Money in Politics

[Pointedstick]

If people and corporations can't give money to politicians to run their campaigns, where are they gonna get the money necessary to run a political campaign from? I think this would ironically have the effect of limiting political candidates to self-funding rich people like Donald Trump.

I guess the alternative is some kind of strict government-funded process where you can only spend money on your political campaign that the FEC gives to you, but that puts the government in charge of who can be a candidate, which I have to imagine would only increase the power of the members of the status quo. They could just pack the election funds committee with their friends and promulgate regulations about who can be publicly funded that exclude most of the sorts of people who would really challenge their rule.

[jafs]

Strictly limiting the amount of money that can be spent on campaigns would do the trick.

You don't have to have a government committee giving anybody money, although we could consider something like that, you just limit how much campaign spending is allowed at all.

[Pointedstick]

What amount of money is appropriate? Modern political campaigns spend hundreds of millions of dollars. And what happens if you run out of money? Your political ambitions come to an end? Regardless, this doesn't seem like it would solve any problems. Corporations and rich people could simply contribute 100% of the funds you're eligible to receive.

...sponsorship.... candidates wear logo covered suits like Nascar drivers and say
"brought to you by carl's junior" after each policy statement

(the above required by law?)

[jafs]

What amount of money is appropriate? Modern political campaigns spend hundreds of millions of dollars. And what happens if you run out of money? Your political ambitions come to an end? Regardless, this doesn't seem like it would solve any problems. Corporations and rich people could simply contribute 100% of the funds you're eligible to receive.

I'd set the bar very low, which would mean that campaigns wouldn't be expensive.

And, as I said, I'd disallow all campaign contributions whatsoever, so nobody would be contributing anything at all - individuals or corporations.

It's the only way to effectively deal with the problem, as far as I can tell.  Also, by itself, it's not enough - we need to do even more than that.

[Pointedstick]

So where does the money come from? All campaigns are 100% publicly funded?

[Libertarian666]

What amount of money is appropriate? Modern political campaigns spend hundreds of millions of dollars. And what happens if you run out of money? Your political ambitions come to an end? Regardless, this doesn't seem like it would solve any problems. Corporations and rich people could simply contribute 100% of the funds you're eligible to receive.

I'd set the bar very low, which would mean that campaigns wouldn't be expensive.

And, as I said, I'd disallow all campaign contributions whatsoever, so nobody would be contributing anything at all - individuals or corporations.

It's the only way to effectively deal with the problem, as far as I can tell.  Also, by itself, it's not enough - we need to do even more than that.

Then all incumbents would be re-elected forever, since no one else would even be able to get into public view.

Or maybe the government would give "free" TV time at the expense of the media, but of course the government would have to decide who gets the "free" time.

I'm sure that would eliminate corruption in no time!

[jafs]

So where does the money come from? All campaigns are 100% publicly funded?

That's one idea.

But, it's not necessary - if the amounts allowed are low, then many people will be able to afford to fund their own campaigns.

[jafs]

What amount of money is appropriate? Modern political campaigns spend hundreds of millions of dollars. And what happens if you run out of money? Your political ambitions come to an end? Regardless, this doesn't seem like it would solve any problems. Corporations and rich people could simply contribute 100% of the funds you're eligible to receive.

I'd set the bar very low, which would mean that campaigns wouldn't be expensive.

And, as I said, I'd disallow all campaign contributions whatsoever, so nobody would be contributing anything at all - individuals or corporations.

It's the only way to effectively deal with the problem, as far as I can tell.  Also, by itself, it's not enough - we need to do even more than that.

Then all incumbents would be re-elected forever, since no one else would even be able to get into public view.

Or maybe the government would give "free" TV time at the expense of the media, but of course the government would have to decide who gets the "free" time.

I'm sure that would eliminate corruption in no time!

It's probably that you guys are so accustomed to campaigns being very expensive that you can't imagine them being cheap.

I also like the idea of free media time - the airwaves are theoretically public space, I believe, and we could easily require that networks provide time for candidates without them having to pay for it.  The question of how to decide how many candidates gets time, and/or how much time, are good/reasonable questions.

But the general idea is sound, I think, and far preferable to what we have now.

[jafs]

i don't think the real problem is money in politics, even a cursory glance at the issue reveals that you cant take the money out without taking freedom of speech along with it, and if the government we are electing can control the speech allowed that might influence an election, then there wouldn't be much point in having one... declare a dictatorship and be done...
the real problem is there is no counterbalance to money, in a more idealized, and probably more in line with founding intention type world, there would be a free press that would engage in the kind of in depth discussions we have here.. if candidate X said he wanted to build an air-force base in some state, the press would be all over his motives and influences, was it the millions donated to his campaign by boeing? or the job his wife has with the company? or the promise he made to create jobs? or the belligerent foreign policy that requires ramping up for war? but sadly the media is a co-conspirator to the "money, influence, corruption" circle. the information we need is mostly all out there, but without a free press putting the important stuff up front, the majority are, and will remain, uninformed and no amount of restricting money or speech will change it... restricting speech would only serve to increase the number of voters that are uninformed..

We can get a lot of the money out without suppressing speech.

It's a mistake to conflate giving/spending money with speech, from my point of view.

[jafs]

so forgetting Citizens United for a second since that way of taking money out didn't separate money from speech.... how can you do this? which money cant be spent? and who gets to make the decision what is speech money and what isn't?

Well, it seems pretty obvious to me that giving money to politicians isn't speech, right?

So, all of that can be eliminated.

It gets a little more complicated when you're talking about stuff like tv ads, which are spending money but also a form of speech.  But, even there, freedom of speech isn't absolute, and one could make a case that some speech shouldn't be allowed because of the harm it causes.

As with libel, slander, defamation, fighting words, etc.

[jafs]

It's just obvious to me that giving somebody money isn't a form of speech - I don't know what good arguments could be made to conflate the two.

If they are the same thing, then prostitution is speaking to somebody and having sex with them - why would that be illegal?  And, how would it be different from just picking somebody up in a bar?

Those are all good questions, and I don't have definitive answers to them.  I just know that the current system is way out of whack because of money and that influence, and that it would be a good thing to get rid of that, and we should do all we can to do that.

[Benko]

jafs is unions giving money different from corporations giving money?
Thoughts?

[moda0306]

Corporations are organization of capital.

Unions are organizations of labor.

Neither are natural but for the advancement of the economy and industrialization.

As the resident Marxist, I'd still say they aren't materially different when it comes to campaign contributions.

As Desert has said in the past, it's a shame that capital organizes so much more effectively than labor. 

i don't disagree with this.. both corporations and unions have the potential to act for the good or the bad, some of the stuff unions promote when they influence politics is good, much of it is bad.... and i would say the same for corporations..

[moda0306]

And I know you weren't asking me... instead, jafs.  But he's ben the marxist lightning rod lately so I thought I'd pop in and throw a punch.

[jafs]

i don't disagree that things are out of whack, or that there needs to be a fix, i do question the cause and effect relationship however.. money is a symptom, greed, power, and corruption are the cause.. money is just the medium of exchange, used to transmit the information. both good and bad.... me sending Ron Paul five bucks so he can stay on the campaign trail and spread his message and philosophy = good speech, Monsanto buying politicians to pass laws that allow them to profit at a unknown cost to peoples health = bad speech but still speech..  the difference is corruption, disallowing both ( not treating them as speech or declaring them to no longer be) doesn't solve the problem, that problem being that politicians are corrupt and there is no counter balance to corruption, the idea that you can separate corrupting speech from good speech by eliminating money doesn't seem practical or even feasible,  what we need is a couple strong counterbalances to corruption itself (i think free pres and a well educated population are the likely answer), then big money can spend as much as they want and the people wont elect those who are known whores to some interest contrary to their own, unlike what we have now where the non whores are a unelectable minority and those in power are all bought and sold by the interest of big money..

I agree that corruptibility is the root problem.

But, all people are corruptible.

And, you keep conflating money and speech, even though I posted a pretty good example of why they're not identical.

[jafs]

Thoughts?

Well, I don't know if unions are, in fact, incorporated.  If they are, there's no difference at all.

If they're not, then there's the same difference between them as between an individual or any group of individuals and a corporation, legally.

People and groups of people have constitutional rights, which include freedom of speech.  But, that doesn't give the right to give money to politicians in my book, since giving money isn't equivalent to speech for me.

When I say get money out, I mean get it out.  No campaign contributions from anybody, or any group of people.

I'm sure we all know that this is just a pipe dream - money, the conflation of money and speech, and court cases have moved us so far away from my idea that it has virtually no chance of ever happening.

[rickb]

How about the proposed constitutional amendments here: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/proposed_co ... mendments/ ?

the real problem is there is no counterbalance to money, in a more idealized, and probably more in line with founding intention type world, there would be a free press that would engage in the kind of in depth discussions we have here..

This is one of the other things that's completely screwed up - and I think also related to corporate personhood.  I know less of the history here, but concentrated ownership of mass media outlets (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cro ... ted_States) used to be far more restricted than it is now.

These two things together now let one company own lots of the newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations in the country, and also contribute as much money as they'd like to political campaigns.

[Pointedstick]

I notice you use the word "sadistic" to describe Trump a lot. That impression seems to carry a lot of weight for you. Can you describe how you came to the conclusion that Donald Trump is more sadistic than the other GOP candidates, or indeed than really anyone serious in politics today?

[MediumTex]

I notice you use the word "sadistic" to describe Trump a lot. That impression seems to carry a lot of weight for you. Can you describe how you came to the conclusion that Donald Trump is more sadistic than the other GOP candidates, or indeed than really anyone serious in politics today?

I could sit here and list many examples of Trump's words and behavior, but I guess I'd rather ask you a question.  Can you not see the sadistic tendencies of this guy?  I understand that Trump supporters want a big strong bully, but surely you see the potential downsides of a big strong bully, right?

What if the bully thing is all just an act?

What if Trump is actually a pretty level-headed and decent guy?

Trump reminds me a lot of a wrestler who is just really into his ring persona.

[MediumTex]

I could sit here and list many examples of Trump's words and behavior, but I guess I'd rather ask you a question.  Can you not see the sadistic tendencies of this guy?  I understand that Trump supporters want a big strong bully, but surely you see the potential downsides of a big strong bully, right?

What if the bully thing is all just an act?

What if Trump is actually a pretty level-headed and decent guy?

Trump reminds me a lot of a wrestler who is just really into his ring persona.

That's possible.  He's an excellent entertainer and self promoter.  He could be merely cynically manipulating the lowest, angriest, most hateful sectors of our society in an effort to get elected. 

But, if I could convince myself of this, should that make me feel any better about him becoming my president?

I guess it would depend on the alternative.

[img width=480]http://41.media.tumblr.com/879541ef9664 ... 2_1280.jpg[/img]

[rickb]

But, if I could convince myself of this, should that make me feel any better about him becoming my president?

Exactly.  Let's follow the logic here.

1) Hillary is the lowest of the low, clearly willing to say anything in order to get elected.

2) Trump is saying things for effect that he doesn't really believe, in order to get elected.

3) I hate Hillary because of #1.

4) I love Trump.

Huh?

[MediumTex]

But, if I could convince myself of this, should that make me feel any better about him becoming my president?

Exactly.  Let's follow the logic here.

1) Hillary is the lowest of the low, clearly willing to say anything in order to get elected.

2) Trump is saying things for effect that he doesn't really believe, in order to get elected.

3) I hate Hillary because of #1.

4) I love Trump.

Huh?

Trump has the benefit of being new to politics, so he doesn't have to answer for all of the stuff Hillary has to answer for.

Imagine if Trump were running for president of the New York City Association of Building Builders.

He would probably be the Hillary in that race.

People are just frustrated that Obama promised hope and change and they don't think he delivered.  If Obama had delivered some hope and change, Hillary would easily win.

Hillary is suffering from the same thing Al Gore suffered from in 2000: the combination of a predecessor who created a lot of bad feelings and a candidate without enough charisma to create his/her own feel good narrative.