Forget voters, do you not think that money influences elected officials?
Money is but one of many unequally and somewhat unfairly distributed means of influence over public opinion, and thus elections. Media and entertainment figures have more than equal influence, as do tenured professors. And the Big One, of course, is incumbent politicians.
Note that any person with a higher than average public profile has a conflict of interest in the debate about “getting money out of politics”, since the only way for the average person to reliably compete against their influence is through money.
Define “money”?
By “money” do you mean financial donations to a candidate or are you referring to behavior, such as political speech or “electioneering” that is protected by the Constitution?
If you’re referring to something other than financial donations for please be specific.
Thanks in advance.
I agree in part and disagree in part. I disagree that public figures have a conflict of interest about getting money out of politics. I think many officials view it like an arms race: they have to keep up, but they would rather not play the game. If all sides could be held to some level of disarmament, they would be very happy.
But I do agree that others can use money as an equalizer against other factors, incumbency being one of them.
I’m referring to money as the approx $15,000 that must be raised by a Senate condidate every day, the roughly $7,000 that must be raised every day to compete for a House seat, or the roughy $2 million average daily take that will probably be required of each of the two nominees for the presidential election; all of that being the rough average of what it costs to run a competitive campaign.
Do you think that being responsible for raising that much money, or making sure there is a super PAC on your side working to do the same, has a effect on politicians?
Had the part of McCain-Feingold that was struck down addressed donating money to political candidates your comment would be relevant but it didn’t so your comment was at best irrelevant and at worst quite stupid.
Have you actually read Citizen’s United?
If not you should because whether you mean to or not your posts give people the impression they were written by someone who hasn’t.
As to your final question since while it is a silly question, I should answer, the answer is “yes” which is why donations to political candidates are strictly controlled.
That is why Ross Perot could spend as much money as he wanted on his own campaign including money spent for “electioneering”(your favorite scare word) but is strictly limited on how much money he can donate to anyone else running for office and Citizens United did nothing to change this.
You all also have this nonsense.
You clearly haven’t been reading my posts, because I’ve said that I don’t like that super PAC funding is now virtually interchangeable with campaign funding, in that more and more candidates are seeking to associate themselves with a sugar daddy super PAC - often with very few donors - and spend less time raising their own money. When I showed the amount of money that has to be raised, it’s really a combination of PAC+hard money that is now common practice. After all, we read in the news about how candidates sometimes get subjected to a cattle call by rich donors as though they are auditioning for who gets to win tens of millions of super PAC funding.
I’ve also said that I think public financing of elections is looking like a more and more logical response to the wide variety of problems caused by the current system.
But I’m glad you agree that money isn’t some abstract article that’s disconnected from the way politicians act. Hopefully you agree that its effects are not in the best interest of an open, transparent, and more representative government.
I’ll be back later today to answer that one.
The influence of donors and spenders is way overblown. People see money and they think corruption, without thinking further. But the causation is usually in reverse – a candidate stakes out a position and people support him/her for it, including donating or spending money. Candidates don’t just go changing positions for the highest bidder—even if they wanted to, the voters who are their core of supporters wouldn’t let them. They’d abandon him. Voters are in charge of who is elected, and you can’t just convert money into votes without something behind it all.
Think about it – do you really think that if, for instance, if the Koch brothers started running ads favoring Bernie Sanders that the Bern would switch positions and support the Koch’s agenda? Of course not. Candidates do what they want, and people support or oppose them, sometimes with money.
That said, you seem to forget that this is speech we are talking about. That’s the only thing the money provides (in terms of independent spending – not talking about donations here). Money is just a resource to get other things of value. Again, the involvement of money is not automatically corrupt. If you think that, you could argue that any other speech from someone with “more” speech, or more valuable speech, is corrupt. How about a labor union that sends volunteers out to help a candidate by knocking on doors and SPEAKING about the candidate? Is that “undue influence?” What if you and some neighbors pool your money to buy, or just build, a sign for a candidate you like? What if you put a message supporting a candidate on the side of your house – is that unfair because some people don’t have big houses to put signs on? Or a celebrity or notable political figure who endorses a candidate – his or her speech is worth more than the average Joe, so is that unfair, or “undue?” When you stop pretending this is about money, and realize it is about speech, you see that your argument is nothing more than an attempt to regulate politics itself. People do things for candidates they support, and when those things are speech, that’s perfectly okay and legal and not “undue.”
Otherwise, you’d have to consider every little thing anyone does to support a candidate to be subject to possible regulation, even if they didn’t involve money – anything that was of value to the candidate, including just plain speech. Imagine a system where you must report the money you spent on a bumper sticker supporting a candidate (from a third party, not the candidate’s campaign) as a donation to that candidate. Or submitting a report to the FEC on how often you said something good about that candidate, or how many volunteer hours you put in.
You can’t regulate speech. Even if you don’t like the fact that a candidate likes the speech. It’s pretty simple.
Then that’s the problem. Enforce existing law on coordination. Don’t try to regulate everyone’s speech because you think a candidate is abusing laws regarding donations.
I’d consider that more likely to constitute undue influence than buying a Superbowl ad. A union sending people around to your house to tell you who you should vote for is a potential avenue for voter intimidation, while broadcasting your message without the ability to identify who is supportive and who is not is not.
Yet another ignorant statement. The part of McCain-Feingold struck down by Citizens United had nothing to do with the funding of elections.
In fact, the part it struck down specifically was of people not running for office and not affiliated with people running for office speaking out either for or against those who were.
Once again, have you actually read Citizen’s United?
What a typical ridiculous post. Union members don’t “intimidate” anyone any more than any other campaign volunteer could. Enough of this anti-union crap. Let’s get back on topic.
No, he’s on to something. I think we should have public funding for all political speech! I want my $10,000. I’m going to put up the biggest damn “Trump is an Asshole” sign ever made.
Duh. My whole universe on views about campaign finance doesn’t revolve around McCain-Feingold. I have no idea why you think that my views on public financing of campaigns has anything to do with McCain-Feingold, or the Citizens United case.
It’s pretty rich to accuse me of ignorance for addressing more than one topic in a thread. It’s as if we are debating passing in the NFL, and I say, “Pass interference ought to be called more often, and we ought to restore the five yard bump rule.” Then you say, “What an ignorant statement! The five yard bump rule is about holding calls, not pass interference! Have you even read the pass interference rule???” Chill out, man.
Ibn, lance – is there any aspect of the current system of campaign finance system that you do not think is good? What would you reform, if anything?
So the next question is why did you bring up public financing in a discussion about McCain-Feingold? It may be a perfectly reasonable thing to do if you want to move to a new, related topic, but it’s a new topic and doesn’t answer old questions.
Another idiotic statement. Because that’s what we’re discussing.
Your statements can be construed as meaning one of two things. They showed no understanding of what McCain-Feingold or Citizens United was about or they showed a perfect understanding of what they were about and a desire to change the topic because you don’t want to be seen as allying with those trying to suppress political speech.
I haven’t accused you of ignorance. I said you made an ignorant statement. That’s a completely different thing. In fact, as I pointed out, it just as possible for the statement to display perfect understanding of Citizens United as it does perfect ignorance.
I would like to see free or lower-cost airtime offered to candidates. We own the airwaves and we can do that. The broadcasters will freak out but screw them. That’s my version of public financing of campaigns.
I would also seriously beef up, with a new law that clarifies and strengthens, the coordination wall between campaigns and outside groups. Enforcement has become a joke.
I discuss what I want to discuss. I want to discuss campaign finance. That includes, but isn’t limited to, Citizens United. If you think I’m hijacking the thread by discussing any other aspect of campaign finance beyond Citizens United, well, I’m sure you can report my posts but I doubt anything will happen.
I’m genuinely puzzled as to why, in a discussion about campaign finance laws, you both seem to think that discussion of public financing is off-limits.