You do realize that Citizens United was regarding the idea of the Federal government regulating documentaries critical of political candidates.
Is your contention that the government should be able right now to ban books or documentaries critical of Hillary Clinton until the election has been decided?
But “the media” isn’t any kind of monolithic entity. There are different media and different media owners with a pretty broad spectrum of beliefs. “Targetting” the media should really just consist of what I said above – preventing any one media owner from having undue influence or monopoly in any particular market.
This is naive. The best way to prevent corruption is to eliminate the factors that cause it, eliminate the kind of environment in which it thrives. Otherwise it would be like trying to control liquor during Prohibition simply by making it against the law, or the “war on drugs” which has only created some of the biggest drug cartels in history and a vast population of addicts.
Is there really any doubt that money is vastly in control of federal and most state politics, the politicians are beholden to their biggest donors, and that corruption is pretty much rampant? Not any less than the question about where bears defecate and the Pope’s religion, or whether there was any liquor around during Prohibition. Yet how many prosecutions have their been? For that matter, how many Wall Street billionaires have ever gone to jail for the frauds they perpetrated?
Ibn Warraq - I’m speaking of election campaign funding generally, not the details of what Republican hack David Bosse sued about. I’m sure you understand that the ruling had impacts far beyond one documentary.
That’s also true of billionaires and corporations.
Here’s the thing: politicians and the media have a common interest in citing the fundraising system as the biggest problem, because it negatively affects both groups, and both groups have a big microphone, Meanwhile, things like the revolving door and insider trading and six figure speech paydays(do you really think big corporations pay politicians just to hear them speak?), that’s not a problem at all! Because the former inconveniences politicians. They HATE fundraising. They do love making money off their office, however.
Now of course donors do have a lot of influence with politicians, and I’m pretty bullish on legislation to deal narrowly with such issues. The soft money ban in BCRA was excellent. Prior to BCRA, corporations could donate unlimited amount of money to party committees. That’s direct control over a party in ways that the Koch Brothers don’t exercise(they still aren’t going to get their way on immigration) through their independent advocacy.
In my view, depends what the lobbyists and others are actually doing. I think it can be broken down to a fairly simple formula:
*Is the activity by these outsiders intended to influence the public to vote for or against a particular candidate or party?*If yes, then I think it’s electioneering and there ought to be strong campaign finance laws that establish rules about such fundraising and expenditures.
If no, then I have no problem with them running ads saying, “Free trade is awful, vote down this agreement!” or “the minimum wage is oppression, tell your congressman to legalize the use of child labor in our mills!” to their hearts’ content.
Yes, there is doubt.
Again, doubt.
The idea that a politician has no views, or no base of voters expecting certain views, and just puts himself to the highest bidder is nonsense. What is far more likely is that a politician will do something with or without donors, and the donors like that so the donate in order to help the candidate win office so he can continue to do those things. And the fact that the voters continue to approve of that by re-elected them supports that idea.
You can’t just look at a chart of numbers and discern cause and effect.
Corruption isn’t the same thing as being beholden.
Sometimes one can take a metaphor too far. And it’s a lazy metaphor to begin with. It’s more accurate to state money is needed for the press. Try printing pamphlets with no capital.
And if you want to regulate the press for political reasons, which this is obviously about arme you going to be intellectually consistent and limit the right for assembly, religion, and to petition as well? How is it fair that some organizations and parties have more money, people, and power? How is it fair that certain religions have more people, money, and power? Why can labor unions conspire with Democratic politicians to fleece the average citizen and non citizen for that matter and bankrupt cities? How is that fair?
WHY? What makes speech intended to convince someone to vote a certain way less protected by the First Amendment? It should (and does) have the highest level of protection.
Again, what’s the difference?
Why is saying a free trade bill is awful any different from saying a congressman should be voted out of office for supporting that free trade bill?
Because I think the explosion of money in the electoral system has disastrous consequences for the integrity of the system.
Take the current state of affairs: it is totally illegal for a candidate to coordinate a campaign with an independent expenditure group. Does anyone think that this law is being complied with in any serious way? Sure, Candidate A’s campaign manager can’t call up the Super PAC and say, “We want TV ads that show the candidate’s leadership on rabies vaccinations.” But Candidate A sends out a Tweet to the whole world saying, “Get the word out! Our candidate is a leader on rabies vaccinations!”
The end result is that virtually all major news outlets report campaign fundraising as both direct contributions to the candidate (which are limited) AND contributions to that candidate’s Super PACs (which isn’t limited) as though the two funding mechanisms are totally interchangeable.
It’s a joke, and I think every American is more and more distrustful of the role of money in politics. Something otta be done.
All you’ve done is expose a flaw in how existing law is being enforced. That may be a problem, but it’s hardly a reason to impose much more draconian laws that violate the constitution.
Nor does it back up your contention that there are “disastrous consequences.” What are these consequences?
That’s partly due to it being easier to do it that way, and partly due to most reporters not understanding how it works in the first place.
People are distrustful no matter what. They don’t trust politicians even without money. That’s not enough justification for draconian measures.
Do you think that the campaign finance laws before Citizens United were “draconian?”
I suggest that you consult a dictionary to learn what that word means.
I believe the law that Citizens United overturned was draconian, yes.
It wasn’t even a campaign finance law, as it extended beyond the regulation of finance of candidate campaigns and moved on to regulate independent speech outside of those campaigns. It blatantly voilated the Buckley v. Valeo principle that protected spending by campaigns - candidates could spend whatever they wanted, yet certain others could not. It was pretty obviously a First Amendment violation.
Oops, forgot the other part of your question. When we have an electoral system that is essentially built to insure that wealthy people or organizations can have unlimited influence, then several things happen:
An arms race for money occurs among candidates. Especially for incumbents, who are supposed to have a day job to do. Today, the average candidate for Senate must raise about $15,000 per day, every day in their election cycle. Fundraising is a distraction from governance. Think about this: many politicans put out some kind of version of their official government schedule for people to look at. How often do they put out a schedule of how many fundraisers they are going to each day or week? If there’s nothing wrong with the increasing amount of money in politics, why are politicians acting like it is shameful to disclose how much time they spend fundraising?
People are increasingly disillusioned by the system. In 2001, 25% of Americans opposed Congress passing new campaign finance reforms. A recent poll found that nobody said that no changes were needed to the system, and 85% thought that “fundamental” or “complete” changes were needed.
The situation is getting worse, not better, and I think it has an impact on not just the electoral system, but the governmental system. A professor at American University said last week that his study found that the Congress is now more partisan than at any time since 1860 – that’s eighteen fucking sixty, as in the start of the Civil Freakin’ War. Plus, Americans’ approval rating for Congress is in the tank. Not just recently, but for the last six years, the approval rating for the first branch of government has been in the teens or lower, virtually continuously; while historically it has bounced around from about 30 to maybe 50 percent since 1974.
It is stunning to me that you don’t seem to see any connection between money and politics and the integrity of our government.
In what way were those laws cruel?
I’m not interested in a discussion about whether I used the right word. (Though I think draconian, which can simply mean “severe or harsh,” fits here).
The voters are whiners who blame their problems on money instead of voting. Money can buy influence, but not power. The voters aren’t forced to do anything they are begged to do in TV ads. Voting is a choice and they are responsible for that choice.
The real problem is the confusion between donations to candidates, which the public rightly see as suspect, and indpendent spending on speech, which is a fully protected constitutional right. And the reporters don’t understand the differnence, so they just repeat the same nonsense other reporters do, and pretty soon you have dolts saying that courts have said “Money is speech” (nope).
Actually, I think reporters understand the situation with respect to hard and soft money better than you do. You’re pretending there’s a difference, when everyone else knows that the difference is a mere fig leaf.
And it isn’t reporters who are responsible for the “money is speech” idea. Responsibility probably rests far more with other independent expenditure groups who are beating that phrase like a dead horse.
So I take it that you acknowledge that I’ve pointed out real problems in our government and system of elections, except that instead of recognizing how big campaign money has made it worse, you seem to be arguing that people have gotten dumber over the last 14 years (in between the polls I’ve cited).
We’re not discussing hard vs. soft money. Money spent on independent expenditures is not “soft money,” at least not by its original definition. Maybe the kids are calling it that now.
No, I don’t agree. I think most reporters don’t understand this issue very well.
Rest assured that I do.
Huh?
Indpendent expenditure groups aren’t out there broacasting “money is speech” to the average Joe. The media are.
I said nothing about people getting dumber. How does that follow?
I said the people are 100% in charge of who is elected, not money.
I was searching for the shorthand term - I should have said “dark money.” But you knew what I mean.
You responded that people are “whiners” when I pointed out how much trust has eroded from our elections and government over the last decade and a half. I’m saying that big money is a lot to blame for that, but I guess you’re saying the quality of voters has deteriorated over the last 14 years? Otherwise they’d just shut up about their complaints, I suppose.
I didn’t know, because I know exactly what soft money means.
Dark money is the wrong term too - it refers to money donated to certain independent expenditure groups that isn’t publicly reported. It’s not all the money, nor is public reporting of the money the issue here.
Just say “independent expenditures.” And also, you probably don’t want to say I don’t know what I’m talking about. 
As for reporters, I’d say 95% of them get Citizens United wrong, really wrong. And 99% of people who talk about it.
No, their ability to whine has grown.
I understand that distrust is an issue. But you don’t fix it by doing something wrong and counterproductive.
The voters are in charge of who is elected. They are not told what to do by money. They are responsible for their actions, and they should take that responsibility.