7 ms·

I'll probably donate to this in a few hours, but to understand it more fully, what is the argument against getting PACs/money out of politics? (Clearly there's

by rdl 12y ago

I'll probably donate to this in a few hours, but to understand it more fully, what is the argument against getting PACs/money out of politics? (Clearly there's a simple argument against MayDay PAC itself, that it might be unsuccessful in its mission, but that's a much weaker argument.) As far as I understand it, there are four main arguments for money in politics: 1) Money is speech; protecting free speech is important, and protecting political speech (and thus financial donations to campaigns) is probably the most important form of protected speech. 2) The utilitarian argument: if money is taken out of politics, groups with less economic power but greater organization and numbers will become dominant. (I'm not sold on pure democracy either). Control of "large audiences" without control of money to reach the public might become important; I'd rather live in a world where I can donate hundreds or thousands to EFF to influence policy vs. a world where Pat Robertson or Oprah are the only people who can influence voters. 3) The implementation argument: if this eliminates a fairly accessible form of financing (the PAC), those who control smaller but more enduring forms of money for political contribution will rise in power. IMO, those people tend to be much more objectionable than people who contribute to PACs. Or, if companies are kept out of politics, but unions are allowed to continue donating, etc. 4) Priorities: this might NOT be the most important issue right now. Maybe immigration is. Maybe not going to war in Iran is. etc. I don't know how valid these arguments are.

inglesp 12y ago
Maybe it's because I'm not American, but I've got no idea what "money is speech" means. It sounds almost Orwellian from this side of the pond.
- rdl 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
- nickff 12y ago
  Money is not equivalent to speech, but money is necessary to enable speech. Similarly, none of the following are speech, yet all are essential to it: telephones, computers, servers, printers, megaphones, and pens. If the government bans spending by certain groups, it is preventing them from acquiring the means to advocate for their ideas, which is the essential (and primary) purpose of political speech. The "money is speech" phrase is a straw-man put forward by opponents of the expansion of 1st Amendment rights to non-media organizations. If you want an example of how this might affect groups you support, consider that many courts have ruled blogs to be non-media activities, thus they could be banned from engaging in any politically related speech by the Federal Electoral Commission, if you accept Solicitor General Verrilli's arguments. The government could also ban groups and individuals from sending letters to newspaper editors by preventing the purchase of stamps to send the offending messages, or it could simply declare that uncompensated services (such as letter-writing, or petitioning) by groups like unions or other advocacy groups should be evaluated as a contribution, and limited or banned.
  - dbenamy 12y ago
    I'm not sure I understand what you mean nickff, and I'd like to. Is this a slippery slope argument, where if we start restricting spending, we might empower the government to restrict other things (like stamps) which can influence elections? Or is it that you think that restricting spending by any person or corporation in any way would result in a more distorted process than what we have now? Or something else? If it does seem likely that restrictions on spending _could_ restrict free speech, do you think that they _will necessarily_ restrict free speech? Maybe it just means we need to be careful in our implementation so we restrict the bad parts of unlimited spending while allowing the good stuff. I hope so, although I'd love to hear good evidence pointing either way. And just to bring this back to the context of Lessig's plan, they don't want to restrict spending at all (https://mayday.us/the-plan/#fundamental-reform-in-the-way-elections-are-funded https://mayday.us/the-plan/#fundamental-reform-in-the-way-el...), at least not until they try more important stuff first. They just want to make it more desirable to raise money from the many instead of the few.
    - nickff 12y ago
      My basic point was that if the FEC is allowed to restrict third party campaign spending, this power will be very wide-sweeping, and necessarily allow the FEC to selectively silence any group or type of speech they dislike. I agree with the result of the Citizen's United case (in allowing unlimited third party campaign spending) because, in the words of Chief Justice Roberts "We don't put our First Amendment Rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats". In other words, had the FEC been given the power to regulate all campaign spending, they may or may not restrict one or another sort of spending, but I am not willing to take the chance that they might silence important voices. With respect to these "matching" systems, I do not believe that anyone should be forced to support (through taxes,) campaigns they do not support. For one thing, this disenfranchises the people who expressly refuse to support any candidate, and necessarily helps people who have positions which give them access to the subsidies (such as members of the Republican and Democratic parties).
      - jellicle 12y ago
- jellicle 12y ago
  It's because you're not American. In the U.S., there's a long-standing propaganda campaign to get people to believe that limiting the ability of billionaires to buy elections is equivalent to coming to your house and cutting your tongue out at the roots. Pretty much exactly the same thing. No difference. I agree that it's pretty baffling to the rest of the world. Has anyone here written a seven figure check to influence a particular political campaign? If not, this movement is a net positive for you. If so, then this movement is a net negative for you. But very many Americans think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed billionaires.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
nickff 12y ago
One of the strongest arguments against FEC limits on speech is that many (very long-term) incumbent politicians support it. If these people support limits, it is most likely that they believe unlimited spending by outside groups will influence the populace in ways that are politically inconvenient (for the elected officials). Almost every American voter is (rightfully) skeptical of the honesty and integrity of their elected officials, and wants to allow for more political dynamism. It seems plain that unlimited campaign spending by outside groups will allow for new ideas, and real change.
- Qworg 12y ago
  How is unlimited spending by entrenched powers who have already "won" in the current system going to encourage political dynamism? Most American voters aren't PAC contributors, at least in any meaningful way. Is their speech less important due to less cash in their pocket?
- pron 12y ago
  > It seems plain that unlimited campaign spending by outside groups will allow for new ideas, and real change. Absolutely not! Money is one of the most obvious forms of power in society, and therefore any group that has a lot of money to spend, is, by definition, already a significant part of the power structure. "Outside groups" with money are never true outside groups.
  - nickff 12y ago
    If unlimited campaign spending is so advantageous to the political insiders, and entrenched interests, then why are they (McCain, Feingold, and other long-term career politicians) so opposed to it? How often do you see a politician advocate for something that puts them at a significant disadvantage, and helps their critics?
    - Avshalom 12y ago
      The media spent decades basically felating McCain for championing cfr.
baddox 12y ago
I think one argument is that it's the wrong approach to solve the problems with government. Of course, that idea depends on an opinion of what the problems are with government. A "limited government" approach I've seen is that money in politics isn't so bad if the government's ability to use physical force to pick winners and losers in the economy is very limited. Why would the tech industry spend millions lobbying if the government had no comprehensive ability to regulate the Internet? Why would mining and oil companies lobby so much if the government had fewer environmental regulations and/or fewer subsidies in the energy and natural resources sectors? Why would defense contractors lobby so much if the government wasn't spending trillions on war around the globe? And so on.
- MaysonL 12y ago
  OK, maybe you're right about limiting government (I think you're wrong, but I've been wrong before). So how do you think there's a snowball's chance in Hades to limit government when there's so much money behind the current setup? How are you going to cut the defense budget?
  - baddox 12y ago
    Likewise, how do you think there's a snowball's chance in Hades to reform campaign finance?
    - aptwebapps 12y ago
      Incrementally, via Lessig's plan. The thing about campaign finance is that it can actually be reformed piecemeal and by external efforts simply be putting enough money in the right place and the right time. Well, not that simply, but close enough. The current people in Congress were elected under the current system and thus must be at least slightly wary of a different system. Despite this, there is some support in Congress for these sorts of reform. Perhaps those who support it do so because they think it is the right thing to do, perhaps merely because they think they can do well under the new system. But you don't have to change the campaign finance rules to start with. By concentrating money in a few places on a single issue, i.e. using the current system, you can elect or help elect members favorable to the new system. If that works, you kick it up a notch and try to get more elected. At some point it's either going to peter out or it's going to have some sort of permanent success. This is not to imply that it's a walk in the park, but there is a road to success here. Trying to effect significant change on other issues which run counter to big money seems to me to be less realistic, but that's just my opinion.
rayiner 12y ago
> Money is speech; protecting free speech is important, and protecting political speech (and thus financial donations to campaigns) is probably the most important form of protected speech. The argument when it comes to PAC's is not that "money is speech." It's "speech is speech." Donations to PAC's are spent independently on fundamental, protected political speech: advertisements, etc. Functionally, they are no different than Sierra Club or any other advocacy organization: they just support causes the internet hive-mind doesn't like. Also, if you limit PAC's, then you suddenly give rich individuals tremendously more power: they're now the only ones that can bring large amounts of money to bear on supporting a candidate. That is, unless you straight up destroy the first amendment by telling even individuals that they can't make this or that movie or political ad.
- moultano 12y ago
  Lessig has in the past advocated for a variety of solutions that don't involve restricting speech, or organization. One option is to give each voter a $50 voucher that they can give to whatever political organization they wish. This retains all the of the functions of politics that we see today, but restores the dependence of politicians on the people, rather than the few who give most of the political money today.
  - harryh 12y ago
    I dunno how much it cost exactly but I'm sure that making and distributing "Hillary: The Movie" cost a lot more than 50 bucks. Limiting individuals to that total is a restriction on their speech. Now, maybe that's a restriction that we want to impose but it's disingenuous to say it's not a restriction.
    - aptwebapps 12y ago
      It's not a limit, it's supplemental. You can still put your own money into whatever you want. (I'm just talking about the voucher idea here).
      - 12y ago
snowwrestler 12y ago
One argument you missed is that there is really not much of a problem to solve; money in politics is not significantly distorting the will of the people. There is very little evidence that there are consistent correlations between money in politics and success in politics. For example the Sunlight Foundation found that all the extra outside spending in 2012 (post-Citizens-United) had no measurable correlation with who won election. Arguments that it is a problem typically center around this or that "bad" law; but there is no guarantee that a representative democracy will make every citizen happy. Focusing on money also ignores the many other potential influences in politics, like regional culture, religion, ideology, gender, sexism, racism, etc.
- sandstrom 12y ago
  I think some would disagree with the statement "money in politics is not significantly distorting the will of the people". This study tries to approach the question more numerically: https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20mater...
nanomage 12y ago
I donated last week. The big problem is, those with largest money, have more unfair access to donating. Comcast just got to #2 in lobbying money. 3m per fiscal quarter buys monopoly. Seems easier for me to contribute against it. #americaninternetspeeds http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/23/google-att-verizon-and-comcast-each-spent-more-than-3m-in-q1-lobbying-congress/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/23/google-att-verizon-and-comc...

by rdl 12y ago

inglesp 12y ago

Maybe it's because I'm not American, but I've got no idea what "money is speech" means. It sounds almost Orwellian from this side of the pond.

rdl 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
nickff 12y ago
Money is not equivalent to speech, but money is necessary to enable speech. Similarly, none of the following are speech, yet all are essential to it: telephones, computers, servers, printers, megaphones, and pens. If the government bans spending by certain groups, it is preventing them from acquiring the means to advocate for their ideas, which is the essential (and primary) purpose of political speech. The "money is speech" phrase is a straw-man put forward by opponents of the expansion of 1st Amendment rights to non-media organizations. If you want an example of how this might affect groups you support, consider that many courts have ruled blogs to be non-media activities, thus they could be banned from engaging in any politically related speech by the Federal Electoral Commission, if you accept Solicitor General Verrilli's arguments. The government could also ban groups and individuals from sending letters to newspaper editors by preventing the purchase of stamps to send the offending messages, or it could simply declare that uncompensated services (such as letter-writing, or petitioning) by groups like unions or other advocacy groups should be evaluated as a contribution, and limited or banned.
- dbenamy 12y ago
  I'm not sure I understand what you mean nickff, and I'd like to. Is this a slippery slope argument, where if we start restricting spending, we might empower the government to restrict other things (like stamps) which can influence elections? Or is it that you think that restricting spending by any person or corporation in any way would result in a more distorted process than what we have now? Or something else? If it does seem likely that restrictions on spending _could_ restrict free speech, do you think that they _will necessarily_ restrict free speech? Maybe it just means we need to be careful in our implementation so we restrict the bad parts of unlimited spending while allowing the good stuff. I hope so, although I'd love to hear good evidence pointing either way. And just to bring this back to the context of Lessig's plan, they don't want to restrict spending at all (https://mayday.us/the-plan/#fundamental-reform-in-the-way-elections-are-funded https://mayday.us/the-plan/#fundamental-reform-in-the-way-el...), at least not until they try more important stuff first. They just want to make it more desirable to raise money from the many instead of the few.
  - nickff 12y ago
    My basic point was that if the FEC is allowed to restrict third party campaign spending, this power will be very wide-sweeping, and necessarily allow the FEC to selectively silence any group or type of speech they dislike. I agree with the result of the Citizen's United case (in allowing unlimited third party campaign spending) because, in the words of Chief Justice Roberts "We don't put our First Amendment Rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats". In other words, had the FEC been given the power to regulate all campaign spending, they may or may not restrict one or another sort of spending, but I am not willing to take the chance that they might silence important voices. With respect to these "matching" systems, I do not believe that anyone should be forced to support (through taxes,) campaigns they do not support. For one thing, this disenfranchises the people who expressly refuse to support any candidate, and necessarily helps people who have positions which give them access to the subsidies (such as members of the Republican and Democratic parties).
    - jellicle 12y ago
jellicle 12y ago
It's because you're not American. In the U.S., there's a long-standing propaganda campaign to get people to believe that limiting the ability of billionaires to buy elections is equivalent to coming to your house and cutting your tongue out at the roots. Pretty much exactly the same thing. No difference. I agree that it's pretty baffling to the rest of the world. Has anyone here written a seven figure check to influence a particular political campaign? If not, this movement is a net positive for you. If so, then this movement is a net negative for you. But very many Americans think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed billionaires.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

nickff 12y ago

One of the strongest arguments against FEC limits on speech is that many (very long-term) incumbent politicians support it. If these people support limits, it is most likely that they believe unlimited spending by outside groups will influence the populace in ways that are politically inconvenient (for the elected officials). Almost every American voter is (rightfully) skeptical of the honesty and integrity of their elected officials, and wants to allow for more political dynamism. It seems plain that unlimited campaign spending by outside groups will allow for new ideas, and real change.

Qworg 12y ago
How is unlimited spending by entrenched powers who have already "won" in the current system going to encourage political dynamism? Most American voters aren't PAC contributors, at least in any meaningful way. Is their speech less important due to less cash in their pocket?
pron 12y ago
> It seems plain that unlimited campaign spending by outside groups will allow for new ideas, and real change. Absolutely not! Money is one of the most obvious forms of power in society, and therefore any group that has a lot of money to spend, is, by definition, already a significant part of the power structure. "Outside groups" with money are never true outside groups.
- nickff 12y ago
  If unlimited campaign spending is so advantageous to the political insiders, and entrenched interests, then why are they (McCain, Feingold, and other long-term career politicians) so opposed to it? How often do you see a politician advocate for something that puts them at a significant disadvantage, and helps their critics?
  - Avshalom 12y ago
    The media spent decades basically felating McCain for championing cfr.

baddox 12y ago

I think one argument is that it's the wrong approach to solve the problems with government. Of course, that idea depends on an opinion of what the problems are with government. A "limited government" approach I've seen is that money in politics isn't so bad if the government's ability to use physical force to pick winners and losers in the economy is very limited. Why would the tech industry spend millions lobbying if the government had no comprehensive ability to regulate the Internet? Why would mining and oil companies lobby so much if the government had fewer environmental regulations and/or fewer subsidies in the energy and natural resources sectors? Why would defense contractors lobby so much if the government wasn't spending trillions on war around the globe? And so on.

MaysonL 12y ago
OK, maybe you're right about limiting government (I think you're wrong, but I've been wrong before). So how do you think there's a snowball's chance in Hades to limit government when there's so much money behind the current setup? How are you going to cut the defense budget?
- baddox 12y ago
  Likewise, how do you think there's a snowball's chance in Hades to reform campaign finance?
  - aptwebapps 12y ago
    Incrementally, via Lessig's plan. The thing about campaign finance is that it can actually be reformed piecemeal and by external efforts simply be putting enough money in the right place and the right time. Well, not that simply, but close enough. The current people in Congress were elected under the current system and thus must be at least slightly wary of a different system. Despite this, there is some support in Congress for these sorts of reform. Perhaps those who support it do so because they think it is the right thing to do, perhaps merely because they think they can do well under the new system. But you don't have to change the campaign finance rules to start with. By concentrating money in a few places on a single issue, i.e. using the current system, you can elect or help elect members favorable to the new system. If that works, you kick it up a notch and try to get more elected. At some point it's either going to peter out or it's going to have some sort of permanent success. This is not to imply that it's a walk in the park, but there is a road to success here. Trying to effect significant change on other issues which run counter to big money seems to me to be less realistic, but that's just my opinion.

rayiner 12y ago

> Money is speech; protecting free speech is important, and protecting political speech (and thus financial donations to campaigns) is probably the most important form of protected speech. The argument when it comes to PAC's is not that "money is speech." It's "speech is speech." Donations to PAC's are spent independently on fundamental, protected political speech: advertisements, etc. Functionally, they are no different than Sierra Club or any other advocacy organization: they just support causes the internet hive-mind doesn't like. Also, if you limit PAC's, then you suddenly give rich individuals tremendously more power: they're now the only ones that can bring large amounts of money to bear on supporting a candidate. That is, unless you straight up destroy the first amendment by telling even individuals that they can't make this or that movie or political ad.

moultano 12y ago
Lessig has in the past advocated for a variety of solutions that don't involve restricting speech, or organization. One option is to give each voter a $50 voucher that they can give to whatever political organization they wish. This retains all the of the functions of politics that we see today, but restores the dependence of politicians on the people, rather than the few who give most of the political money today.
- harryh 12y ago
  I dunno how much it cost exactly but I'm sure that making and distributing "Hillary: The Movie" cost a lot more than 50 bucks. Limiting individuals to that total is a restriction on their speech. Now, maybe that's a restriction that we want to impose but it's disingenuous to say it's not a restriction.
  - aptwebapps 12y ago
    It's not a limit, it's supplemental. You can still put your own money into whatever you want. (I'm just talking about the voucher idea here).
    - 12y ago

snowwrestler 12y ago

One argument you missed is that there is really not much of a problem to solve; money in politics is not significantly distorting the will of the people. There is very little evidence that there are consistent correlations between money in politics and success in politics. For example the Sunlight Foundation found that all the extra outside spending in 2012 (post-Citizens-United) had no measurable correlation with who won election. Arguments that it is a problem typically center around this or that "bad" law; but there is no guarantee that a representative democracy will make every citizen happy. Focusing on money also ignores the many other potential influences in politics, like regional culture, religion, ideology, gender, sexism, racism, etc.

sandstrom 12y ago
I think some would disagree with the statement "money in politics is not significantly distorting the will of the people". This study tries to approach the question more numerically: https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20mater...

nanomage 12y ago

I donated last week. The big problem is, those with largest money, have more unfair access to donating. Comcast just got to #2 in lobbying money. 3m per fiscal quarter buys monopoly. Seems easier for me to contribute against it. #americaninternetspeeds http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/23/google-att-verizon-and-comcast-each-spent-more-than-3m-in-q1-lobbying-congress/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/23/google-att-verizon-and-comc...