4 ms·

This is very much a speech issue. Citizens United overturned provisions in BCRA which prevented corporations (which happens to include unions and non-profits)

This is very much a speech issue. Citizens United overturned provisions in BCRA which prevented corporations (which happens to include unions and non-profits) from speaking about a candidate 60 days before an election -- in the form of outlawed "electioneering communications". That was the crux of the decision; the law displayed speaker discrimination. It had nothing to do with monetary limits. After Citizens United it's much easier for individuals without deep pockets to pool their money together to run advertising campaigns or other forms of political speech. Anyone can start a Super PAC and crowd fund for their cause, and they have to do so independently of any related candidate. Regardless, nobody's votes are being bought. You still control the outcome of the election, nobody is forced to vote for anyone because they saw a campaign ad for them.

dailyrorschach 13y ago
It is definitely a free speech issue, however, I’d argue that the compelling state interests in preventing corruption and ensuring fairness and access in elections, is a great enough one to merit modest limitations. Indeed so did the Supreme Court until only recently, after the upholding in Buckley. My comment is more about the overall nature of the issue, but I do want to point out first that today’s ruling over aggregate monetary limits, is frankly a small issue in the overall challenges faced in reform. I understand your point, but I think it belies the reality of what takes place in most campaigns from my professional experience here in DC, though yes it is anecdotal of course. Yes, a small group of individuals can seek and gain funding, and they do, but in order to have a serious outcome on a race, you need to be able to shift vast sums of money and fast, often in the last 2 months. The Tea-Party influence on the 2010 midterm elections is a great example, the money that supported those candidates, did not come from the tea-party grassroots, but from a band of very rich donors, with very vested interests in legislative outcomes. And I don’t mean to single out the GOP here, the DNC has it’s own fair share of lobbied well-connected interests. Then of course there are the industries and organizations that simply fund the most likely to win in many races, ensuring candidate support for their industry when the time comes for considering legislation. If I was to start a Super PAC for lower class family concerns, say universal Pre-K, how much of their disposable income do you think they could afford to donate to a political cause? It’d be no where near the vast checks that can be written by opposition groups. And even if successful, I will still likely get outplayed in the long game with legislative lobbying since I don’t have the continued funds to support an ongoing effort. Now what would be a solution that doesn’t infringe on individual rights to free-speech, I’m not sure. Perhaps we should go back to completely publicly financed elections, though that obviously benefits the current two-party dichotomy over independent challengers, and would likely require serious constitutional amendments to be considered. I admit that more thinking would be required here, but I don’t think its a stretch to say the current system is severely broken, and in fairness to all here, was broken well before this relatively modest change. Finally, of course votes aren’t being bought in the election - but a campaign costs a lot of money. http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/congress-election-costs/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/congress-election-cos... The average US House race will cost 1.6M to win and the Senate 10.4M to win, and that increase far outpaces the rate of inflation. That money coming in is critical to reaching voters, paying for GOTV, and ensuring victory, beyond just the money spent on ads and outside group advertising. Then of course, all of that money these candidates raise, it’s not free money from well meaning corporations, they will expect to be repaid when the time comes, and they are.
- strlen 13y ago
  > It is definitely a free speech issue, however, I’d argue that the compelling state interests in preventing corruption and ensuring fairness and access in elections, is a great enough one to merit modest limitations. Indeed so did the Supreme Court until only recently, after the upholding in Buckley. My comment is more about the overall nature of the issue, but I do want to point out first that today’s ruling over aggregate monetary limits, is frankly a small issue in the overall challenges faced in reform.& Thank you. My opinion is the opposite of yours: I think this and Citizens United are the right decisions and free speech should be only be limited in a few restricted circumstances like immediate incitement to violence or terroristic threats. Yet, it's important to be honest about the trade off here and not misrepresent the decisions (e.g., saying that CU determined that "money is speech", etc...) > Now what would be a solution that doesn’t infringe on individual rights to free-speech, I’m not sure. Perhaps we should go back to completely publicly financed elections, though that obviously benefits the current two-party dichotomy over independent challengers, and would likely require serious constitutional amendments to be considered. I admit that more thinking would be required here, but I don’t think its a stretch to say the current system is severely broken, and in fairness to all here, was broken well before this relatively modest change. Ideal solution for me would allow donations to political organizations, including those that endorse candidates or lobby for bills (I don't like rent-seeking by Comcast, but I very much like the ACLU, EFF, and others). At the same time, the candidates themselves would rely (as you suggested) on public financing. I think this would take a constitutional amendment (as would overturning CU, but unlike an amendment to overturn CU it wouldn't set the precedents of amending the constitution to curtail rights when they are inconvenient), which should also mandate non-partisan drawing of electoral districts (California went that route and with great results).
triplenineteen 13y ago
> Regardless, nobody's votes are being bought. You still control the outcome of the election, nobody is forced to vote for anyone because they saw a campaign ad for them. Even if that is true, the current system of campaign finance results in large corporations dictating the laws because they fund the campaigns of the legislators.
MisterBastahrd 13y ago
> Regardless, nobody's votes are being bought OF COURSE votes are being bought. There's more than enough evidence that shows that he who spends more wins. There's also plenty of evidence showing that he who spends more on a candidate has a sympathetic candidate. This is a systemic issue that is one step away from being full on bribery without impunity.

dailyrorschach 13y ago

It is definitely a free speech issue, however, I’d argue that the compelling state interests in preventing corruption and ensuring fairness and access in elections, is a great enough one to merit modest limitations. Indeed so did the Supreme Court until only recently, after the upholding in Buckley. My comment is more about the overall nature of the issue, but I do want to point out first that today’s ruling over aggregate monetary limits, is frankly a small issue in the overall challenges faced in reform. I understand your point, but I think it belies the reality of what takes place in most campaigns from my professional experience here in DC, though yes it is anecdotal of course. Yes, a small group of individuals can seek and gain funding, and they do, but in order to have a serious outcome on a race, you need to be able to shift vast sums of money and fast, often in the last 2 months. The Tea-Party influence on the 2010 midterm elections is a great example, the money that supported those candidates, did not come from the tea-party grassroots, but from a band of very rich donors, with very vested interests in legislative outcomes. And I don’t mean to single out the GOP here, the DNC has it’s own fair share of lobbied well-connected interests. Then of course there are the industries and organizations that simply fund the most likely to win in many races, ensuring candidate support for their industry when the time comes for considering legislation. If I was to start a Super PAC for lower class family concerns, say universal Pre-K, how much of their disposable income do you think they could afford to donate to a political cause? It’d be no where near the vast checks that can be written by opposition groups. And even if successful, I will still likely get outplayed in the long game with legislative lobbying since I don’t have the continued funds to support an ongoing effort. Now what would be a solution that doesn’t infringe on individual rights to free-speech, I’m not sure. Perhaps we should go back to completely publicly financed elections, though that obviously benefits the current two-party dichotomy over independent challengers, and would likely require serious constitutional amendments to be considered. I admit that more thinking would be required here, but I don’t think its a stretch to say the current system is severely broken, and in fairness to all here, was broken well before this relatively modest change. Finally, of course votes aren’t being bought in the election - but a campaign costs a lot of money. http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/congress-election-costs/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/congress-election-cos... The average US House race will cost 1.6M to win and the Senate 10.4M to win, and that increase far outpaces the rate of inflation. That money coming in is critical to reaching voters, paying for GOTV, and ensuring victory, beyond just the money spent on ads and outside group advertising. Then of course, all of that money these candidates raise, it’s not free money from well meaning corporations, they will expect to be repaid when the time comes, and they are.

strlen 13y ago
> It is definitely a free speech issue, however, I’d argue that the compelling state interests in preventing corruption and ensuring fairness and access in elections, is a great enough one to merit modest limitations. Indeed so did the Supreme Court until only recently, after the upholding in Buckley. My comment is more about the overall nature of the issue, but I do want to point out first that today’s ruling over aggregate monetary limits, is frankly a small issue in the overall challenges faced in reform.& Thank you. My opinion is the opposite of yours: I think this and Citizens United are the right decisions and free speech should be only be limited in a few restricted circumstances like immediate incitement to violence or terroristic threats. Yet, it's important to be honest about the trade off here and not misrepresent the decisions (e.g., saying that CU determined that "money is speech", etc...) > Now what would be a solution that doesn’t infringe on individual rights to free-speech, I’m not sure. Perhaps we should go back to completely publicly financed elections, though that obviously benefits the current two-party dichotomy over independent challengers, and would likely require serious constitutional amendments to be considered. I admit that more thinking would be required here, but I don’t think its a stretch to say the current system is severely broken, and in fairness to all here, was broken well before this relatively modest change. Ideal solution for me would allow donations to political organizations, including those that endorse candidates or lobby for bills (I don't like rent-seeking by Comcast, but I very much like the ACLU, EFF, and others). At the same time, the candidates themselves would rely (as you suggested) on public financing. I think this would take a constitutional amendment (as would overturning CU, but unlike an amendment to overturn CU it wouldn't set the precedents of amending the constitution to curtail rights when they are inconvenient), which should also mandate non-partisan drawing of electoral districts (California went that route and with great results).

triplenineteen 13y ago

> Regardless, nobody's votes are being bought. You still control the outcome of the election, nobody is forced to vote for anyone because they saw a campaign ad for them. Even if that is true, the current system of campaign finance results in large corporations dictating the laws because they fund the campaigns of the legislators.

MisterBastahrd 13y ago

> Regardless, nobody's votes are being bought OF COURSE votes are being bought. There's more than enough evidence that shows that he who spends more wins. There's also plenty of evidence showing that he who spends more on a candidate has a sympathetic candidate. This is a systemic issue that is one step away from being full on bribery without impunity.