Money and Politics

[doodle]

Deleted

[MediumTex]

Does anyone see a movement starting that would limit the "money is speech" idea? Is seperating money from politics an idea that will be able to gain traction anytime soon? And if you think it does how do we get to that point?

No.

Once money is allowed into politics, it never leaves.

It's sort of like going from a gold standard to a fiat currency--you can't really go back.

If you think of political systems as always being in the process of decay, allowing money to enter the process of choosing political leaders dramatically accelerates the process of deterioration.

In many ways, though, the U.S. is very lucky that it has taken as long as it has for money to ruin our political system.  In most countries it happens right way.  In our country it took 200 years or so.

[Lone Wolf]

Is seperating money from politics an idea that will be able to gain traction anytime soon?

I think that discussion of this matter approaches things from the wrong direction.  A wise man put it this way:

"Lord Acton said, 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' The corollary to this is that without power, there can be no corruption -- for the politician has nothing to sell."

-- Harry Browne

[Pkg Man]

is it ok to discuss politics again?

IMHO money and politics wouldn't be an issue at all if the government had never strayed so far from its original design.  The recent experiments with campaign finance limits (McCain-Feingold) were in my opinion nothing more than a way to silence free speech, so I was glad to see to the Supreme Court struck down portions of the bill.

Edit: I see Lone Wolf expressed my sentiments precisely with the quote from HB.

[doodle]

Deleted

[moda0306]

It seems one has to first accept the role of government outside the role it had in the 1800's before they really start to have problems with so much money in politics.

For one, I think industry regulation, the EPA and other environmental regulation, and maybe even certain limited social safety net programs are legitimate functions of government, some more constitutionally acceptable than others, maybe.

If somebody limits the power of the federal government to that of military & coinage of currency, then I suppose that you don't need to limit corporate influence as much (except look at our military now and tell me that corporate influence isn't a problem).  If you agree that government has a broader role (even if you think it's too big today), then that really starts getting the gears turning.

Finally, I question the act of giving corporations all the constitutional rights as a human being.  We take the ability for granted, but the idea that an "entity" can shield individuals from legal recourse for their company's actions, but still have all the rights as a citizen seems like a bit of a stretch.

[fnord123]

Finally, I question the act of giving corporations all the constitutional rights as a human being.  We take the ability for granted, but the idea that an "entity" can shield individuals from legal recourse for their company's actions, but still have all the rights as a citizen seems like a bit of a stretch.

I am with you 100% on this one.  It really angers me about this is that corporations are getting the best of both worlds.  In terms of campaign finance spending, they get to be treated as an human being, with all the rights that comes with it.  But when it comes to discrimination, suddenly Walmart is a collection of separate people, not a single individual, per Wal-Mart vs. Dukes.  If a single individual had made all the hiring decisions for a private company you can bet he would have lost this case, but because Wal-Mart is a bunch of individual managers in separate stores somehow it is no longer a single legal entity. 

[moda0306]

Also, if we use the "free speech" logic, then is antitrust or collusion legislation "anti-free speech?"

If you and I owned the only two gas stations in a small town, and met every month to discuss pricing, is that not free speech?  Someone's "free" to start building a new gas station, at which point we're free to "meet" again and suck it up for a  year and set prices really low so he can't get his business off the ground?

We just don't live in this world of perfect competition, both in the marketplace of goods and marketplace of ideas, and I think we're going to see some very unintended consequences if we start using Ayn Randian philosophies on the role of government coercion in the world we live in today.

This isn't to say the current role of government is appropriate, but simply that taking things to such philisophical extremes ignores the world we live in, IMO.

[Lone Wolf]

Also, if we use the "free speech" logic, then is antitrust or collusion legislation "anti-free speech?"

I don't think it would be.  Antitrust legislation governs action, not speech.  That's why you're permitted to say, "I'd love to knock over a liquor store tonight after driving with an expired license."  You're not permitted to actually do it.  Your ill-advised words make you look guiltier but they're not the criminal act.  (Not that I think most antitrust legislation is really all that helpful anyway.)

I think we're going to see some very unintended consequences if we start using Ayn Randian philosophies on the role of government coercion in the world we live in today.

Recent history has given us a decade of hot war, crony capitalism, Sarbaynes-Oxley, steel tariffs, the 2008 bailouts, a trillion dollars in wasted stimulus, Obamacare and its crony waivers, double-digit real unemployment and 0% interest rates on currency printed out of thin air.  And you're concerned that we're careening toward an Ayn Randian world?  Unless the world you mean is "Atlas Shrugged", I don't see it!

[moda0306]

LW, where did I say or even imply that we're "careening" towards an Ayn Randian world.  I followed my post by saying that I wasn't giving an endorsement of the current size & role of government.

I think there's too much government, I'm simply pointing out that those who think that there should be little government role outside of military, courts, police and coining currency don't acknowledge the unintended consequences of taking us back that direction, or if they do they give it passing reference and say "the market will eventually wash that out."

Collusion could be qualified as speech, couldn't it?  Take my example of the gas stations.  In fact, the simple acknowledgement that collusion/monopolies are a problem implies a complicated market error that we have to properly address... and that means government regulating business.

[moda0306]

I'd agree most antitrust legislation isn't all that helpful.  Acknowledgement of a market-failure isn't saying that government will fix it.. in fact it highlights a complication of free human interaction that involves a third party correcting it... how do we analyze the "failure" of the 3rd party (government) and their role in fixing the market-failure.

This is my pie-in-the-sky response that it really involves very GOOD government to properly correct.

[Lone Wolf]

LW, where did I say or even imply that we're "careening" towards an Ayn Randian world.  I followed my post by saying that I wasn't giving an endorsement of the current size & role of government.

I see, that's my mistake then.  Since you mentioned it, I assumed that it was something you actually feared was happening or was already underway.

I think there's too much government, I'm simply pointing out that those who think that there should be little government role outside of military, courts, police and coining currency don't acknowledge the unintended consequences of taking us back that direction, or if they do they give it passing reference and say "the market will eventually wash that out."

Sure.  I think that by studying periods of the past before things like giant tomes of intrusive regulation, central bankers, and funny money, though, you can get a fairly good idea of what consequences might and might not exist.

In fact, the simple acknowledgement that collusion/monopolies are a problem implies a complicated market error that we have to properly address... and that means government regulating business.

Yeah, I agree that such things can exist although I think that absent the use of force they are extremely unstable.  Any law that combats them has a cost and unintended consequences (as does any law.)  Remember that any law you envision won't actually be designed by you.  It's going to be created by a politician who has a whole separate set of incentives from yours.