy elections. The Citizens United case was supposed to be the end of democracy since it meant unlimited corporate spending on elections. If money really did buy office, 2012 should have been great evidence for the hypothesis. Instead 2012 looks like a case study in the powerlessness of money, in the triumph of the autonomous voter. For instance, the Sunlight Foundation reports that 2/3 of outside cash was spent on losers. [1] http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/11/money_has_littl.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/11/money_has_littl....
- mhurron 13y ago
  2012 didn't necessarily prove that money has little effect on elections, it proved that money doesn't completely cover-up being a total jackass. The best funded campaign still convinced ~47% of voters to vote for a candidate that stated he didn't care about 47% of the country. That should be downright scary.

grecy 13y ago

> * They were not interested in a level playing field, they were again protecting their interest.* A system where the person with the most money wins is a level playing field? I'm very happy I'm not playing your silly game.

ewillbefull 13y ago
The most money does not win, the most votes does. Advertisements, books, DVDs... do not translate into votes. They are a part of public discourse that can be as easily celebrated as ignored.
CWuestefeld 13y ago
If the people are too stupid to make wise decisions, and only go where the most funding is, then we may as well throw in the towel on democracy right now; what's the point?
- deelowe 13y ago
  Come on now. It's not this black and white. Political campaign teams are masters at manipulating public perception and obscuring facts. Even for an informed voter, it's hard to tell whose facts are true given the media bias, corporate bias, and various other misinformation out there. Pumping more money into this machine doesn't seem to me to be a good idea.
- ambler0 13y ago
  Being propagandized into voting against one's interests != stupidity.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    If you accept the premise that you can just buy votes with money, then it's not even stupid. Soda machine is not stupid for reliably giving your soda for your money - it's just a mindless robot. If people are mindless robots, there's no point in voting anyway. If people can be convinced to take decisions which you wouldn't like - that's life for you. Money or no money, that's always going to happen. People take bad decisions all the time, and money has nothing to do with it.

Shinkei 13y ago

I... uh... I don't know how to respond to this. Are you trying to argue a political ideology or do you genuinely believe the argument you've stated? It is provably false as other commenters have shown. So I don't know if you are just misinformed or you are trying to form an argument for a biased position. In an ideal system, all voters would digest accurate information and make informed decisions, but we know this is not the case. Media has bias and political ads are misleading... plus people don't have the time or impetus to spend vast amounts of time 'sorting the wheat from the chaff.' Many people aren't even skeptics... which is a requisite for being able to filter the signal through that noise. Yes, there is a strong free speech argument for donating money to campaigns, but make no mistake... oligarchs would (maybe already do?) run our country without any restrictions in place. Go read about Thomas Jefferson and the history of the estate tax before you try to argue this ideology because it is simply wrong and a danger to democracy.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Yes, there is a strong free speech argument for donating money to campaigns, but make no mistake... oligarchs would (maybe already do?) run our country without any restrictions in place. I think that the one thing that efforts at campaign finance limitations has done is underline that wealth is fungible power, and that restricting the manner in which it is premitted to be applied to politics does very little to limit the influence it has in politics.
- 001sky 13y ago
  This. Its just like rich people gaming college admissions or yacht racing. Its basically an arms race. Money buys weapons. And when you put a limit on weapons, money buys training. And once you level that playing field, money buys freedom from other things.
- Shinkei 13y ago
  I agree. It is a market system which will accomodate regulation and there is no perfect solution.
ewillbefull 13y ago

cia_plant 13y ago

> The costs involved in modern campaigns can be insurmountable with the restrictions placed on donations and expenditures. The costs have exceed inflation, the limits have not. Uh, what? How can campaign financing sources even conceivably fail to keep pace with campaign costs? It's an accounting identity.