# Campaign Finance Reform is a flop. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 18, 2004, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-reform-is-a-flop/260458 "2004-08-18T21:19:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-reform-is-a-flop/260458/61 "2004-08-20T18:09:55Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Explain to me, **Mr. Moto,** how the First Amendment guarantees your right to buy television advertising time. Are you forgetting that the 1st amendment not only guarantees freedom of speech, but also freedom of **the press**? Even a staunch literalist like myself can understand that “the press” means “all media”, and not simply “newspapers”. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-reform-is-a-flop/260458/62 "2004-08-20T21:44:21Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Are you forgetting that the 1st amendment not only guarantees freedom of speech, but also freedom of **the press**? Even a staunch literalist like myself can understand that “the press” means “all media”, and not simply “newspapers”. Every broadcast television or radio station uses a limited public resource – a particular band of the electromagnetic spectrum – and it has always been the law in this country that such broadcasters do not have the same unlimited freedom newspaper publishers have. They have to apply for a license from the FCC, and they have to render a few public services, e.g., signing up with the Emergency Broadcast System, in exchange for being allowed to camp on their portion of the airwaves. And there are all kinds of things they are **not** allowed to broadcast. Just ask Howard Stern. It is not unreasonable to extend these principles to require that stations run a certain number of campaign ads for free and turn away anyone who wants to buy time for political advertising. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > We have to make it, not merely difficult, but impossible for anybody, including the candidates themselves, to influence the outcome of any public election by spending money on it. > [@furt](#): > > Please tell me you’re not really this naive. What’s naive? There are plenty of countries (where are you, **clairobscur?** ) where money plays – not a zero role in elections, but a much less important role than it plays in the U.S. I am merely stating the ultimate goal we should be striving towards even if we never quite reach it. Leaving aside the question of whether reaching it is **possible, furt,** would you deny that such a goal is highly **desirable?** ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-reform-is-a-flop/260458/63 "2004-08-20T22:06:11Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Every broadcast television or radio station uses a limited public resource – a particular band of the electromagnetic spectrum – and it has always been the law in this country that such broadcasters do not have the same unlimited freedom newspaper publishers have. They have to apply for a license from the FCC, and they have to render a few public services, e.g., signing up with the Emergency Broadcast System, in exchange for being allowed to camp on their portion of the airwaves. And there are all kinds of things they are **not** allowed to broadcast. Just ask Howard Stern. It is not unreasonable to extend these principles to require that stations run a certain number of campaign ads for free and turn away anyone who wants to buy time for political advertising. But there is a world of difference between recquiring some level of public service and censoring\* a whole class of political speech. What is the precident for the government to wield that power? On a practical level, all you’d do is ban ads in exchange for “Fahrenheit 9/11” type TV shows. It’s hardly a slippery slope argument to say that your next step would be to regulate political content in TV shows. \*which is EXACTLY what you are advocating, and which is EXACTLY what the 1st amendment is suppose to prevent ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-reform-is-a-flop/260458/64 "2004-08-20T22:28:17Z")
**BG** : The more I think about this, the more I think that your view on this issue is not simply wrong, but actually dangerous. You know very well that the 1st amendment is there specifically to protect political speech. Work to change the amendment if you don’t like it, but don’t deliberately distort it. The constitution is there to protect us against the government, not the other way around. The ironic thing is, your tactic of finding some legalistic loophole around the 1st amendment reminds me precisely of how Bush worked his way around the UNSC rules on Iraq, and which you have strongly denounced again and again. Does the US constitution not deserve at least as much respect as the UN charter and its treaties? n.b.: I hope this doesn’t come off as a personal attack on you. It’s not menat to be. I enjoy debating with you and am commenting on the ideas you have expressed here, not on you as a person. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-reform-is-a-flop/260458/65 "2004-08-20T22:31:08Z")
In this thread – “US elections vs. democracy” – [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=251738](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=251738) – **clairobscur** posted the following info about French elections: > [@](#): > > Some rules about french elections : > -The amount of donation to political parties or candidates by a given company or individual is limited to a low amount. It means in particular that a particular corporation’s contribution can be really significant. > > -The expenses during a political campaign (there are official dates for the beginning of the campaign) are topped. If an elected candidate has spent more that the allowed amount, his election is cancelled. Courts handle dubious case (for instance, an election has been cancelled because the leaflets had been printed for free, and the real cost of the printing would have resulted in the expenses being above the allowed limit). Books have to be kept and are controlled by magistrates. > > -The expenses of a candidate or party are reimbursed if he/it get at least 5% of the votes, up to a given amount (which is lower than the maximum expense allowed) > > -Political ads are forbidden at all times (whether there’s an incoming election or not) on all broadcasted medias (TVs and radios). > -During a campaign, broadcasted medias, public or private, must offer an equal time to all candidates. For instance, if a famous politician running for a local elected position is some remote place is interviewed, then the other totally unknown candidates for the same position have to be granted an equal time. Sometimes, it results in a lot of interviw of fringe candidates towards the end of the campaign in order to “fill the quotas”, since it’s very strictly controlled. I’m simplifying here, since it’s more complicated than that, it depends on the election, members of the executive can have a specific quota for political expression, etc… > -There’s an “official” campaign on public TVs and radios. During the presidential elections, each candidate is granted exactly the same time of broadcast, that he can use as he see fits (make a speech, broadcast a political clip, etc…). During other elections, it’s parties, instead of candidates which are given an '“expression time”. Parties represented in the parliament benefits from a much longer time than parties which aren’t. They also have to present a minimum number of candidates (for instance, you can’t found you own party, run for mayor in a remote village and claim an expression time on public medias). > > All these laws are (obviously) intended to level the ground between candidates and to insure that their financial ressources will have only a limited influence re. their capacity to be elected. And **nothing bad has come of that!** I mean, France is still a free and democratic country, isn’t it? So why can’t we learn from their example? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-reform-is-a-flop/260458/66 "2004-08-20T22:34:06Z")
BTW, **clair** also said Germany uses similar rules. Britain I don’t know about. So why is it “dangerous” to talk about putting these kinds of limits on political spending? The First Amendment exists to protect freedom of speech. **Money is not speech.** ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-reform-is-a-flop/260458/67 "2004-08-20T23:04:05Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > So why is it “dangerous” to talk about putting these kinds of limits on political spending? The First Amendment exists to protect freedom of speech. **Money is not speech.** But any reasonable defintion of “speech” has to acknowledge that it cost money to get your message across. You cannot guarantee my freedom of speech if you prevent me from spending money to speak. You’re not talking about just political contributions, but the very concept of \*\*anyone \*\* spending money on political ads. You would have to take draconian measures to keep money out of politics-- that’s the danger. Your goal: > [@BG](#): > > We have to make it, not merely difficult, but impossible for anybody, including the candidates themselves, to influence the outcome of any public election by spending money on it. would prevent me from spenidng money to stump for my candidate of choice. How would you do that without drastically squleching my ability to speak or publish my ideas? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-reform-is-a-flop/260458/68 "2004-08-20T23:39:36Z")
If you really want to get the money out of politics, the best way to do that is to minimize the power of government (ie, politicians). If it’s literally not worth the money to try and spend your guy into office, then you simply won’t bother. But if I’m a union member, and I think candidate A will legislate in favor of unions, I’m going to vote to give some of our union money to him. And if I’m a CEO and candidate B will legislate in favor of my business, he’s going to get my contribution. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-reform-is-a-flop/260458/69 "2004-08-20T23:40:14Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > But any reasonable defintion of “speech” has to acknowledge that it cost money to get your message across. That is true today. It was not true, not nearly to the same extent, when the First Amendment was enacted. The most expensive communications technology was the newspaper. The Framers never imagined anything like our modern media industries, nor their political importance. I repeat: Why can’t we learn from France’s example? Their system – public financing of campaigns, strict limits on private political spending – **works,** and without squelching any party’s message. To the contrary, it puts all the parties on a level playing field . . . or is that perhaps what you’re really afraid of? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2004, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-reform-is-a-flop/260458/70 "2004-08-20T23:44:29Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > You cannot guarantee my freedom of speech if you prevent me from spending money to speak. Well, I can’t guarantee your freedom of speech if I prevent you from saying “fuck”, or showing nipples in your halftime show, or falsely shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater, or reading a poem on the air without the author’s permission. But we still have those and other restrictions, and society hasn’t fallen apart. I mean, I support the principle of freedom of speech as much as the next guy. (Perhaps more, since I run a Freenet node, and the purpose of Freenet is to let anyone say anything, regardless of content, anonymously and unstoppably.) But I think we can all agree there are times when it makes sense to limit speech for practical reasons, even if we don’t agree on the reasons. The question should not be whether CFR restricts free speech, but whether its goal is important enough to justify the restriction. Is limiting corporate influence over our democracy as important as maintaining public safety (fire in a theater), preserving artists’ business models (copyright), or sheltering children from the real world (profanity and nudity)? I think it is. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-reform-is-a-flop/260458/71 "2004-08-21T00:20:59Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That is true today. It was not true, not nearly to the same extent, when the First Amendment was enacted. The most expensive communications technology was the newspaper. The Framers never imagined anything like our modern media industries, nor their political importance. Don’t be too sure about that, but it’s really irrelavent. If the environment has changed such the constitution needs to change, we have a process for doing so. > [@](#): > > I repeat: Why can’t we learn from France’s example? Their system – public financing of campaigns, strict limits on private political spending – **works,** and without squelching any party’s message. To the contrary, it puts all the parties on a level playing field . . . or is that perhaps what you’re really afraid of? The only thing I’m afraid of is giving the government the power to control political speech. If you can find anything in any of my posts to indicate otherwise, I’d like to see it. Why does France’s system “work” and ours doesn’t-- because it produces a political outcome closer to your own system of beliefs? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-reform-is-a-flop/260458/72 "2004-08-21T00:36:20Z")
I suspect it produces an outcome closer to most citizens’ beliefs. For example, here in the U.S., HDTV devices are required to obey a so-called [broadcast flag](http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/031113-tk.html) that limits your ability to record and transfer shows. Such a restriction would not survive a popular vote; people _like_ recording shows on tape and sharing them. The restriction is only there because anti-recording interests are able to exert disproportionate influence, because they have a disproportionate amount of money. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-reform-is-a-flop/260458/73 "2004-08-21T00:54:45Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Why does France’s system “work” and ours doesn’t-- because it produces a political outcome closer to your own system of beliefs? It works in that, apparently, it **effectively** reduces the role of money in politics – something that the OP said was impossible. (At least, if it were known to be ineffective, the influence of money trickling around the restrictions in various ways, I think **clairobscur,** who obviously is very sophisticated about this topic, would have mentioned that in her post.) Are you prepared to argue that the role of money in American politics should **not** be reduced? I don’t mean arguments based on the First Amendment, I mean an argument that the role of money in American politics has legitimate value and produces a desirable outcome. ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-reform-is-a-flop/260458/74 "2004-08-21T01:12:26Z")
Listening to Kerry & the Dems cry fowl about the swiftboat ads brings to mind the old saying “Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones” due to their relationship with [moveon.org](http://moveon.org) and the slam Bush ads they’ve been running all along. Campaign Finance Reform is another perfect example of well intentioned legislation that only created an even bigger monster. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-reform-is-a-flop/260458/75 "2004-08-21T01:15:13Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > Listening to Kerry & the Dems cry fowl about the swiftboat ads brings to mind the old saying “Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones” due to their relationship with [moveon.org](http://moveon.org) and the slam Bush ads they’ve been running all along. Do you have examples of MoveOn ads that are as misleading as the SBVT ads? ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-reform-is-a-flop/260458/76 "2004-08-21T01:27:21Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Do you have examples of MoveOn ads that are as misleading as the SBVT ads? [Bush=Hitler](http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/bush-hitler-ads.htm) ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-reform-is-a-flop/260458/77 "2004-08-21T02:34:17Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That is true today. It was not true, not nearly to the same extent, when the First Amendment was enacted. The most expensive communications technology was the newspaper. The Framers never imagined anything like our modern media industries, nor their political importance. Actually, not true. The custom of the time was to buy votes by supplying massive quantities of liquor. I believe Washington’s first elected office in virginia… the first time he won, cost something like 2.1 gallons of alcohol for every vote. Source: I love Paul Revere, no matter whether he rode or not, an amusing, but researched and footnoted book about common misconceptions in american history.(I may have the title slightly wrong)) ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-reform-is-a-flop/260458/78 "2004-08-21T03:28:07Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > I’ve got a question for **Minty** or **Dewey** or one of the other resident lawyers: > > There’s a big debate right now over whether the President or Kerry should tell these people on both sides to get their ads off the air. Kerry is calling for Bush to demand that the Swiftvets pull their ad, and Kerry has told MoveOn to remove theirs. > > All issues of partisanship aside, I’d like to know if this is legal. My understanding of the ‘527’ organizations is that they could not coordinate with the official campaigns in any way. If a candidate comes out and instructs them to do something and they follow suit, is that not a violation of the law? What if a pro-Bush group comes out with an attack ad on Kerry that Bush’s advisors have decided will actually hurt Bush more, so they come out and say, “Hey you guys, get that scurrilous ad off the air!”. Legal? The only honest answer to this question is “nobody knows.” It’s a new law that whose parameters haven’t been tested by the courts. I’ve certainly read analyses along these lines from reputable legal thinkers. Certainly the prudent course of action for any candidate would be to refrain from making any kind of statement that might indicate he is coordinating with a 527. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The suggestion is that he express displeasure with the ad and request that it be pulled, just as Kerry did with MoveOn’s ad. The organization is under no obligation to do so, though. That approach is not only legal, but proper etiquette, and (more to the point) politically advantageous if the ad has a negative effect. You simply can’t say that as definitively as you seem to think. Again, this is an untested law. I could certainly frame a reasonable argument that a candidate “requesting” that an ad be pulled is simply a thinly-veiled cover for actual coordination, and thus a violation of the law. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-reform-is-a-flop/260458/79 "2004-08-21T03:37:40Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > [Bush=Hitler](http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/bush-hitler-ads.htm) No, I mean ads that have actually aired. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2004, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-reform-is-a-flop/260458/80 "2004-08-21T04:01:35Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Actually, not true. The custom of the time was to buy votes by supplying massive quantities of liquor. I believe Washington’s first elected office in virginia… the first time he won, cost something like 2.1 gallons of alcohol for every vote. I wonder if doing that nowadays would cost more or less than our present system . . . Bush could, of course, simply distance himself from the “Swiftboat Veterans for Truth” ad and say publicly he does not endorse its message and that he does not question Kerry’s military record. That would not be “coordinating” with the 527 in any sense – it would not even require any direct communication. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-reform-is-a-flop/260458.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-reform-is-a-flop/260458.md?page=5)