Gyroscopic Investing

jafs wrote:I'd ban all campaign contributions, limit the amount of personal money candidates can spend to a very low level, provide free and equal airtime for in-depth interviews and debates, all of which are carefully scored and fact checked immediately afterwards.

Every one of those ideas assumes the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent government which never has its own agenda, and which all people would be comfortable assigning the power to decide who gets elected and who doesn't.

That is so far from the truth that the entire scenario is laughable.

jafs wrote: I can't answer the question that narrowly.

That's the question that Citizens United answered. If you can't decide on an answer for yourself, how can you hold an opinion on whether that case was rightly or wrongly decided?

Xan wrote:

jafs wrote:I'd ban all campaign contributions, limit the amount of personal money candidates can spend to a very low level, provide free and equal airtime for in-depth interviews and debates, all of which are carefully scored and fact checked immediately afterwards.

Every one of those ideas assumes the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent government which never has its own agenda, and which all people would be comfortable assigning the power to decide who gets elected and who doesn't.

That is so far from the truth that the entire scenario is laughable.

I have no idea how you arrived at your conclusion from my suggestion.

Maybe you should re-read it.

Pointedstick wrote:

jafs wrote: I can't answer the question that narrowly.

That's the question that Citizens United answered. If you can't decide on an answer for yourself, how can you hold an opinion on whether that case was rightly or wrongly decided?

Because the decision granted the right based on the argument that corporations have constitutional rights, and I'm very sure that they don't have those.

As I've said, I find that our government, in the form of legislation, has the right to grant rights to corporations or not grant them.  So, I guess the answer would be yes, given that corporations don't have constitutional rights, the government has the right to enact legislation that would disallow your movie.  We could disallow any/all corporations from making any movies at all, if we wanted.

I imagine that the regulations might have to be consistent, and apply to all corporations, so it probably wouldn't be right to grant different rights to different corporations.

By the way, when's our first meeting to make this movie?  Sounds like a fun project 

But, I'm sure you understand that there's a history of precedents and court cases that have granted constitutional rights to corporations, and so my idea isn't feasible given those.  We'd have to go back and re-litigate the issues, and get some different SC decisions, all of which is unlikely to happen any time soon.  So it's just a theoretical exercise.

jafs wrote: As I've said, I find that our government, in the form of legislation, has the right to grant rights to corporations or not grant them.  So, I guess the answer would be yes, given that corporations don't have constitutional rights, the government has the right to enact legislation that would disallow your movie.

Okay, so you do agree with the Citizens United decision that the government should have the power to prohibit our nonprofit from distributing our anti-Trump movie close to an election.

I assume if we do not do this work within a nonprofit, and we just act as a group of individuals with no corporate legal protection, then the government shouldn't have the power to prohibit us from distributing it, right?

jafs wrote:

Xan wrote:

jafs wrote:I'd ban all campaign contributions, limit the amount of personal money candidates can spend to a very low level, provide free and equal airtime for in-depth interviews and debates, all of which are carefully scored and fact checked immediately afterwards.

Every one of those ideas assumes the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent government which never has its own agenda, and which all people would be comfortable assigning the power to decide who gets elected and who doesn't.

That is so far from the truth that the entire scenario is laughable.

I have no idea how you arrived at your conclusion from my suggestion.

Maybe you should re-read it.

I suggest you re-write it using the active voice rather than the passive voice, and then you'll see it.

Pointedstick wrote:

jafs wrote: As I've said, I find that our government, in the form of legislation, has the right to grant rights to corporations or not grant them.  So, I guess the answer would be yes, given that corporations don't have constitutional rights, the government has the right to enact legislation that would disallow your movie.

Okay, so you do agree with the Citizens United decision that the government should have the power to prohibit our nonprofit from distributing our anti-Trump movie close to an election.

I assume if we do not do this work within a nonprofit, and we just act as a group of individuals with no corporate legal protection, then the government shouldn't have the power to prohibit us from distributing it, right?

Clearly it should have that power, since campaign contributions are banned, use of personal money is banned, and "free and equal airtime" (provided by government, of course) is the only allowable option for getting a message out.

Totally in line with what Adams, Madison, et al had in mind with the whole freedom of the press thing.

If the first amendment doesn't cover political speech, PARTICULARLY the political speech which the government would like to squelch, then it covers nothing at all.

Pointedstick wrote:

jafs wrote: As I've said, I find that our government, in the form of legislation, has the right to grant rights to corporations or not grant them.  So, I guess the answer would be yes, given that corporations don't have constitutional rights, the government has the right to enact legislation that would disallow your movie.

Okay, so you do agree with the Citizens United decision that the government should have the power to prohibit our nonprofit from distributing our anti-Trump movie close to an election.

I assume if we do not do this work within a nonprofit, and we just act as a group of individuals with no corporate legal protection, then the government shouldn't have the power to prohibit us from distributing it, right?

Again, even constitutional rights aren't absolute.

There are a variety of forms of speech which aren't ok - yelling fire in a crowded theater, libel, slander, defamation, inciting to riot, etc.  How to deal with political speech, especially when it involves spending lots of money, isn't a simple matter to me.

Allowing unlimited amounts of money to be spent on political speech (in the form of movies, tv ads, etc.) tilts the playing field towards the wealthy, and we already have a government of, by and for the wealthy, instead of of, by and for the people.

Xan wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

jafs wrote: As I've said, I find that our government, in the form of legislation, has the right to grant rights to corporations or not grant them.  So, I guess the answer would be yes, given that corporations don't have constitutional rights, the government has the right to enact legislation that would disallow your movie.

Okay, so you do agree with the Citizens United decision that the government should have the power to prohibit our nonprofit from distributing our anti-Trump movie close to an election.

I assume if we do not do this work within a nonprofit, and we just act as a group of individuals with no corporate legal protection, then the government shouldn't have the power to prohibit us from distributing it, right?

Clearly it should have that power, since campaign contributions are banned, use of personal money is banned, and "free and equal airtime" (provided by government, of course) is the only allowable option for getting a message out.

Totally in line with what Adams, Madison, et al had in mind with the whole freedom of the press thing.

If the first amendment doesn't cover political speech, PARTICULARLY the political speech which the government would like to squelch, then it covers nothing at all.

Free and equal airtime would be provided by the press, not the government, in my version.

I'm curious - are you one of the folks on here who thinks that the influence of money on government is a problem?  If so, do you have any suggestions for how to deal with that problem?

jafs wrote: Again, even constitutional rights aren't absolute.

There are a variety of forms of speech which aren't ok - yelling fire in a crowded theater, libel, slander, defamation, inciting to riot, etc.  How to deal with political speech, especially when it involves spending lots of money, isn't a simple matter to me.

Allowing unlimited amounts of money to be spent on political speech (in the form of movies, tv ads, etc.) tilts the playing field towards the wealthy, and we already have a government of, by and for the wealthy, instead of of, by and for the people.

By the fact that you keep going back to principles and generalities, I get the sense that you are uncomfortable with the practical consequences of your principles. I'll ask again:

If we do not do this work within a nonprofit, and we just act as a group of individuals with no corporate legal protection, then the government shouldn't have the power to prohibit us from distributing it, right?

As I said, that's not an easy question to answer for me - it's not a simple issue.  We have to weigh the value of allowing more speech against the possible harm that might cause.  Of course, if we all had a lot of money to spend, then it's an easier "yes" answer for me, since that means we all have a similar ability to get access/influence.

The problem is that all speech isn't equal, and that those with lots of money have louder voices that are heard in many more places, and they're more influential.

If you share the sense that money in politics is a problem, how do you think we should deal with that problem?

A Trump presidency wouldn't solve it, even if Trump himself were immune to corruption (which I don't believe he is), as long as the other politicians in the system aren't. 

jafs wrote:I'm curious - are you one of the folks on here who thinks that the influence of money on government is a problem?  If so, do you have any suggestions for how to deal with that problem?

As long as there's voting, then I don't think money makes that much difference.  If people are so gullible as to be swayed by how much money somebody spends on convincing them, then THAT's the problem.  Money doesn't buy elections; people have to sell them.

I'm a lot more scared of the "solutions" than I am of the "money in politics" problem.

jafs wrote: As I said, that's not an easy question to answer for me - it's not a simple issue.  We have to weigh the value of allowing more speech against the possible harm that might cause.

That doesn't sound a lot like what I would consider "free speech." With an attitude like this, you might feel more at home in the UK. Obviously no right is unlimited, but "weighing a harm versus a benefit" simply isn't what you do for rights. You make something a right precisely to prevent that kind of balancing test, so that people don't "balance" it out of existence in the future.

jafs wrote: If you share the sense that money in politics is a problem, how do you think we should deal with that problem?

I don't share that view. Citizens United was decided in 2010, and it overturned a law passed in 2002. It's not like the problem of "money in politics" abated between 2002 and 2010. Nothing of the sort happened. And in this particular election cycle, very wealthy people have spent like 450 million dollars to destroy Donald Trump and gotten nowhere. Transparent attempts to buy elections seem to fail terribly. An example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californi ... tion,_2010

I think "money in politics" is a symptom of the true problem--societal elites who control the political process and have their opinions heard much more than the actual electorate does. Even with your proposed restrictions, these people's influence wouldn't meaningfully diminish because it's not based on something so crude as campaign contributions. It's based on personal friendships, common social circles, a shared culture, and revolving-door conventions of politicians becoming members of the financial industry (primarily) and vice versa. Ted Cruz's wife works for Goldman Sachs. You think he's gonna really ever go after his wife's employer? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

I agree with you that it's a tough nut to crack--but I don't think for a minute that creating a huge government regulatory regime governing political speech and behavior will do anything to fix it. On the contrary, since the problem we're discussing is collusion between the government and the wealthy and powerful, and seems more likely is that this regime will stifle exactly the kind of speech aimed at upsetting that unholy union. It will become a tool in the toolbox of the people who are themselves a problem.

Mods, could we get the "money in politics" posts split out into a new thread?

You all make good cases. I personally don't see the bad in outlawing for profit corporations making donations to politicians/candidates, or non-profit groups that support one. So PS and his friends could make their anti-Trump ads, but Wells Fargo or Exxon couldn't give them money to do it.

Kriegsspiel wrote: You all make good cases. I personally don't see the bad in outlawing for profit corporations making donations to politicians/candidates, or non-profit groups that support one. So PS and his friends could make their anti-Trump ads, but Wells Fargo or Exxon couldn't give them money to do it.

Of course then Exxon forms the "Exxon Fund For A Better Future" nonprofit and funds it 100% from its profit.

Depending on what the EFFABF did, it would be included under the "or a non-profit that supports [a politician]." If it gave money to politicians, then Exxon wouldn't be allowed to give IT money.

Thanks for the answers.

We have a somewhat different view of the issue then.

I think that money, and the influence of money in politics, is perhaps the fundamental issue that underlies many other problems, and that as long as there is that influence, those other problems will never be solved.

For example, it's been said on here that immigration reform is difficult because wealthy R donors want cheap labor.

There was a rather discouraging study that showed that over a pretty long period of time, elected officials have been making decisions that express/fulfill the desire of the well-off, rather than the majority of the country.  That means that our system isn't working as it's intended to work.

The CU case involved one very minor restriction - if we wanted to get rid of money in politics, we'd have to do a lot more than maintain that one law.

I think you guys are going at the problem from the wrong angles.

It seems to me that it isn't so much the money in politics as it is the line the money follows from the pocket of the contributor to the campaign funds of politicians.  We want that line to be from the pockets of individual Americans to the politicians without too many intervening interests and non-human American pockets.

How about we just say that, sure, a corporation has the full set of Constitutional rights that the humans have even though corporations live forever and can grow like viruses.  Under that arrangement, corporations would be subject to the same contribution limits as the individual humans, and there would be appropriate restrictions on the ability to set up shell corporations just to funnel campaign money.

Another interesting idea I heard from Dan Carlin was to require that any time politicians appear in print, video, or live television, a small box would be shown with their top five campaign contributors in the last election cycle.  It would be like a warning label on a dangerous product.

Why would we want money to flow from individuals to politicians?

That just means that the people with a lot of money will get more influence, which is exactly the problem right now.

The only way to get our system to work as it's supposed to work would be to get the influence of money out of the picture, in both the obvious and less obvious ways (revolving door between corporate lobbying/politics, for example.)

jafs wrote: Why would we want money to flow from individuals to politicians?

That just means that the people with a lot of money will get more influence, which is exactly the problem right now.

The only way to get our system to work as it's supposed to work would be to get the influence of money out of the picture, in both the obvious and less obvious ways (revolving door between corporate lobbying/politics, for example.)

Because you can't control the money, but you can (maybe) control the flow of the money. 

I am just saying that if an individual wants to make a campaign contribution, I don't have a problem with that, as long as there is a limit that prevents the rich people from influencing the process more than everyone else with campaign money.  If we accept that as a concept, I am just saying that I don't want the non-humans to be able to influence the process any more than the rich humans.

Soft money will always be the problem, and I don't really have a solution that can be reconciled with the First Amendment.

When you look at the whole picture, you just see political leaders spending much of their time representing interests other than those of their voting constituents.  That seems like what we should work to end.  If, for example, a Senator from Kansas wants to help save the whales because that's his sincere desire, then that doesn't bother me.  What bothers me is when he starts ignoring Kansas issues and interests because he is trying to save the whales because the Save the Whales! PAC gave him a bunch of financial support.  I don't know how you fix that without coming up with something better than we have now as far as money and politics go.

As far as I'm concerned, we could ban all contributions.

Giving a politician money isn't a constitutional right in my book.

With your version, we'd have to set the limits pretty low if we wanted to have any sort of reasonable equality of influence - why not just ban it entirely?  A lot of people don't even have a little money they can give to politicians - what about those people?

I completely agree about PAC's and all that, of course.  You and I agree that money is a huge problem in politics, and that it's perverting the nature of our system.

jafs wrote: As far as I'm concerned, we could ban all contributions.

Giving a politician money isn't a constitutional right in my book.

I don't think it's that so much as the idea that people out to have the freedom to do what they want with their own property, and if they want to use their property to effect political change, I'm okay with that in theory.  The idea of contribution limits is designed to acknowledge property rights, while also trying to equalize access to political power.  It's a compromise. 

As I recall, weren't modern campaign finance laws a reaction to the political machines in many big cities that made it impossible to do business without engaging in all sort of graft, bribery and other forms of corruption?  There is also that pro-competitive element to limiting the influence of money in politics.

I see.

Well, don't we call that bribery?  It doesn't sound as good that way, does it?

That could very well be, I don't actually know the history there.

jafs wrote: I see.

Well, don't we call that bribery?  It doesn't sound as good that way, does it?

That could very well be, I don't actually know the history there.

There are two issues here.

One is how much money individuals can spend on influencing government. 

The other is how much money corporations can spend on influencing government.

Because of corporate personhood, these have become the same issue even though they really are two separate things.

The history of corporate personhood is recounted in http://reclaimdemocracy.org/wordpress/w ... _blues.pdf

The history of campaign finance reform is recounted in http://www.wolf-pac.com/history_money_f ... tics_part1