Now, I’m no fan of public financing of elections. In my opinion, the only fair and effective means of election reform is mandatory spending limits; that’s been knocked down as unconstitutional. Half-measures are worse than none: judging by the way fundraising has changed after all the reforms and whatnot, it seems to me that we have only increased the effect that campaign donations have, and given people with more money than conscience even more ways to slide their tentacles into politics.
But it’s also been my contention that public financing works to the benefit of millionaire candidates who pay for their own campaigns, and that this is a bad thing, which is why this part of the article was such an eye-opener:
I haven’t read the opinion, and I don’t know if this reasoning is part of it, but it is similar to Justice Alito’s argument in striking down the “Millionaire’s Amendment” provision of the McCain-Feingold Act two years ago.
So, two questions: was justice served by this emergency ruling, including the timing? And doesn’t the critics’ reasoning sound like complete bollocks?
No, justice wasn’t served because elected offices can still be bought.
The critics reasoning can be argued from the point of view that nobody has been dissuaded from exercising their right to free speech. There are people who believe that not publicly funding free speech has a ‘chilling’ effect because some people can’t afford as much free speech as others.
I think there is something wrong with both public and private financing of campaigns. I wouldn’t stop anyone from spending their own money on their own free speech, but I do not see the necessity of allowing political candidates, elected, and appointed officials to be given money by anyone, save for their government salaries, and returns from existing, dislosed inverstments. Political fund raising is indistinquishable from bribery (aside from laws that somehow consider the labeling of the transfer a difference).
Yes, I know it would favor rich people who can spend their own money on campaigns. I hadn’t noticed a large number of paupers currently serving in the congress.
I think the argument would be something like: Why would I want to give a candidate $20 for his campaign if I know that the state will simply chip in $20 to give to his opponent? It is a wash, and I would rather save my money to spend on other things.
That only works if $20 of speech on one side and $20 on the other nets to no speech. It actually nets to $40, and the $20 spent on candidate A does lead to a message which could get heard.
Nametag, do you understand the argument for saying that giving public money to an underfunded candidate chills the speech of the better funded one? Would this also imply that rich person Y giving money to candidate B chills the speech of rich person X who gave money to candidate A. I’m not getting it.
The rationale for eliminating limits to private fundraising I can see, at least.
But it is sort of an “equal and opposite” type of speech canceling each other out. My $20 to a “legalize gay marriage candidate” gets offset by the state giving $20 to the “no gay marriage candidate”.
Sure, both messages are getting out there, but the net gain towards my “pro gay marriage” candidate is $0 even though I spent $20. The effect? It will chill my free speech because I will say to hell with it and not give anything.
I understood it, I just don’t buy it. If what you say is true, Meg just wasted tons of her money, since the first $20 million or so canceled Poizner’s spending. On the other hand, Alito looking out for the rights of the rich wouldn’t surprise me at all.
You can’t say that it is a waste of money, as canceling out an opponents speech is a good political tactic. However, when the state has a law which says that they will “cancel out” speech, then you have a legitimate first amendment issue.
I think that was a cheap shot at Alito. I’m not rich, but if I want to give a small sum to my favorite candidate, I would hope that the state wouldn’t try to match me in conflict with what I did. They have infinitely more resources than even the richest person, and while I’m sure that this is now done in the interests of fairness, it could easily become a protection for incumbents.
I don’t see this as a free speech issue. Free speech says people are allowed to present and exchange their ideas. The supporters of Propostion A should be able to get their message out about why voters should vote for it and the opponents of Proposition A should be able to get their message out about why voters should vote against it.
This ruling seems to be stacking the deck. It allows wealthy people to spend money getting their message out (which has been a free speech battle for the last twenty years). But now it prohibits the idea of matching funds for the other side if that side of the argument doesn’t have wealthy backers.
Allowing wealthy people to spend their money putting out a message is promoting free speech. But giving wealthy people the exclusive power to put out a message is not. Your free speech deserves the protection of you speaking; it deosn’t deserve the protection of making everyone else stay silent. It’s not a violation of your free speech if other people disagree with you.
There is no “exclusive” speech or making anyone else stay “silent”. It is a matter of the state taking an opposite reaction to my free speech.
Of course wealthy people have more resources to promote their message. Does that make it ok for the state to control their free speech? And like was noted above, it isn’t just about wealthy people. It affects donations. A regular Joe won’t give 50 bucks to a candidate because he knows that the state will match that money and give $50 to his opponent.
Can you see the slippery slope? The state likes candidate A. Candidate B runs against the establishment and promises much needed change. The state uses infinite tax dollars to pound him into the ground.
As I said, allowing somebody else to speak is not controlling your free speech.
So laws favoring the free speech of the wealthy also somehow indirectly benefit the non-wealthy. Trickle-down free speech.
Infinite tax dollars? Did you read the actual case? Buz Mills, a millionaire, is financing his own campaign and has spent $2,300,000 (and has said he plans on spending more). He didn’t file a suit because his opponent, Jan Brewer, was being given “infinite tax dollars”. He filed because Brewer was going to be given $1,400,000 (which is the statory maximum). Mills was saying that a $900,000 lead wasn’t enough for him.
This isn’t a case about equal protection. Mills already had a big advantage. But he sued because he wanted a bigger advantage.
And there’s nothing in this decision to prevent your slippery slope hypothetical from happening. The Supreme Court ruling only effects this particular law. If some anti-establishment liberal millionaire should self-finance his political campaign in some other state, the court has left itself the option of changing its mind and declaring that this time the state is free to spend all it wants to help a conservative get elected.
I think the simplest rule is this:
No limits.
Name and address and amount of every donation over, say, $199 must be public. City and town of donor and date of any donations under that amount should be public.
Name address and amount of any donation at all, must be public if person is not an eligible voter in that election. (Foreigner, union, corporation, PAC - but forgetting to rgister does not mean you must be outed.)
Advertising to promote any point of view regarding the election counts as election spending for any person or organization, and they then must follow these rules same as if it were a donation.
Any PAC, or any organization, that participates in the election in any way must also follow these rules for their money; all the way up the chain, i.e. PAC A cannot create PAC B and give it the money just to stay anonymous. Money must be attributable to the original source.
Registered charities cannot contribute to elections.
Corporations that contribute to elections must have a motion, approved by shareholders at last meeting, for the candidate and explicit amount, to do so.
Unions or other organizations must have outside audited secret ballot of the membership approving the candidate and explicit amount to donate.
Giving someone money to donate in their name to avoid the $199 report limit is illegal.
Any organization that collects money (even under $199 per donor) and passes to the candidate must be identified along with those donations in the donation list.
Loans by anyone, or line-of-credit advances by banks (i.e. anything to be reimbursed by later donations) must be declared immediately. If you pay someone back for anything donated, they better have followed these rules.
Failure to follow the rules means the candidate and / or the donating party (if there seems to be collusion) will pay up to 10 times this amount to the government as a fine.
The right to donate to a candidate anonymously, like the anonymous ballot, is an element of free speech; the right to express yourself in the political process free from intimidation. However, when the amounts become large enough to be significant, your right to privacy goes out the window.
The right to donate should be unrestricted, but the accounting should be available
But the free speech protection is a protection FROM the state that might try to restrict it. Short of throwing a person in jail for speaking his mind, the next thing would be spending tax dollars to oppose the message that is being spoken.
Will rich people have more means to get their message out? Of course. They also live in nicer homes, drive better cars, have quality health care, and their kids go to nicer schools.
I’m sure you don’t want the state to make up for these deficiencies, but why do you want to do so with regards to speech?