# 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:** 7
**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 7, 2014, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/121 "2014-02-07T15:00:50Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > This has nothing to do with anything I’ve actually said. It’s EXACTLY what you said. > [@](#): > > As I go on to say in the same post, “Simply noticing that some speech might be corrupting doesn’t automatically mean it is or must be criminalized.” But you are arguing for criminalization of speech. > [@](#): > > My stated position is that speech is so important that limitations must be targetted and temporary. Since this is neither obviously I would not support it. No. Even targetted and temporary limitations on speech are unacceptable. > [@](#): > > On the contrary, your repeated inability to even accurately sum up the opposing position should be your first clue as to how wrongheaded you are being here. No, you’re running away from and denying your own positions, or the perfectly logical consequences of those positions. > [@](#): > > I have not suggested repealing the 1st Amendment. Instead I have stated directly that I believe this unnecessary since one only need recognize that freedom of speech is not an absolute right. Nor do I believe that reducing political corruption is a twisted, selfish end. I’m saying that you would need to repeal the First Amendment to get what you want. > [@](#): > > I don’t suppose that it matters to you that it is the money and not the words that is being targeted. But it’s NOT. It’s words you are targeting. You don’t care about the money unless it is spent on words. It is the words that it causes to be broadcast that bother you. > [@](#): > > So if you ever told a lie, you are a liar. If you ever had a dream, you are a dreamer. If you ever fuck, you are a fucker. I don’t think I would want to live in that odd little world you have built for yourself. You can’t even let your kid share in the wonder of Santa Claus. Once fooled, always a fool, after all. The odd little world you’ve built is where you tell a lie and then say “I am not a liar.” Now that is odd. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2014, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/122 "2014-02-08T04:09:48Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > It’s EXACTLY what you said. Lets review. You were mischaracterizing my position, as you do, as completely expansive. “But by that logic, ANY speech can be corrupt!” I tried to make the rather obvious point that only valuable things can be used to tempt people by saying that only the speech of the rich and powerful can be corrupt_ing_. You crop off all of the context and respond directly: “So where the hell do you think you get the right to pick a certain person based on how rich and powerful they are and ban their civil rights?” Now I’m disputing that your accusation there fits my (what I still believe to be an uncontroversial) explanation. And now can you really say I exactly claimed the power to arbitrarily chose wealthy people and ban their civil rights? > [@](#): > > But you are arguing for criminalization of speech. Not in that paragraph I wasn’t. Yes, I have said that I understand that regulating campaign ads is limiting speech. And yes, that has not deterred me. And yes, I have agreed that any powerful speech can be corrupting. But I have never come out in favor of indiscriminate speech bans. So yes, in the sense that I am in favor of limiting campaign ads it is appropriate to say that I am arguing for the criminalization of some speech. But that does not mean I favor criminalization of other forms of speech even if they can have a powerful influence on elections. > [@](#): > > No. Even targetted and temporary limitations on speech are unacceptable. I think everyone knows you aren’t in favor of any limitations on speech by now. What I don’t understand is how you could believe that this qualifies as a response to my objection to your accusation that my support for temporary and targeted limitations on speech means that, “by your logic, the government could declare that anyone who makes more than, say, $500,000 a year will be sent to prison if they dare to say anything about politics.” > [@](#): > > No, you’re running away from and denying your own positions, or the perfectly logical consequences of those positions. Where is this logic you speak of? All I see are slippery slopes. > [@](#): > > I’m saying that you would need to repeal the First Amendment to get what you want. Clearly you want this to be true. Doesn’t make it so. > [@](#): > > But it’s NOT. It’s words you are targeting. You don’t care about the money unless it is spent on words. It is the words that it causes to be broadcast that bother you. Corruption is my concern. I am equally opposed to someone getting special treatment whether they give $60 million dollars to a candidate or if they spend $60 million themselves on electing that candidate. How do you feel about these situations? Do you understand that they are exactly the same in every way relevant to corruption? > [@](#): > > The odd little world you’ve built is where you tell a lie and then say “I am not a liar.” Now that is odd. I went skiing once. Around 1983 or so. I don’t think that makes me a skier. I was attempting to demonstrate the sillyness of generalizing from a single example. Yes, regarding the campaign finance problem I am supporting an authoritarian solution. Does that alone make me an authoritarian? But if so everyone supports an authoritarian solution to the murder problem so now everyone is an authoritarian. So no, if you want to use language to clarify then it is not useful to say that I am an authoritarian. However if you are trying to use language to obfuscate, then the accusation makes perfect sense. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2014, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/123 "2014-02-08T04:41:53Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > I’m not making any legal arguments so I won’t address your 1st Amendment argument directly but I don’t see any reason that free speech in general would be endangered by, for instance, banning spending on campaign ads by noncandidates. That limitation on speech would be both temporary (only during election time) and targetted (only applying to spending unregulated funds). That seems a practical way to attempt to balance the need to prevent corruption (and the appearance of corruption) with the right to free speech. You do actually have a legal doctrine in there and it’s similar to what was argued in John Paul Stevens’ dissent. He believed that the restrictions on political speech were justified because the restrictions were limited in time, place, and manner. However, I have to disagree with your claim that free speech is endangered by campaign spending by noncandidates. Free speech isn’t endangered, but possibly the political system is. But only possibly since there’s no empirical evidence that corruption is greater where there is less regulation on campaign spending. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2014, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/124 "2014-02-08T04:45:16Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > What’s funny about it is that there are lots of groups out there working hard to pass one of these amendments. These groups are not people, they are groups. They are using their speech rights to urge passage of the amendment. They are also collecting money, and using that money for ads and websites and stuff like that to broadcast that speech. > > Their own amendment, in other words, would allow the government to ban pretty much everything they are doing to try to pass it. > > Do these people even think? Sure. They are willing to give the government this power because they believe it will be targeted only at disfavored speakers and they believe they are favored. Now I find that alarmist predictions of how government will abuse a power are often overblown. Chances are, the groups behind this amendment will never have their political speech censored, because for the most part these are sympathetic groups who would be able to mobilize public opinion if the government placed limits on them. But to me, that’s still a horrible outcome. Anthony Kennedy was the one who stated in his majority opinion that the government distinguishing between favored and disfavored speakers was a huge threat to the 1st amendment and I couldn’t agree more. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2014, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/125 "2014-02-08T04:50:54Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > Not in that paragraph I wasn’t. Yes, I have said that I understand that regulating campaign ads is limiting speech. And yes, that has not deterred me. And yes, I have agreed that any powerful speech can be corrupting. But I have never come out in favor of indiscriminate speech bans. So yes, in the sense that I am in favor of limiting campaign ads it is appropriate to say that I am arguing for the criminalization of some speech. But that does not mean I favor criminalization of other forms of speech even if they can have a powerful influence on elections. If you favored indiscriminate bans you’d be on firmer ground. What you’re basically asking the government to do is decide who can have unlimited influence on election(Rachel Maddow, Rush Limbaugh, candidates running for office) and who cannot(Sheldon Adelson, the Kochs, George Soros). Now I suppose you could carve out a journalism/political commentary exception, but you’d find that it’s ridiculously easy to get around: just create a show that puts forward your point of view, or if you feel really strongly about getting involved, the Kochs can just buy a media conglomerate. Besides, your concerns are rather short term. You’re talking about eliminating TV ads, but it won’t be long before the internet is where people see this stuff. Many people have gotten rid of their cable and now see most of their political ads on Youtube, Hulu, and Netflix. That number will continue to grow and in a decade or two be a majority of viewers. Will you then favor regulating political speech on the internet? ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2014, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/126 "2014-02-08T05:29:41Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > If you favored indiscriminate bans you’d be on firmer ground. What you’re basically asking the government to do is decide who can have unlimited influence on election(Rachel Maddow, Rush Limbaugh, candidates running for office) and who cannot(Sheldon Adelson, the Kochs, George Soros). Exactly so. Government is too important to have its electoral processes dominated by a small coven of rich people. Currently, our government is overrun with anti-government roaches scurrying around decrying the evils of government while obstructing government (and getting paid by the taxpayer to do it). These scattering, anti-government roaches do not represent the will of the people but (increasingly) the will of their anti-government donors. This isn’t free speech, it’s sedition; if you don’t like government, stay the fuck out of government. Don’t beg for a government job then prevent government from doing its job because you’re ideologically opposed to the role of government. It’s analogous to naming the President of PETA as the Chair of the National Beef Association and think something positive is going to come out of the appointment. With that out of the way, I hate to break it to you (and any other conservative) but the Southern Strategy chickens have finally come home to roost. Let’s see - deregulation, unpaid tax cuts (with the promise of increased tax receipts), and unprecedented inequality - a wonderful counterpoint to the Great Society and New Deal. It was a good, debt-laden 50 year run, was it not? To be clear, barring some extraordinary consensus candidate, you won’t be winning any Presidential elections in my lifetime (or yours). It is, in a word, over. I am so sorry. - Honesty ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2014, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/127 "2014-02-08T06:33:17Z")
The electoral process isn’t dominated by rich people, it’s dominated by incumbents who use the power of their office to win elections. It’s not enough for them that 98% of incumbents get reelected. They want 100%, and the only way to accomplish that is to make sure that they only have to deal with underfunded challengers. And even if they should encounter a well-funded challenger, the officeholder can dwarf their millions by appropriating billions from the taxpayers to his district to win votes. The real threat to our elections is politicians using taxpayer money as de facto campaign funds. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2014, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/128 "2014-02-08T19:47:44Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The electoral process isn’t dominated by rich people, it’s dominated by incumbents who use the power of their office to win elections. It’s not enough for them that 98% of incumbents get reelected. They want 100%, and the only way to accomplish that is to make sure that they only have to deal with underfunded challengers. And even if they should encounter a well-funded challenger, the officeholder can dwarf their millions by appropriating billions from the taxpayers to his district to win votes. > > The real threat to our elections is politicians using taxpayer money as de facto campaign funds. Where does the incumbent gets his/her “power” from? Who do you think supports and funds the incumbent? It sure as hell isn’t the tax payer and _that_ is the problem. When someone is elected to government, they are elected to represent the People; therefore, the People’s money should be used for candidates who are running for office. This ensures that candidates who win will be beholden to the taxpayer and _only_ the taxpayer. You don’t allow anti-government ideologues to solicit anti-government representatives to populate and obstruct an entire branch of government\*. It’s antithetical to running a wise, functional government and a perversion of their oath to defend and support the Constitution. - Honesty - Just as a minor footnote: the role of Legislative Branch is to _legislate_ not to repeal laws or shut down the government. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2014, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/129 "2014-02-08T20:09:55Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The electoral process isn’t dominated by rich people That is either the most remarkable epitome of self-delusion I’ve seen in a long time, or else it must be just a bizarre coincidence that the results of the electoral process so assiduously champion the rights of corporations and the rich. The same bizarre coincidence whereby the poor and middle class seem oddly content to spurn their own self-interest and their own personal declining standard of living as the gap between the rich and poor in the US grows to be the largest in the industrialized world. Personally, I’m not a big believer in bizarre coincidences. I find it more useful to think in terms of cause and effect. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2014, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/130 "2014-02-09T05:10:12Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > Where does the incumbent gets his/her “power” from? Who do you think supports and funds the incumbent? It sure as hell isn’t the tax payer and _that_ is the problem. When someone is elected to government, they are elected to represent the People; therefore, the People’s money should be used for candidates who are running for office. This ensures that candidates who win will be beholden to the taxpayer and _only_ the taxpayer. They are not beholden to taxpayers. They are beholden to whatever coalition of voters they can bribe to get at least 51%. They hate rich people who “interefere” in elections because they fear 30-second ads can undo billions in appropriations for their district. Historically, the most entrenched incumbents are the porkers. The real campaign money is appropriations money, not money spent on 30-second ads few pay attention to. Every dollar spent in a district is a campaign ad for an incumbent. Rich people getting involved was why we finally started seeing more incumbents get defeated, although still far too few. The political class rightly sees this as a threat to democracy, or more accurately, their jobs. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2014, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/131 "2014-02-09T05:11:39Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > That is either the most remarkable epitome of self-delusion I’ve seen in a long time, or else it must be just a bizarre coincidence that the results of the electoral process so assiduously champion the rights of corporations and the rich. The same bizarre coincidence whereby the poor and middle class seem oddly content to spurn their own self-interest and their own personal declining standard of living as the gap between the rich and poor in the US grows to be the largest in the industrialized world. Personally, I’m not a big believer in bizarre coincidences. I find it more useful to think in terms of cause and effect. The process is dominated by rich people, just not the rich people you think. It’s dominated by politicians who enter office upper middle class and leave office fabulously wealthy despite a six figure salary. It amazes me that campaign finance reformers see politicians as allies in this fight and don’t think for a minute why that might be. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2014, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/132 "2014-02-09T18:34:04Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The process is dominated by rich people, just not the rich people you think. It’s dominated by politicians who enter office upper middle class and leave office fabulously wealthy despite a six figure salary. > > It amazes me that campaign finance reformers see politicians as allies in this fight and don’t think for a minute why that might be. It amazes me that anyone would think that a hackneyed right-wing canard is actually an argument for anything. That is just a restatement of the Reaganesque mantra “government is not the solution to your problems, government IS the problem” – i.e.- an expression of the right-wing and libertarian distrust of government. This seems to be a faction which is content to discard the fundamental democratic principle of government as “we the people” and simply regard all government as the root of social evil. The problem of course is that if government doesn’t exercise stewardship over matters of vital public interest like regulating the buying of political influence, or environmental pollution, or crooked trade practices, or any of the myriad other aspects of the public interest, then your friends the plutocrats and industrialists will – and trust me, they are not your friends. Your “government is evil” hypothesis fails objective tests because it fails to explain problems that are uniquely pervasive in the US, like the extraordinary role of money in politics (see [here](http://www.brennancenter.org/issues/money-politics) and [here](http://billmoyers.com/spotlight/money-politics/)), or the post-1980’s surge in income inequality that Paul Krugman has called [the great divergence](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_great_divergence/features/2010/the_united_states_of_inequality/introducing_the_great_divergence.html). Or the burden of a broken health care system which, while highly profitable for a small minority of its corporate owners, extorts two to three times as much per patient from Americans as it costs in the rest of the first world, yet delivers lesser results and still leaves millions uninsured. Under no ordinary circumstances would anyone in his right mind support such a system, but when extremely powerful lobbyists like AHIP, the AMA, and hospital associations essentially control the political process and the public message, the circumstances are far from ordinary. Some here have claimed that voters are far too smart to be bamboozled by high-priced propaganda. How about asking the average American in the street what he thinks of health care in Europe or in Canada, and see if what you get is even remotely close to the reality or, indeed, if it even makes a shred of sense. I’ve seen such interviews and I know the typical responses. “Death panels”, anyone? The inescapable fact is that the American political climate is strangely favorable and benign to the rich and powerful, while consistently screwing the average individual. Those who claim that the rich and powerful have no undue influence in politics will have to find an alternative explanation for which such political climate exists. And it will have to be one which is particularly pervasive in America, and on that score “all politicians are corrupt” doesn’t work. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2014, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/133 "2014-02-09T18:57:02Z")
So politicians are the good rich people and the private sector rich people are the bad rich people? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2014, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/134 "2014-02-09T19:28:26Z")
“Politicians” has become a dirty word in the libertarian lexicon, but in actual fact the “politician” – otherwise known as the public servant – is your last best hope of upholding the public interest. No one else can do it, and the managers of publicly traded private corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to promote their financial self-interest. If your politicians are corrupt self-serving douchebags, you had best look at the process that got them elected, instead of blaming the fundamental institution of government. Which is precisely the point I am making in this discussion. People tend to get the government they deserve. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/135 "2014-02-09T20:19:48Z")
That’s true. But there is no evidence that restrictions on monetary donations makes politicians any more responsive to the public interest. In fact, I’d say that public funding removes all accountability. Witness the EU, where the publics of those countries have never been nearly as enthusiastic as the political class about integration, but where it proceeds anyway regardless of public opinion. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2014, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/136 "2014-02-09T22:26:08Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s true. But there is no evidence that restrictions on monetary donations makes politicians any more responsive to the public interest. \*In fact, I’d say that public funding removes all accountability. \* The discussion I was having here concerned the larger question of issue advocacy. It would seem self-evident that if there are no limits or other controls on advocacy spending, then those who have the most to spend will control the message – and this ought to be of particular concern when there are groups with strong vested interests whose monetary resources for PR and advocacy spending are for all practical purposes unlimited. There is almost no end of examples where popular opinion on matters such as “socialized medicine” or climate change is objectively irrational – the very term “socialized medicine” invites a shudder of apprehension and a vision of a dystopian totalitarian future. It’s stunningly ironic and truly remarkable that those who think that uniform rules against astronomical advocacy spending or rules about how and when anyone may engage in electioneering are somehow “government censorship”, yet they have no problem at all with consistent campaigns of disinformation and malignant Orwellian language manipulation when carried out by self-serving private interests. But getting back to your statement, I draw your attention to the part I emphasized. Public funding of election campaigns (and restrictions of private funding thereof) is intended to put candidates on a roughly equal footing so that they can hopefully be judged on their merits instead of on the total mass of purchased political messages force-fed down the public’s throat. If “public funding removes accountability”, then it must be true that private funding creates accountability. To whom do you think such funded politicians are accountable? Again I say that if your politicians are self-serving douchebags, consider the political process that got them elected. This discussion is getting silly. I think most would generally agree that (a) the American political process at the federal and most state levels is dominated by the wealthy and by corporate money, and that (b) the process is fundamentally broken and in many respects clearly doesn’t serve the interests of the average citizen. There seems to be an astounding reluctance among conservatives to make a causal connection between (a) and (b). This is not true in many other countries, where conservatives will for instance advocate fiscal conservatism as a matter of economic principle and not as a matter of sycophantic pandering to their corporate benefactors. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/137 "2014-02-10T00:47:03Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The discussion I was having here concerned the larger question of issue advocacy. It would seem self-evident that if there are no limits or other controls on advocacy spending, then those who have the most to spend will control the message – and this ought to be of particular concern when there are groups with strong vested interests whose monetary resources for PR and advocacy spending are for all practical purposes unlimited. That’s only a concern if the rich people are all of one mind on the issue. And even there, it doesn’t always influence public opinion. Immigration is a good example. The rich are all pro-immigration. The political class wants to do an amnesty, their backers want them to do an amnesty, yet it’s just not gonna happen as long as working class stiffs flood Congressional phone lines every time they get close. On other issues, you’ve got plenty of issue advocacy representing all sides. > [@](#): > > There is almost no end of examples where popular opinion on matters such as “socialized medicine” or climate change is objectively irrational – the very term “socialized medicine” invites a shudder of apprehension and a vision of a dystopian totalitarian future. It’s stunningly ironic and truly remarkable that those who think that uniform rules against astronomical advocacy spending or rules about how and when anyone may engage in electioneering are somehow “government censorship”, yet they have no problem at all with consistent campaigns of disinformation and malignant Orwellian language manipulation when carried out by self-serving private interests. Even with all the private spending lately, there’s still a lot more advocacy coming from the journalistic class and the political class. Sheldon Adelson doesn’t get on all the Sunday talk shows. John McCain and Chuck Schumer do. The Kochs don’t get an hour every weeknight to pontificate. Rachel Maddow and Lou dobbs do. There’s just no threat posed by rich people running 30-second ads, other than to put a small dent in the opinion oligarchy controlled by opinion journalists, radio talk show hosts, and politicians. > [@](#): > > But getting back to your statement, I draw your attention to the part I emphasized. Public funding of election campaigns (and restrictions of private funding thereof) is intended to put candidates on a roughly equal footing so that they can hopefully be judged on their merits instead of on the total mass of purchased political messages force-fed down the public’s throat. If “public funding removes accountability”, then it must be true that private funding creates accountability. To whom do you think such funded politicians are accountable? Again I say that if your politicians are self-serving douchebags, consider the political process that got them elected. You’re right that it makes politicians more accountable to those who give them money, or those who spend money against them. Which is not great, but is better than not being accountable at all. And many of those big spending groups aren’t just rich people. The NRA uses member dues to kill politicians’ careers dead. The Chamber of Commerce uses small business money as well as big corporate money. Moveon and local Tea Party affiliates also rely on donations from the masses as well as the beneficience of the Soros’ and Kochs of the world. Here’s the biggest problem with public funding though: it doesn’t make candidates equal. It gives a huge advantage to the incumbent. Incumbents have the power of the office. They can bribe voters with taxpayer money. They get a lot more free airtime to spread their message than challengers. If you want to really be fair, you need to give the challenger a lot more public funds than the incumbent gets. > [@](#): > > This discussion is getting silly. I think most would generally agree that (a) the American political process at the federal and most state levels is dominated by the wealthy and by corporate money, and that (b) the process is fundamentally broken and in many respects clearly doesn’t serve the interests of the average citizen. There seems to be an astounding reluctance among conservatives to make a causal connection between (a) and (b). While conservatives are more likely than liberals to support Citizens United, we have allies among civil liberties-oriented liberals like Glenn Greenwald. And of course our very own Lance Strongarm. You’re right that this discussion is getting silly. First, we have a Constitution. It strictly limits the kinds of things Congress can do to control political spending. It has done so twice, in Citizens United, and Buckley v. Valeo. Second, this is like discussing health care reform in the absence of a bill. You’ll find a lot more people agreeing with you when speaking in broad generalizations about the problem and possible solutions, but when you get into the specifics of exactly how you’ll let Congress censor political speech you’ll find your supporters slipping away. If any of the proposed amendments to the Constitution got a public hearing I doubt they’d get to 50% support, much less the overwhelming consensus needed to amend the Constitution. ---
**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 14, 2014, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/138 "2014-02-14T02:42:51Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > That is either the most remarkable epitome of self-delusion I’ve seen in a long time, or else it must be just a bizarre coincidence that the results of the electoral process so assiduously champion the rights of corporations and the rich. No, it’s an undeniable truth. The electoral process is run by the voters, not rich people. Stop denying reality. Put the responsibility where it is due. Not a single member of Congress is there without a majority of voters choosing to put him there. They weren’t forced by rich people to choose that. ---
**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 14, 2014, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/139 "2014-02-14T02:46:12Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The discussion I was having here concerned the larger question of issue advocacy. It would seem self-evident that if there are no limits or other controls on advocacy spending, then those who have the most to spend will control the message That’s a huge assumption though. First of all, there’s plenty of money on both sides of the political spectrum and always will be. Nobody’s going to have a monopoly. Second, the message is hardly controlled by political advertisers. The media have a huge part of it too, probably a larger one. Third, and most important, the voters are not idiots. They can go find any information they want. They are not limited to ads or mainstream media. They can easily go find other opinions and facts, especially in the internet age. They are responsible for the information they seek and believe. In fact, they have a right to that - without any meddling from the government whatsoever. ---
**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 14, 2014, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825/140 "2014-02-14T02:47:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The process is dominated by rich people, just not the rich people you think. It’s dominated by politicians who enter office upper middle class and leave office fabulously wealthy despite a six figure salary. Can you give us a few examples? (Those who leave office to enter prison don’t count.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-explore-the-wisdom-of-publicly-funded-elections/678825.md?page=8)