"Appearance of impropriety" doesn't matter to this backwards-ass conservative-packed Supreme Court

[Smapti]

@elucidator

Boy, sure a good thing the Constitution cannot be misused or misapplied in order to protect an injustice! What a relief! Whew! Sure dodged a musketball that time, huh?

The Constitution provides a means of self-correction if you believe the Supreme Court is wrong. Just get Congress and the legislatures of three-fourths of the states on your side and you’ve got it made.

[BrainGlutton]

@Debaser

Go ahead and let me know when there is any meaningful correlation between money and influence over politicians.

:rolleyes: Seriously?

sigh Here we go again . . . second time today I’ve posted this:

From The Next American Nation, by Michael Lind (The Free Press, 1995), pp. 256-259 (from before the McCain-Feingold Bill, but I don’t think the picture has changed all that much since it passed):

Campaign financing is by far the most important mechanism for overclass influence in government. The real two-party system in the United States consists of the party of voters and the tiny but influential party of donors. The donor party in the United States is made up of an extraordinarily small number of citizens. In 1988, according to one study, only 10.2 percent of the American public made a contribution to a candidate, party, or partisan group. . . . The group of large political donors is a still more exclusive club. According to a study by Citizen Action, in the 1989-90 election cycle only 179,677 individual donors gave contributions greater than $200 to a federal candidate, political action committee (PAC), or party: “Thirty-four percent of the money spent by federal candidates was directly contributed by no more than one-tenth of one percent of the voting age population.” One may reasonably doubt that this one tenth of one percent is representative of the electorate or the population at large.

<snip>

Special interests buy favors from congressmen and presidents through political action committees (PACs), devices by which groups like corporations, professional associations, trade unions, investment banking groups – can pool their money and give $10,000 per election to each House and Senate candidate. Today there are more than 4,000 Political Action Committees (PACs) of various kinds registered with the Federal Election Commission; in 1974, when they were sanctioned by law, there were only 500. PAC money is driving campaign costs to new heights. In 1992, the average Senate incumbent spent more than $3.6 million for re-election; that is the equivalent of raising $12,000 a week in a single six-year term. Members of Congress, by comparison, spend only an average of $557,403 to be re-elected – a “mere” $5,000 a week for a two-year term. The average cost of a House campaign has risen to this level from $140,000 in 1980 – and $52,000 in 1974.

The chief beneficiaries of rising campaign costs and PAC contributions have been incumbents. In 1972, 52 cents of the average PAC dollar went to incumbents, compared to 25 cents to challengers (the rest went to candidates for open seats); in the 1988 House elections, incumbents received 84.4 cents of each PAC dollar and challengers only 8.6 cents. It makes more sense for lobbies to buy access to established members of Congress and senators – particularly those with important leadership positions – than to fund challengers, who, if elected, would have no seniority and little influence. . . . Former Senator Barry Goldwater has lamented, “The Founding Fathers would frown in their graves if they saw us rationing candidacies sheerly on the basis of money: who has – or can raise – the millions necessary to run for office.”

Democrats, when they were members of the majority party, received more PAC money than Republicans, though both parties are saturated with it. Contrary to conservative claims that liberal lobby groups dominate Congress, PAC funds come overwhelmingly from business: in 1990, 65 percent of PAC contributions came from business PACs, compared to 24 percent from labor and only 11 percent from ideological groups (including conservative as well as liberal pressure groups). “At one point,” John Judis has pointed out, “the American Petroleum Institute employed more lobbyists in Washington than the entire labor movement.”

They don’t come much more libertarian than Goldwater, and even he was appalled at this state of affairs.

Now, if that money does not buy influence over politicians (or, more importantly, is not useful for getting the pol the donor wants into office), then why do the donors spend that much, year after year after year?! These are people/organizations who ordinarily really, really hate to waste money.

From the same book, pp. 311-313:

Today’s U.S. government is democratic in form but plutocratic in substance. . . . In a misguided 1976 decision, Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court held that Congress could not limit spending by rich Americans promoting their own candidacies. This decision was to the equalization of voting power what Dred Scott was to abolitionism. In The Yale Law Review, Jamin Raskin and John Boniface have argued that political candidates in the United States must win a “wealth primary.” Candidates without enormous amounts of money, either from their own fortunes or from rich individuals and special interest groups, cannot hope to win the party primaries – much less general elections. Indeed, the Buckley decision is one reason why more than half the members of the Senate today are millionaires. . . .

It is time to build a wall of separation between check and state. Curing the disease of plutocratic politics requires a correct diagnosis of its cause: the costs of political advertising. The basic problem is that special interests buy access and favors by donating the money needed for expensive political advertising in the media. Elaborate schemes governing the flow of money do nothing to address the central problem: paid political advertising. Instead of devising unworkable limits on campaign financing that leave the basic system intact, we should cut the Gordian knot of campaign corruption by simply outlawing paid political advertising on behalf of any candidate for public office. The replacement of political advertising by free informational public service notices in the electronic and print media would level the playing field of politics and kill off an entire parasitic industry of media consultants and spin doctors.

An outright ban on paid political advertising and the imposition of free time requirements on the media are radical measures, but nothing less is necessary if we are to prevent our government from continuing to be sold to the highest bidders. The argument against strict public regulation of money in politics is based on a false analogy between free spending and free speech protected under the First Amendment. The analogy is false, because limits on campaign finance do not address the content of speech – only its volume, as it were. It is not an infringement on free speech to say that, in a large public auditorium, Douglas will not be allowed to use a microphone unless Lincoln can as well.*

*A much more compelling analogy would be between the electoral process and the judicial system, with the electorate playing the role of the jury. In our system of trial by jury, there are elaborate rules governing the presentation of evidence to the jury by plaintiff and defendant (the “candidates”). If our judicial system were organized the way our judicial system is, then rich candidates would be allowed to buy time before the jury. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, in one Senate election, outspent his opponent by 300 to 1; the equivalent, in the judicial system, would be allowing a rich defendant to buy, say, six months to present his side of the case, while the poor plaintiff might be able to purchase only twenty minutes for his side.

“Wall of separation between check and state” is, at least, something you can get on a bumper-sticker.

FWIW, some Wikiquotes on campaign-finance reform:

“Today’s political campaigns function as collection agencies for broadcasters. You simply transfer money from contributors to television stations.” Senator Bill Bradley, 2000.

“We’ve got a real irony here. We have politicians selling access to something we all own -our government. And then we have broadcasters selling access to something we all own — our airwaves. It’s a terrible system.” Newton Minow, former Federal Communications Commission chairman (2000).

“You’re more likely to see Elvis again than to see this bill pass the Senate.” Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (1999) on the McCain-Feingold Bill on Campaign Reform

“Unless we fundamentally change this system, ultimately campaign finance will consume our democracy.” Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) (1996).

"[Buckley v. Valeo is] one of the most weakly reasoned, poorly written, initially contradictory court opinions I’ve ever read. "Senator (and former federal district court judge) George J. Mitchell (D-ME) (1990).

“We don’t buy votes. What we do is we buy a candidate’s stance on an issue.” Allen Pross, executive director, California Medical Association’s PAC (1989).

“Political action committees and moneyed interests are setting the nation’s political agenda. Are we saying that only the rich have brains in this country? Or only people who have influential friends who have money can be in the Senate?” Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) (1988).

“The day may come when we’ll reject the money of the rich as tainted, but it hadn’t come when I left Tammany Hall at 11:25 today.” George Washington Plunkett (1905).

“Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor, not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and propitious fortune.” James Madison, Federalist 57 (1788).
[/QUOTE]

[BrainGlutton]

@Debaser

Meanwhile, back in the real world: The most powerful lobbying group in the country is the NRA. The NRA is feared because of their membership and their votes, not because of the paltry amount of money that they spend. Many other groups and corporations outspend them and have far less influence.

Money is not the only form of influence; that does not mean it is not a form of influence.

[Icarus]

“Congress may regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption”

So this would be the same congress whose members spend 4 hours a day on the phone soliciting contributions (…that’s not “corruption” at all! Nope.)? The same congress whose members rely on these massive amounts of money to survive? They are the ones who may regulate? OK, got it.

[Smapti]

@Icarus

“Congress may regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption”

So this would be the same congress whose members spend 4 hours a day on the phone soliciting contributions (…that’s not “corruption” at all! Nope.)? The same congress whose members rely on these massive amounts of money to survive? They are the ones who may regulate? OK, got it.

Who else do you suppose may regulate it? You? Rachel Maddow? The aggregate opinion of the SDMB? Please tell us what body you believe should be seizing this power from Congress, and cite precedent and Constitutional grounds for such.

[BrainGlutton]

@Lobohan

You are lied to by your media. They tell you outrageous stuff like this to make you angry.

Probably Newsmax or Breitbart or some shit, in this case.

[BrainGlutton]

@Smapti

Who else do you suppose may regulate it? You? Rachel Maddow? The aggregate opinion of the SDMB? Please tell us what body you believe should be seizing this power from Congress, and cite precedent and Constitutional grounds for such.

I have a suggestion. (No constitutional grounds for it, of course, because it’s a new thing.)

[Kobal2]

@Omar_Little

The individual contribution limit per candidate is hardly enough for anyone to be bought.

Eh, a million and a half dollars here and there, sooner or later it adds up to real money. Where I come from, a million dollar blank check gets you a modicum of attention from the recipient. Especially when, if BrainGlutton’s cite is correct, a senatorial campaign costs only 3 of those.

[BrainGlutton]

@Kobal2

Eh, a million and a half dollars here and there, sooner or later it adds up to real money. Where I come from, a million dollar blank check gets you a modicum of attention from the recipient. Especially when, if BrainGlutton’s cite is correct, a senatorial campaign costs only 3 of those.

That’s from 1995; it probably costs more now.

[Kobal2]

@Debaser

Meanwhile, back in the real world: The most powerful lobbying group in the country is the NRA.

That is not correct, BTW. The Kochs dwarf the NRA by so much, it’s not even funny. In 2012, the NRA and its affiliates spent 17 million dollars on the various candidates they supported (who all happened to lose). The Kochs spent 412. Hell, the AFSCME ponied up ~60 million.
The NRA is a yapping lapdog - it’s just got great PR and bluffing skills.

[Little_Nemo]

@Omar_Little

Good thing constitutional issues aren’t about “majority rule”.

Really? Wasn’t it a 5-4 majority that decided this constitutional issue?

[KarlGauss]

@Smapti

Ok, I guess someone may as well actually read the ruling;

From what I’m seeing here, it seems like a sound decision to me . . .

Sound decision?

You may have read it, but not everyone shares your sanguine view.

Here’s a bit from a guy who wrote a little something about it:

@Justice Breyer

Today a majority of the Court overrules this holding. It is wrong to do so. Its conclusion rests upon its own, not a record-based, view of the facts. Its legal analysis is faulty: It misconstrues the nature of the competing constitutional interests at stake. It understates the importance of protecting the political integrity of our governmental institutions. It creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate’s campaign. Taken together with Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. 310 (2010), today’s decision eviscerates our Nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve.

Strong stuff: “Its legal analysis is faulty . . . creates a loophole . . . eviscerates our Nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy . . .”

[NDP]

[QUOTE=Icarus]
“Congress may regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption”

So this would be the same congress whose members spend 4 hours a day on the phone soliciting contributions (…that’s not “corruption” at all! Nope.)? The same congress whose members rely on these massive amounts of money to survive? They are the ones who may regulate? OK, got it.
[/QUOTE]

@Smapti

Who else do you suppose may regulate it? You? Rachel Maddow? The aggregate opinion of the SDMB? Please tell us what body you believe should be seizing this power from Congress, and cite precedent and Constitutional grounds for such.

They could make the need to spend so much time perpetually soliciting for political contributons mostly–if not entirely–unnecessary. That could be done by employing Michael Lind’s suggestions from Brain Glutton’s post or having publically funded elections. However, given political realities, I’m not expecting to see anything resembling those proposals in my lifetime.

[jackdavinci]

Meh, within the context of the larger problem this makes little practical difference. This came across to me as more of a technicality sort of ruling than a watershed ideology moment.

[Cheesesteak]

I’m missing something here. Does this really eviscerate our campaign finance laws, and create a loophole that will allow a single individual to donate millions to a candidate’s campaign?

Because, really, there doesn’t appear to be a legal way for anyone to contribute more than $2,600 to any single candidate, and I have a hard time believing that you can buy much influence for that price, even if you hand it out to 500 different congressmen. Not to mention, if $2,600 is enough money to corrupt a congressman, then the individual limit needs to be lower. Letting someone give out non-corrupting money to more congressmen does not increase corruption.

[Kobal2]

@BrainGlutton

That’s from 1995; it probably costs more now.

Eh, fair enough. But even allowing a generous inflation of costs, the one guy who gives you say 1/50th of your warchest, solo… you’re returning that guy’s fucking phonecalls. Directly and in person.

You’re even returning his impersonator’s calls.

[elucidator]

Was there anything even left to lose? We have the sorry spectacle of prospective Republican candidates flying to Vegas to genuflect to the ugliest man I ever saw. Is it his wisdom, his probity, the clarity of his vision? I’m thinking its his money.

By the sheer force of money he kept the corpse of Newt Gangrene’s candidacy shambling about like it was actually alive.

I’m gonna go way out on a limb here and make the wild suggestion that this man has far more political power than his single entitled vote. Which leads me to the conclusion that possession of money is, in and of itself, a form of political power. And so long as that remains true, our pretensions of equality before the law are a farce. Because our capacity to affect the law is unequal, the impact of the law upon us is bound to be unequal.

Unless, of course, the sheer fact of money bestows noble character and civic virtue upon its possessor. I see scant evidence of this.

[andros]

@Cheesesteak

I’m missing something here. Does this really eviscerate our campaign finance laws, and create a loophole that will allow a single individual to donate millions to a candidate’s campaign?

Because, really, there doesn’t appear to be a legal way for anyone to contribute more than $2,600 to any single candidate, and I have a hard time believing that you can buy much influence for that price, even if you hand it out to 500 different congressmen. Not to mention, if $2,600 is enough money to corrupt a congressman, then the individual limit needs to be lower. Letting someone give out non-corrupting money to more congressmen does not increase corruption.

One concern, as I understand it, is that this ruling, coupled with the CU ruling, could allow individual donors the opportunity to effectively circumvent the $2600 cap through bundling. A half-mil given in $2600 increments to 200 candidates who then roll those donations into a PAC to support a single candidate in a key swing district.

Dunno if that’s actually the case, or if it’s even possible. But I think the larger concern is a seeming pattern by SCOTUS to weaken and undermine campaign finance laws. This case, while minor, is another brick out of the wall.

[Fuji]

@Cheesesteak

I’m missing something here. Does this really eviscerate our campaign finance laws, and create a loophole that will allow a single individual to donate millions to a candidate’s campaign?

Not directly, no. But I’m guessing that any party which received $1 million plus in contributions for its slate of candidates from a single donor might accord that donor a little more attention than an average consituent…

[Debaser]

@Czarcasm

Gosh-I can’t seem to find a link to all those court cases where 300,000 people in CT were suddenly convicted of felonies. Link, please?

Nice try putting words in my mouth. But I didn’t say they were convicted felons. Just people that have committed a felony.

You’re right that the courts haven’t convicted them all. That’s hardly worth celebrating.