# Let's explore the wisdom of publicly funded elections **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 14, 2014, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825 "2014-01-14T22:59:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2014, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/221 "2014-02-26T14:05:17Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > Wait so you don’t agree that the electoral/political system influences voting choices? Of course it does. So what? The responsibility for the choices is entirely with the voters. Nobody should try to interfere with that choice. The fact that you think voters made the wrong choice is not a good reason to try to control what they see and hear. That’s a fundamental principle of democracy. It’s whey we have freedom of speech. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2014, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/222 "2014-02-26T14:09:38Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Awesome. I don’t understand why so few people seem to get the distinction between campaign donations and money spent directly on speech. > > But again, that’s the media and the political class. They call it a donation, so a majority of the public starts to believe that it’s a donation. Yes - many people still believe that Citizens United abolished donation limits. That’s an understandable confusion in this complicated issue, but the media failed miserably to understand, and explain, the difference. It’s a lesson in how the media work – many reporters just repeat whatever someone else is saying, instead of trying to actually understand it. The other gross misconceptions about CU are that it rests on corporate personhood (never even mentioned in the opinion) and that it declared that money is speech (not really, and what was actually said about spending money on speech was first said 40 years ago in Buckley). ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2014, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/223 "2014-02-26T14:11:05Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > Nice try. There’s nothing natural about the current shape of the public conversation. That is not your right to say. You (or more precisely, the government) may not simply declare that there is something wrong with speech and then try to manipulate it to “fix” it, based on its opinions or the outcome of elections. ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Mouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mighty_mouse/32/7776_2.png) [@Mighty\_Mouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Mouse)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2014, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/224 "2014-02-26T14:17:33Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > _Money_ is not speech. The _campaign commercials_ ordinance controls _money_, in any form. The fact that it may involve speech is irrelevant. It is not a limit on speech, it is a limit on _money_. Please stop with this nonsense, you’re embarrassing yourself. This reminds me of the way the military government in Pakistan used to control the press. They regulated the supply of newsprint. If you didn’t toe the party line, no newsprint for you. You had to buy it on the black market for 10X the price. Hey, newsprint isn’t speech or press. We’re not suppressing free speech. And officially it wast criticism of the government that got you in trouble. It was criticism of the “guardians of Islamization” that was the transgression. Can’t be allocating scarce newsprint to enemies of Islam. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2014, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/225 "2014-02-26T14:20:02Z")
> [@Mighty\_Mouse](#): > > This reminds me of the way the military government in Pakistan used to control the press. They regulated the supply of newsprint. If you didn’t toe the party line, no newsprint for you. You had to buy it on the black market for 10X the price. > > Hey, newsprint isn’t speech or press. We’re not suppressing free speech. Thank you for a PERFECT example, and a real-world one too. I’ll remember this. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2014, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/226 "2014-02-26T15:07:20Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Of course you want to control the political dialogue of the nation. You want some speakers to have less of a voice and others to have more. Actually I’d prefer if every speaker had the same amount of voice but I don’t see any practical way to pull that off so whatever. I object to the term “control” which I do not believe accurately describes our situation here. I’m not asking to be consulted every time someone wants to buy political ads to see how I feel about it that day or whatever. I’m just arguing that the field could be more level. You are arguing the other side so as I’ve already pointed out, we are both seeking to “control” in the exact same amount. > [@](#): > > The two are entirely different. > > When you complain about noise, it has nothing to do with the fact that it is speech. You’d complain about a barking dog, honking horn, or loud music just as much as speech from a megaphone. > > With money spent on speech, the opposite is true - the ONLY reason you care is the speech behind it. You want to silence that speech, because of its political content. You wouldn’t care if they spent it on ice cream or beer or whatever. On the contrary, when I complain about the money spent on campaign commercials it has nothing to do with the fact that it is speech. I’d complain just as much if the money was spent on buying the politicians a yacht or other favors. It’s the money I want to ban. I don’t want to silence the speech. Let that person say whatever they want just so they can’t buy favors for politicians. > [@](#): > > Because giving money to a politician isn’t speech, or the exercise of any right (though it’s more complicated than that, when you dig deeper, but never mind). It doesn’t limit your ability to exercise fundamental political rights, such as…speaking on behalf of a candidate using your own speech, and perhaps your own money. Non sequitur. In your eagerness to avoid giving an answer that I could use against you you have neglected to give an answer at all. You have provided a rationale for not supporting a right to donate as much as anyone wants to politicians but you haven’t given any reason why you think it should be illegal in the first place. > [@](#): > > Of course it does. So what? The responsibility for the choices is entirely with the voters. Nobody should try to interfere with that choice. In those Saw movies the bad guy gives his people some pretty gruesome choices. Should the responsibility for the choices be entirely with the victims? (This, BTW, is how you pull off _Reductio ad absurdum_.) ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2014, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/227 "2014-02-26T15:22:29Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > Actually I’d prefer if every speaker had the same amount of voice but I don’t see any practical way to pull that off so whatever. I’m glad. > [@](#): > > I object to the term “control” which I do not believe accurately describes our situation here. I’m not asking to be consulted every time someone wants to buy political ads to see how I feel about it that day or whatever. I’m just arguing that the field could be more level. A distinction without a difference. > [@](#): > > On the contrary, when I complain about the money spent on campaign commercials it has nothing to do with the fact that it is speech. That’s completely and totally false. It’s the ONLY reason you care about it! If it were spent on anything else, you wouldn’t care one bit. > [@](#): > > I’d complain just as much if the money was spent on buying the politicians a yacht or other favors. Well so would I, but that’s NOT what it’s buying, so stick to what it IS buying, which is speech. Which is not corrupting, and is a right. > [@](#): > > It’s the money I want to ban. I don’t want to silence the speech. OF COURSE you do. > [@](#): > > Let that person say whatever they want just so they can’t buy favors for politicians. But if they say something without spending money, it could still be a “favor.” If a CEO endorses a candidate on a talk show, that helps the candidate. Why isn’t that corrupting too? > [@](#): > > You have provided a rationale for not supporting a right to donate as much as anyone wants to politicians but you haven’t given any reason why you think it should be illegal in the first place. It’s potentially corrupting. > [@](#): > > In those Saw movies the bad guy gives his people some pretty gruesome choices. Should the responsibility for the choices be entirely with the victims? Oh, please. The voters have full choices. They are not trapped in a room. What a silly comparison. There is NOTHING stopping a voter from getting information about, and choosing, any candidate on the ballot for any race before them, including the primaries. > [@](#): > > (This, BTW, is how you pull off _Reductio ad absurdum_.) You got the absurdum part right. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2014, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/228 "2014-02-26T19:48:45Z")
Part of respecting democracy is respecting that many, often most, voters, won’t have much idea what they are voting for. There’s little point in trying to adjust the system to that fact. Reformers worry that big money manipulates the public, but that’s not the only way the public is manipulated and in any case the public can choose to stop being manipulated at any time. Besides, despite how well informed discussion board political junkies are, I really do think the public has a better record of getting things right than we do. Maybe there’s something to that wisdom of crowds thing. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2014, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/229 "2014-02-26T21:48:28Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > A distinction without a difference. In that case I oppose your desire to control the public dialogue. I encourage all red-blooded Americans to do the same. > [@](#): > > That’s completely and totally false. It’s the ONLY reason you care about it! If it were spent on anything else, you wouldn’t care one bit. Um… right after this you quote me saying exactly what the money might be spent on that I would object to. If it was spent on buying the politician a yacht I would also object. So you are wrong. It’s not the speech. It’s the money. Whether spent to buy commercials or expensive toys I object to it being used to potentially gain preferential treatment from government officials. > [@](#): > > But if they say something without spending money, it could still be a “favor.” If a CEO endorses a candidate on a talk show, that helps the candidate. Why isn’t that corrupting too? It might be. Personally I think it would be silly to try to regulate what people say on talk shows but don’t let that stop you if it floats your boat. > [@](#): > > It’s potentially corrupting. I agree. It’s potentially corrupting because the gift is so valuable that a politician might reasonably be assumed to be willing to trade favors in exchange. So how is it any less potentially corrupting if I spend $60 million myself on getting that politician reelected? > [@](#): > > Oh, please. The voters have full choices. They are not trapped in a room. What a silly comparison. There is NOTHING stopping a voter from getting information about, and choosing, any candidate on the ballot for any race before them, including the primaries. There is life. Some people have one I’m told and they take up time and energy. Who the hell has the time to make themselves knowledgeable on every race? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2014, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/230 "2014-02-26T23:53:32Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > In that case I oppose your desire to control the public dialogue. I encourage all red-blooded Americans to do the same. Huh? > [@](#): > > Um… right after this you quote me saying exactly what the money might be spent on that I would object to. If it was spent on buying the politician a yacht I would also object. So you are wrong. It’s not the speech. It’s the money. Whether spent to buy commercials or expensive toys I object to it being used to potentially gain preferential treatment from government officials. Oh, for god’s sake. The money spent on speech is NOT given to the politician! You can’t pretend they’re the same thing. > [@](#): > > It might be. Personally I think it would be silly to try to regulate what people say on talk shows but don’t let that stop you if it floats your boat. If you could, would you try? Why the hell not? It’s not fair that people who own TV networks or get invited on them have so much speech, backed by so much money, is it? > [@](#): > > I agree. It’s potentially corrupting because the gift is so valuable that a politician might reasonably be assumed to be willing to trade favors in exchange. So how is it any less potentially corrupting if I spend $60 million myself on getting that politician reelected? Back up - you’re admitting that you think speech itself could be corrupting and therefore banned by the government? > [@](#): > > There is life. Some people have one I’m told and they take up time and energy. Who the hell has the time to make themselves knowledgeable on every race? Better scrap democracy then. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/231 "2014-02-28T07:31:56Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Oh, for god’s sake. The money spent on speech is NOT given to the politician! You can’t pretend they’re the same thing. I’m not pretending they are the same thing. They are not. I’m saying that the result is the same. 60 million reasons for the politician to cozy up to his rich buddy. Why are you so unwilling to discuss the reality that whether or not the money is spent on speech it might still be potentially corrupting? > [@](#): > > If you could, would you try? Why the hell not? It’s not fair that people who own TV networks or get invited on them have so much speech, backed by so much money, is it? I don’t want to live in a country where you have to watch what the government hears you say about politics. > [@](#): > > Back up - you’re admitting that you think speech itself could be corrupting and therefore banned by the government? Why do we continually have to back up? Yes, speech itself can be potentially corrupting. If it’s valuable enough. I laid all this out way back in post #104 and by post #110 I’m already complaining that we have to backtrack and go over it again. But just because some spoken words are valuable and potentially corrupting doesn’t mean trying to regulate them is a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/232 "2014-02-28T09:54:21Z")
Sometimes a lot of money spent on spoken words can be disastrous. History is littered with expensive ad campaigns that were really, really counterproductive. And as we saw in 2012, many of the most critical statements made, the amount of money spent on them was zero. “Forcible rape”, “You didn’t build that”, “The 47%”, “I’m just trying to spread the wealth around”. Oh wait, that last was 2008. But again, that’s the power of the media. They choose which statements are going to go viral. They decide what a gaffe is and how important it is. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/233 "2014-02-28T10:59:09Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Sometimes a lot of money spent on spoken words can be disastrous. History is littered with expensive ad campaigns that were really, really counterproductive. > > And as we saw in 2012, many of the most critical statements made, the amount of money spent on them was zero. “Forcible rape”, “You didn’t build that”, “The 47%”, “I’m just trying to spread the wealth around”. Oh wait, that last was 2008. But again, that’s the power of the media. They choose which statements are going to go viral. They decide what a gaffe is and how important it is. It’s not the media, it’s the audience. Some things resonate and some don’t. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/234 "2014-02-28T12:49:54Z")
If the media doesn’t take it up, it doesn’t resonate. Partisan sites have practically a “gotcha” story a day with a politician saying something dumb, but unless the mainstream media sees a story they want to push there, nothing comes of it. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/235 "2014-02-28T12:59:49Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If the media doesn’t take it up, it doesn’t resonate. Partisan sites have practically a “gotcha” story a day with a politician saying something dumb, but unless the mainstream media sees a story they want to push there, nothing comes of it. Media can try and push things, but it only works if it resonates with the public. Fox News has done their damndest to push Benghazi, but it just hasn’t resonated (and didn’t in the 2012 election). And some things bypass the media altogether, because they resonate so well. Blaming the media is just Palinesque whining. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/236 "2014-02-28T13:05:50Z")
I’m not “blaming” so much as observing that they are by far the most powerful force in opinion-making. You’re right about everything else, but the same can be said for billionaires trying to influence elections. Most of those guys can’t even get themselves elected, much less someone else. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/237 "2014-02-28T13:08:51Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’m not “blaming” so much as observing that they are by far the most powerful force in opinion-making. You’re right about everything else, but the same can be said for billionaires trying to influence elections. Most of those guys can’t even get themselves elected, much less someone else. “The media” may or may not be the most powerful force in opinion-making, but that’s only slightly more useful and discriminating then saying “people of earth” are the most powerful force in opinion-making. The media is made up of several discrete entities, many of which have directly contradictory agendas. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/238 "2014-02-28T13:16:22Z")
Which is also true of those who run campaign ads. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/239 "2014-02-28T13:20:11Z")
Both sides always spend a lot on campaign ads, so one side can always be described as “expensively disastrous” or something. So it’s not particularly useful to say “history is littered with it”, because as long as we have elections and campaign ads, we will always have big spending losers. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/240 "2014-02-28T13:30:47Z")
And because of that, I maintain that money used to buy speech is not really a problem needing to be solved. The more persuasive ads will have a bigger effect. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825.md?page=13)