Bingo. The basic concept behind free speech is the “marketplace of ideas” - through free exchange of information, the good ideas will beat the bad ones. If the market is cornered by those with enough money, the marketplace collapses.
Sua
I think the full disclosure requirements are the most important aspect of any reform. However, limiting spending is attacking the problem from the wrong direction.
The idea of limiting campaign contributions assumes that candidates act in a quid pro quo manner toward contributors. I’m not sure that this direct payback relationship is valid. Could it be valid to assume that contributors support candidates who they know already support their positions?
The real problem, in my opinion, is that too many voters don’t take the time fully educate themselves about candidates. Too many voters accept whatever candidates say in their campaign ads without checking their record to see if the claims match reality. Knowing who supports a candidate financially, the onus then shifts to voters to choose carefully.
What homebrew said. An informed citizen has nothing to fear from money.
As has been pointed out, neither corporations nor unions can vote at all. And any one rich person has exactly one single vote.
The whole argument for CFR is a farce. Or would be if it weren’t so tragic.
Homebrew,
Disclosure seems like a good start to me, but as you point out, people don’t research candidates very carefully…So, I am not sure disclosure laws help very much. On the other hand, I suppose one could come up with some very creative disclosure laws…Like at the end of a TV ad, the candidate has to flash up the names and affiliations of the 10 biggest donors related to any issues discussed in the ads (with substantial penalties for violations of this). That could be sort of fun!
As for the quid pro quo thing, I tend to agree that the causation is often in large part the other way around, but I think it establishes a cycle. I.e., it may start out that the candidate attracts support of an industry because he is seen as having favorable positions toward that industry. But, then that tends to establish even more of a buddy-buddy connection which makes it harder for him to ever make a “break” with them over something. And, pretty soon, he basically has them writing the laws he introduces.
Also, the fact that some people/organizations cynically contribute to both sides in elections strongly suggests that they at least believe that this buys them something, unless you want to argue that are selflessly supporting the democratic process.
And pantom, the words “extremely naive” come to mind when I read your claims that “an informed citizen has nothing to fear from money” and “any one rich person has exactly one single vote.”
Extreme naivete is what CFR is all about. Do you honestly think that any “reform” is going to keep the money out of politics? On which planet? Far better to know who’s giving money to whom, so that you know what you’re getting.
This is that anti-CFR argument I don’t get - “CFR won’t make any difference, the money will just go underground.” Three things about this -
- If you believe this, then you are admitting that current campaign finance is simply legalized bribery. If these sorts of donations are illegal, why would someone break the law to “support democracy”?;
- And because CFR would criminalize these sorts of donations, you can bet that the money involved will go down. The cost-benefit analysis (influence a Congressman v. get busted) will be severely tilted. Sure, some people will still do it (and many of them will get away with it), but most people do avoid breaking the law; and
- Even if the money still keeps coming into campaigns, it can’t be spent. “Um, Congressman Bob, your campaign spent $4.5 million on campaign ads. According to your records, you only received $2.2 million in legal donations. Where did the rest of the money come from?”
Sua
Sua – I agree with your statement. However, consider the implications. Since the incumbent is almost certain to win re-election, he/she can’t be bribed with hard or soft money, because he/she’s going to win regardless. And, it’s pointless to support a challenger in hopes of a quid pro quo. Maybe that’s why campaign finance supporters seldom provide actual examples of votes against the public interest that were produced by donations.
As a Vietnam War opponent, I was a campaign worker for Eugene McCarthy. His candidacy had a huge impact on turning public opinion toward peace. Most of his money came from a single donor named Mott. Under today’s law, Mott’s donations would have been illegal. This example helps convince me that campaign finance reform ought to move to more freedom, not more restrictions.
No, no. Your argument assumes that incumbents get re-elected regardless of campaign donations. Admittedly, an incumbent has strong advantages from name recognition and opportunities to spread pork (and maybe because they do a good job :rolleyes:), but a vital reason they get re-elected is that they get the overwhelming majority of campaign donations. Challengers don’t have the money to compete.
As for it being pointless to try for a quid pro quo from a challenger, huh? If the challenger wins, the challenger will be in a position to help out contributors.
Finally, I’ll give you an example of a vote against the public interest that was produced by donations - Bush’s about-face on cutting CO2 emissions. Everything I read (from places like the Economist and Time, not liberal rags) pointed to heavy pressure from the oil and other industries, which, of course, gave a lot of money to Bush.
Sua
December, who obviously is better financed then I am, is able to drown out my arguments by repeating his/her message over and over. 
Seriously, December, I think your computer or your connection has gone into convulsions. Ya might want to check out what went wrong.
Sua
[Note to anybody who is wondering what Sua is talking about: I have deleted out all those extras.]
[Edited by David B on 03-28-2001 at 05:30 PM]
I agree that Bush’s decision was widely reported as having been influenced by pressure from oil and other industries. Regardless of money, Bush’s background suggests that he would be sympatico with oil interests and with baseball interests. I don’t know enough science to have an opinion on whether his decision was good or bad. If severe energy shortages become the norm, I expect that the poor will be hardest hit.
Time and The Economist are fine magazines, but they both do tilt liberal. The conservative magazines merely thought Bush had made a sound decision.
PS Sorry fot the multiple post.
Whoa there, Nellie! I’m not going to argue about Time, but you slander The Economist. It is an explicitly ideological newsmagazine. However, its ideology is not liberal - at least not in the modern sense of the word. It is classically liberal, firmly believing in minimal governmental interference in all ranges of human activity, be they economic or social. The best approximation of its ideology in modern American terms is neo-conservative. Hell, The Economist endorsed Bush, and for strictly ideological reasons - The Economist rated Bush and Gore relatively equal (and pretty dismal) on leadership ability, etc.
Sua
Well, I subcribed to The Economist for a year. I judged it to be an excellent magazine, but with a slight tilt left. You find them neo-conservative. I would describe myself as a neo-conservative, yet their philosophy didn’t seem to jibe with mine. Maybe I’ve just moved too damn far to the right…
Incidentally, I wonder how everyone knew that Bush changed his CO2 policy due to pressure from oil and gas interests. You’d think those involved would keep their action secret.
Wait a sec…Everyone here seems to be willing to agree that Time is liberal!!! And, this viewpoint comes from where? And, how exactly does it align with the fact that it is owned by Time-Warner and thus sort of unlikely to have an anticorporate viewpoint unless it is full of self-hating editors?
I’m not agreeing or disagreeing. (Note: Mr. Luce is probably spinning in his grave at the accusation that his magazine is liberal). I didn’t argue the point because Time does not publicly acknowledge an ideological POV, and I haven’t read the magazine with a view towards analyzing the actual POV of the articles. Quite frankly, I don’t read it very much at all - I find its reporting shallow.
December - absolutely, The Economist is extremely liberal (in the American sense) on social issues. This, however, is completely consistent, and indeed mandated, by the classic liberal POV of minimal government interference in all aspects of life (the ever-expanding sphere of personal liberty, etc.) For the same reason, The Economist is extremely conservative (in the American sense), on economic issues - free, minimally (although well-) regulated markets are the answer to everything.
Sua
There are many rich liberals. To name a few off the top of my head: Warren Buffett, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. (NY Times Publisher), Ted Turner, Jane Fonda, Edward Kennedy, John Corzine. Now that Hillary Clinton has an $8 million book contract and owns 3 mansions, I guess she’s another one.
It’s an interesting question why some rich people support policies favoring the poor. Thomas Sowell has written extensively on this subject. E.g., a recent book of his is, The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy. An Amazon synopsis says, The nationally bestselling author of Race and Culture and Inside America presents a devastating examination of the mind-set behind the failed social policies of the past 30 years, whose defects have led to crises on education, crime, and family dynamics, “An important and incisive book.”–New York Times Book Review.
Sowell’s theory can be very roughly summarized as saying that liberalism is a kind of religion for some people. He says they feel good about themselves, and superior to conservatives, because they support certain well-intentioned policies. He claims that their psychic reward causes them to feel superior, even though some of their favored policies have actually been harmful.
Sua: prior to the first of the campaign reform laws, passed post-Watergate, these donations weren’t illegal. They were what they were, in reality: the contributions of people who either a) supported what the candidate stood for or b) hoped to get some influence or a favor out of the candidate for the contribution. A types are obviously perfectly OK, at least as far as I’m concerned (and as far as the law up until a quarter century ago). B types can, maybe, be prosecuted for bribery if a specific quid pro quo can be shown.
Just because it’s illegal doesn’t mean it’s immoral. I can’t for the life of me come to the conclusion that supporting, with your heart, your soul, and a good portion of your fortune, if you’re in that position, the candidate or cause of your choice is somehow wrong.
Regardless of whatever unbelievably immoral law is passed.
I think that is kind of beside the point. Sure, there are some rich liberals, but the fact is that a media owned by large corporations is going to tend, by and large, to deliver the corporate viewpoint…And most of us would categorize this viewpoint as conservative, at least on economic matters. (Although in a previous debate on whether the media was biased liberal or conservative, one of the posters tried to claim that liberal and conservative are both compatible with pro-corporate, which is sort of a pathetic statement on the current range of political debate in this country where people actually go around calling Al Gore a liberal!)
As for why rich people might support policies favoring the poor, well Sowell has his own point-of-view on these matters. I might suggest that some rich people have enough brains and consciences to lead them to realize that a society that is so dangerously skewed in wealth is not a healthy one.
pantom, while there may certainly be some of your A types floating around, I think the process is dominated by your B types. And, of course, the problem with your statement about bribery is that the “specific quid pro quo” can rarely be established to a high legal standard, or even general consensus. (See discussion of Bush and CO2 emissions above.) It is rather hard to show that Senator Y wasn’t already inclined to give Contributor X his nifty 100 million dollar tax break even before X gave his soft money contribution!
Also, even postulating a world (that doesn’t exist) made up solely of A types, I have tried to argue above that an expansive view of free speech might still argue for some limits so that we actually have a “marketplace of ideas” rather than dominance by the guy with the biggest megaphone once again.
I was unaware that unions or corporations had hearts and souls.
As for illegality/immorality, there is nothing immoral about going 75 in a 65 zone. It’s still illegal. It doesn’t matter whether it is “right” or “wrong” to give massive contributions; what matters is the effect those contributions have on the electoral process and, ultimately, the government.
I submit that, in a government intended to represent all of the people, the access and influence contributors receive (quid pro quo or not) comes at the expense of non-contributors and therefore makes the government unrepresentative.
Sua
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
**
Sua, I agree that access to government is unequally distributed. Wouldn’t it be better to add access for the under-represented rather than take access away from the over-represented? Following are some arguments against CFR:
-
The media have much more power than a citizen. who donates a few thousand dollars of hard money or even a lobby that donates $100,000 of soft money. Consider the impact of favorable or unfavorable treatment by the NY Times or CBS News. Nobody would dream of reducing the media’s free speech rights. Should Rush Limbaugh become even more powerful?
-
Dishonest politicians will have a bigger advantage over honest ones. Those who receive donations prohibited by current campaign finance laws won’t obey the new laws either.
-
CFR may not even be needed. A recent study by Yale scholar John R. Lott showed that although campaign contributions and voting records often go together, this relationship reflects the fact that donors only support candidates whose views they share. In particular, he discovered that retiring politicians, who don’t need to please their contributors, do not change their voting patterns.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-lott033001.shtml
-
Candidate cannot be barred from spending their own money. The very rich ones like John Corzine and Michael Huffington will be a a huge advantage. Do we want to be ruled by the billionaires? Would a system that favors extremely rich candidates really provide more power for the poor?
-
It’s inevitable that Congress will write “campaign finance” laws that protect incumbants and protect the two major parties. A blatant example of self-protection is the Senate’s provision to allow a candidate higher spending limits if his opponent is spending a lot of his own money. This protection applies to senators, but not to representatives.
-
It’s un-Constitutional to restrict anyone’s speech, especially political speech. Even if CFR worked, our rights are more important.