"Campaign finance reform" supporters should rejoice at the results

Great Debates
1

The reality is that deep-pocketed financial services executives and their lobbyists have little leverage against tea party lawmakers who don’t much care for financiers or big banks and don’t rely heavily on the industry for campaign cash.
…
“I don’t think there’s any way for Wall Street to punish the 25 to 50 hard core House Republicans. It’s not like [Reps. Steve] Stockman and Tim Huelskamp are doing a lot of Goldman Sachs events. I don’t think Justin Amash cares if Bank of America gives to him or not.”
…
But the Wall Street chiefs’ day trip to Washington isn’t expected to budge negotiations over the fiscal stalemates.

Wall Street’s frustration over the current fiscal impasse is shared by the larger business community, which has tried through groups like the Chamber of Commerce to convince lawmakers that the threat of shutting down the government or failing to raise the borrowing limit should not be used as negotiating ploys.
…
Huelskamp, a Kansas Republican first elected to Congress in 2010, received $8,000 from finance, securities and investment PACs in the 2012 cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Amash of Michigan’s 3rd Congressional District — another member of the tea party elected as a part of the 2010 GOP wave who has openly criticized Republican leadership — collected just $3,000 last cycle from securities and investment PACs.

This is in stark contrast to someone like Peter King (R-N.Y.), who hails from a more moderate district with close proximity to Wall Street. The New York congressman received $45,500 from finance, securities and investment PACs during the 2012 cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, including $10,000 from the Goldman Sachs PA

All the people on this board who lament the influence that “big money” has in politics should be jumping for joy…

2

That’s not campaign finance reform operating…that’s gerrymandering. And the deep pockets could still knock the fuck out of those who displease them by sponsoring another R candidate. One who can appeal to the masses but knows how he’s supposed to vote on financial matters.

Campaign finance reform is still an important issue. But non-partisan redistricting will do more to save the country that anything.

3

What does this have to do with campaign finance reform? Especially post-Citizens United? What campaign finance reform?

4

That’s candidates (and, after winning, politicians) not beholden to big money interests. Isn’t that the goal of the “campaign finance reform” people?

5

It’s “natural” campaign finance reform. Candidates eschewing big money, getting their donations through the social media and ending up independent of the big money interests. Isn’t that something to be applauded?

6

It’s kind of a wash. I don’t like a Republican Party controlled by Wall Street, and I don’t like a Republican Party controlled by the Tea Party. Reducing the influence of either of those groups on politics would be a positive thing, so to that extent, yes, I rejoice that Wall Street money is having less influence.

7

Except it’s not. It’s removing the playing field completely. There’s no need for campaign finance reform when there’s no real chance of effecting the outcome because the district is drawn in such a way as to ensure a specific party winning.

And, since they were mentioned…

Amash’s top five contributors:

  1. Michigan Industrial Tools
  2. Autocam Corp
  3. Scott Christopher Holmes
  4. Wolverine Worldwide
  5. Superior Foods

In other words, his top donors were those near him.

Huelskamp’s top five contributors:

  1. Vess Oil
  2. Citizen’s United
  3. Koch Industries
  4. Lewis Legal News
  5. Hodgdon Powder

Or, top ultra conservative donors who are able to go head-to-head with big finance.

Note, also, that Huelskamp and Amash spent hardly anything because they had little in the way of competition.

Cash spent:
Huelskamp: $113,521
Amash: $157,195

Or, as an east coast pol would say, one small buy on a major media market.

King’s committee did have securities and finance as it’s #2 donor industry last cycle with that group giving him $19,200 ($15K being from individuals). Let’s compare:

Huelskamp’s #2: Republican/Conservative (that’s donor-speak for special interest/PAC) $13,250 with $250 coming from individuals
Amash’s #2: Health Professionals $26,500 given, all from individuals

In short, your analysis is facile and fairly ignorant of the true issues behind campaign finance reform. The idea isn’t to prevent one or the other group from donating…it’s to prevent only the top heeled donors from actually influencing races…and therefore policy.

8

Getting money from super-PACs instead isn’t magically taking the money out of politics. It just alters the kinds of organizations that are better or worse positioned to take advantage. The Koch brothers aren’t exactly small-time money, but thanks to the unraveling of campaign finance, they and other big donors can essentially purchase the movement. The coalition between big business/finance and working class whites has been looking gradually more threadbare for years. This isn’t really anything new and it has nothing to do with campaign finance.

9

Cool. Can you explain to me exactly how Koch Industries (which, by the way, is not among top 5 Amash’s donors) benefits from government shutdown or from debt ceiling crisis?

10

That feels like a non sequitur, Terr. What does that have to do with anything?

As a brief analysis of Koch Industries - and I still don’t know why you’re focusing on them - they gave ~$485K to house candidates last cycle. $7500 to democratic candidates and the rest to republican candidates.

I wonder what John Barrow did to get his $2500.

In the senate they gave $55K, $0 to D.

Without diving too deep into it, the Koch brothers are strong backers of the ‘no compromise’ wing of the republican house caucus. They may feel that the debt limit and shutdown are a price worth paying if it advances their political (which may not exactly parallel their financial) interests.

11

Because of this:

“The Koch brothers aren’t exactly small-time money, but thanks to the unraveling of campaign finance, they and other big donors can essentially purchase the movement.”

So let’s say they “purchased the movement”. That would imply (correct me if I’m wrong) that they are pulling the movement’s strings. The movement just shut down the government and is aiming at the debt limit crisis. So my question is sequitur enough.

I see. The consensus of the self-appointed leftist cognoscenti on this board is that the shutdown etc. is causing devastating damage to the Republican party. Is that Koch brothers’ goal?

12

Well, I think you’d have to acknowledge that the shutdown is being perceived very differently on the two sides of the aisle. Though I’d allow that there’s a group in the middle that just wishes they could get on with a vote and get it over with.

That said, your argument doesn’t hold together.

  1. The Koch brothers are heavy Republican donors
  2. Liberals on a message board say that the shutdown is damaging the economy
  3. Why are the Koch brothers damaging the economy?

See what I mean? You’re assuming that the Koch brothers and their fellow travelers are in agreement with some message board posters. There are several fallacies here.

  1. It could be that the Koch’s differ in their take
  2. It could be that the Koch’s agree with that take but don’t care
  3. It could be that the economy isn’t being damaged all that much yet
  4. It could be that the entire presentating of the shutdown et al is skewed by bad reporting

Any and/or all of those could be true. But you equating the the opinions of the SDMB are TRUE (which is what you seem to be assuming) and therefore the Koch brothers are working in their own worst interests is silly.

13

I think you misread what I wrote. Try reading it again.

14

I have. I might possibly see another interpretation where you’re pointing out that the Koch brothers disagree with what you call the ‘self-appointed leftist cognoscenti’ and therefore the SDMB folks are wrong.

Still, you’re argument is deeply flawed. And - based on your sudden turn towards jargon (leftist cognoscenti) - you know that and are beginning to turn towards other issues. We started with a sort of half-assed attack on those who would like campaign finance reform and now we’re arguing about whether the Koch’s are interested in damaging the economy?

I introduced the Koch’s to the discussion only inadvertantly as they’d been a major donor for Huelkamp. You stressed that they weren’t in Amash’s top 5 donors (they’re no where on the list, btw) and ran with it. It’s like you started a thread hoping to take a political cheap shot (which I hope isn’t true) and are having to switch ammunition periodically as your firings aren’t having the effect you hoped for.

15

No, you haven’t. Because nowhere in my post did I say anything close to this:

“2. Liberals on a message board say that the shutdown is damaging the economy
3. Why are the Koch brothers damaging the economy?”

Again, not one peep in what I wrote about “damaging the economy”. Where are you getting this stuff?

16

So our choices are ordered but corrupt plutocrats or chaotically crazy rubes? Ain’t democracy a hoot!

17

For all your mournful prose and sombre draperies, I swear it sounds like you are gloating over…something. Is it “I told you so!” Or, “See what you stupid hippies did?” What, exactly?