3 ms·

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

by 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.
  - cpeterso 12y ago
    Long time incumbents can assume their position is safe unless there is a well funded challenger. Incumbents have plenty of air time and name recognition.
    - pron 12y ago
      Right. Money is not the only source of power.
    - nickff 12y ago
      >"Long time incumbents can assume their position is safe unless there is a well funded challenger." You have restated my position quite succinctly; FEC campaign regulations are a way of preventing "well funded challenger[s]".
- baddox 12y ago
  Maybe that's true on a sufficiently large scale, but for local/state politics I don't think it applies. For example, I would imagine that several policies in San Francisco and the Bay Area would be very different if political influence was perfectly correlated with wealth/capital.
  - warfangle 12y ago
    On the other hand, policies of e.g., local government in North Carolina reflect the influence of the pork industry really clearly.
georgemcbay 12y ago
"It seems plain that unlimited campaign spending by outside groups will allow for new ideas, and real change." New ideas, and real change... like the death of net neutrality. Great! I really don't see how anyone could consider what you just said there logical considering that the people with (virtually) unlimited money (to donate to campaigns) historically always represent a very close overlap of the people who want to maintain the status quo that continues to earn them unlimited money.
michaelt 12y ago
One of the strongest arguments against FEC limits on speech is that many (very long-term) incumbent politicians support it. If I was a politician, I would attempt to capture both the benefits of big-money politics and the benefits of public opposition to big-money politics. So, in my public speeches to voters I would claim I was 100% in favour of campaign finance reform - I'm concerned, just like you! I don't like these million-dollar donors, I got into politics to represent normal Americans like yourself! Unfortunately until the system changes I have to go along with it, obviously, so I will be taking some million-dollar donations. Once elected I'll get on that reform as soon as I can, honest! First I have to fix the economy/ensure national security/balance the budget/ban guns/fight terrorism/take on the banks/fix the college tuition bubble/deal with income inequality/reform patents/fix contraception access/educate more scientists/fix agricultural subsidies/reduce our dependence on foreign energy/reform immigration/fix the DHS/stand up to Putin/bring peace to the middle east/kiss this baby. As soon as those are done, campaign finance reform will be my top priority. Hence, I'd get the money of the big donors without alienating regular voters by publicly supporting the current (messed up) state of campaign finance.
cheese1756 12y ago
How do we know that incumbents are afraid of super PAC spending because it will create change and influence the population? Couldn't it just be that they are afraid of a super PAC dumping money into attack ads and an opponent's campaign if they go against the wishes of a special interest group?

by nickff 12y ago

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.
- cpeterso 12y ago
  Long time incumbents can assume their position is safe unless there is a well funded challenger. Incumbents have plenty of air time and name recognition.
  - pron 12y ago
    Right. Money is not the only source of power.
  - nickff 12y ago
    >"Long time incumbents can assume their position is safe unless there is a well funded challenger." You have restated my position quite succinctly; FEC campaign regulations are a way of preventing "well funded challenger[s]".
baddox 12y ago
Maybe that's true on a sufficiently large scale, but for local/state politics I don't think it applies. For example, I would imagine that several policies in San Francisco and the Bay Area would be very different if political influence was perfectly correlated with wealth/capital.
- warfangle 12y ago
  On the other hand, policies of e.g., local government in North Carolina reflect the influence of the pork industry really clearly.

georgemcbay 12y ago

"It seems plain that unlimited campaign spending by outside groups will allow for new ideas, and real change." New ideas, and real change... like the death of net neutrality. Great! I really don't see how anyone could consider what you just said there logical considering that the people with (virtually) unlimited money (to donate to campaigns) historically always represent a very close overlap of the people who want to maintain the status quo that continues to earn them unlimited money.

michaelt 12y ago

One of the strongest arguments against FEC limits on speech is that many (very long-term) incumbent politicians support it. If I was a politician, I would attempt to capture both the benefits of big-money politics and the benefits of public opposition to big-money politics. So, in my public speeches to voters I would claim I was 100% in favour of campaign finance reform - I'm concerned, just like you! I don't like these million-dollar donors, I got into politics to represent normal Americans like yourself! Unfortunately until the system changes I have to go along with it, obviously, so I will be taking some million-dollar donations. Once elected I'll get on that reform as soon as I can, honest! First I have to fix the economy/ensure national security/balance the budget/ban guns/fight terrorism/take on the banks/fix the college tuition bubble/deal with income inequality/reform patents/fix contraception access/educate more scientists/fix agricultural subsidies/reduce our dependence on foreign energy/reform immigration/fix the DHS/stand up to Putin/bring peace to the middle east/kiss this baby. As soon as those are done, campaign finance reform will be my top priority. Hence, I'd get the money of the big donors without alienating regular voters by publicly supporting the current (messed up) state of campaign finance.

cheese1756 12y ago

How do we know that incumbents are afraid of super PAC spending because it will create change and influence the population? Couldn't it just be that they are afraid of a super PAC dumping money into attack ads and an opponent's campaign if they go against the wishes of a special interest group?