Who is the government to say what I can and can’t do with my money? Won’t this law effectively make it so only the rich can run for office, since they will have tons more money than anyone else?
Doesn’t it violate free speech and freedom of assembly?
Isn’t this just anyother scam by the two already established parties to make it that much harder for any third party to organize by capping contributions to these parties?
No. That is not the same thing. A criminal can not bribe a politician to change a law they have already broken, although there is always the possibility for a pardon from that Chief Exec. That doesn’t apply to representatives.
So, have full disclosure so people know whether their reps are corrupt or not.
I’m not aware of anybody who is NOT “wealthy” who is running for a major public office currently…
It’s not clear (at least from the courts, currently) whether it would violate free speech. There are current spending limits on contributions to political campaigns already (“hard money”)…off the top of my head I dont recall the dollar amount…although there are several legislators attempting to create legislation to raise the amount.
I don’t think that advocates of soft money restrictions are doing so to squeeze out 3rd party candidates (I’m not sure that it actually would be that much more detrimental to those candidates either)
Er… Ralph Nader? I know he gets OK speaking fees, but I don’t think his is very wealthy.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The fact of the matter is, if everyone can give 1K, and the major party get 1K from the people who support them – it doesn’t matter that I really believe in some other candidate and want to give him/his party everything I can afford – I can only give 1K. Thus, the major parties have a perpetual lock on fund raising.
Let’s review that sentence from Buckley again:
“To the extent that large contributions are given to secure a political quid pro quo from current and potential office holders, the integrity of our system of representative democracy is undermined.”
With what part of this do you disagree? This is the current holding of the Supreme Court. The problem with soft money is that it’s ostensibly for party-building activities, when in reality it’s used almost exclusively to earmark funds for particular candidates, in direct contravention of campaign finance laws. But it’s still ostensibly for party-building, and as such has been protected by decisions of the Rehnquist Court. Which is fine, if soft money was for party-building, but it’s usually not, so it contradicts Buckley. And round and round.
Your statement that the government shouldn’t tell you what you can do with your money does touch upon issues of bribery, as outlined in the quote above. The Supreme Court has held that large contributions could be seen to be evidence of corruption, and as such damage the legitimacy of the democratic process. It has, in this sense, circumscribed large contributions because of the dangers of quid pro quo considerations, or bribery.
Your right to spend your money isn’t absolute–you can’t, for example, purchase goods and services that are illegal. Neither is freedom of speech an absolute right, nor freedom of expression, nor freedom of assembly. They are guidelines under which the courts and legislatures are free to weigh the compelling interests of the state, the nation, or the society. The courts have decided that unrestricted political contributions to individuals are not in the interests of a democratic system of governance; McCain-Feingold (and Shays-Meehan) seeks to expand that protection of state interests to encompass contributions to the party organization–given that those contributions are at present being abused in violation of the spirit of the Court’s holding in Buckley v. Valeo.
It’s worth noting that until the Reform Act of 1974 which Buckley examined, there was no need to funnel soft money through the party machine. When Buckley upheld the restrictions on political contributions to individuals, however, donors seeking to skirt those restrictions used the soft money loophole as a way to continue business as usual. Therefore, the reason soft money wasn’t addressed in Buckley was that it wasn’t an issue at the time–but it’s clear from the text of the per curiam holding that earmarked soft money intrinsically violates the spirit of the decision.
Your assertions that a ban on soft money would benefit the wealthy and the entrenched are largely specious. If you avow that no such quid pro quo arrangement exists with large political contributions, perhaps you’d like to check out my system of black box campaign finance reform, outlined on previous threads. If you like, I’ll post it again.
It presumes guilt. Our system is meant to presume no one is guilty unless it is proven in a court of law.
No one bribes a cop who is not a criminal to begin with, correct? Or intent on being a criminal and getting away with it. With full disclosure, it would be readily apparent where quid pro quo would be occuring, and voters could recall such politicians who recklessly granted special favors in this manner.
So, you don’t believe people are innocent until proven guilty? If Grandma Smith bakes Sheriff Jones a pie, should she go to jail? That is bribery according to you, right?
But this isn’t a purchase. This is a gift. Politicians aren’t illegal in this country.
Since when? As long as these are done peacefully, I believe they are all permitted. Are you equating donating money to a cause you support equivalent to an act of War? Treason? Yelling fire in a crowded theater? I can’t see giving money to someone, especially a law abiding citizen, as similar to any of these.
This is all an attempt to swindle us out of our democracy and our freedom to participate in the political process.
Why?
I am familiar with some of the black box approaches that have been bandied about though not yours in particular. I believe white box is the best way to go. I don’t think information hiding benefits anyone nor do I think it is a fair restriction to free speech that prevents people who give money to another from telling that other where the money came from, nor do I think any such restrictions are enforcable. How would anyone know that when this money disappears into the black box it comes out and goes to the right people? There would be absolutely no politcal accountability.
Er…try again dude…he’s a millionaire
http://www.salonmag.com/politics/feature/2000/06/20/nader/index.html
jmullaney: Hate to slice the Gordian knot on this one, but…go tell it to the Supreme Court. Your original complaint in the other thread was that Gore was posturing when he promised to back McCain-Feingold, because McCain-Feingold was “clearly unconstitutional.” I’m showing you that not only is it not unconstitutional, but that it adheres quite well to the spirit of the current Court holding on political contributions, Buckley v. Valeo. So if you’ve got a problem with the notion that the appearance of corruption is bad for a democratic society, if you think that it unduly presumes guilt, then you’ve got the High Court saying otherwise. Talk to them.
And by the way, freedoms of speech, assembly, and expression have always been circumscribed by context in this country, ambiguous constitutional guarantee notwithstanding, and that’s as it should be. Read Leonard Levy’s Legacy of Suppression: Freedom of Speech and Press in Early American History. Read Thomas Emerson’s The System of Freedom of Expression. Hell, read Stanley Fish’s There’s No Such Thing As Free Speech in America, and It’s a Good Thing Too. If you believe in absolute free speech, you’ve got the whole of American constitutional history to contend with.
You think the whole system is hopelessly corrupt, right? Do you seriously think that the Supreme Court would not strike down McCain-Feingold, that being the case. Aw, gee, those good politicians tried, but the mean old SCOTUS wouldn’t let them.
If you don’t believe in freedom move to Cuba. :wally
Hmmm… well he’s no Ross Perot. But I stand corrected.
I dunno; do I? I think there’s too much money in politics, too much short-term self-interest, and too little enlightened long-term vision. But I wouldn’t say that it was hopelessly corrupt, no.
Depends on the composition of the Supreme Court, but with all due respect, that’s a completely different issue. I’ve no doubt that if Buckley had come up before today’s Rehnquist Court, the contribution limit would likely be struck down (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, O’Connor in the majority). It didn’t, though, and limiting political contributions to individuals is perfectly constitutional–for a logical and well-articulated reason, in my opinion.
That aside, you seem to think that the Court is necessarily part of the “hopeless corruption” in Washington–that is, your statement indicates that it would be in the interest of “mean old SCOTUS” to strike down McCain-Feingold (and, in doing so, ignore stare decisis and nullify a good part of Buckley). Why would this be so? I’d think it was far more likely that the Supreme Court, even under Rehnquist, would let stand a bill banning soft money, given the precedent; or, if they overturned it, that they would do so for reasons of considered jurisprudence, not sinister collusion.
I said, with the wealth of history at my back:
jmullaney wittily rejoined:
Excluded middle much? But no, of course you’re right. There are no circumscriptions on my freedom of speech in the good ol’ US of A. Excuse me while I go stand on a street corner and joke loudly about killing the President.
Well, if you don’t think that, why do you want to resctrict people’s freedoms in the political system? Don’t you think freedom should be an overriding principle in this country?
So, then what you are saying, is it is basically only a matter of time until this law was struck down, right? Give me strict constructionalists, or give me death!
I think there would be a lot of pressure to overturn this law. It is blantantly offensive to our democracy.
Oh, of course! But the politicians would spin the heck out of it. When what they should be doing is passing constitutional laws in the first place, and they know that. Haven’t they all taken oaths to uphold the constitution? Yet, Al Gore has pledged to make the passing of this bill his first duty as president. Figures.
You have failed to make the case that there is any equivalence between donating money to political parties and threatening to kill the President. Are you trying to argue that because making death threats is illegal, we should just roll over and give up all our rights?
Oh give me a break. he is obviously saying that in the U.S. no one has a completely unfettered right of free expression. The famous example is yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. His example of talking about killing the prez is just another example.
To believe that anyone has an “absolute” constitutional right of free expression in the U.S. is bullshit.
The debate comes in when/where and why to regulate speech/expression. Can Nazis march down main street in Skokie for example…can the park service tell you where to hold rallies etc…
My – what a hyperbolic pile of posts. Let me see if I understand your position:
How compelling.
Allow me to make an observation on a different point:
The overriding principal of democracy is not freedom, it is the proposition that each citizen has an equal voice in determining the actions of the state. In a representative republic, this principal is modified into, “each citizen has an equal voice in the election of representatives who will determine the actions of the state”.
Large individual contributions to political campaigns are designed solely to give the voice of one citizen more weight than the voice of his fellows in the selection of representatives. It is antithetical to the core principal of a republic to allow one citizen to unduly influence the debate simply because he has more wealth to expend.
:rolleyes: I’m very close to being finished with this thread. It’s hard to debate with someone who makes statements like, “If you don’t believe in freedom, move to Cuba” without a touch of irony. jmullaney, you obviously feel very passionately about this issue. The problem is, you don’t seem to be operating from a knowledge of history or current events. I’ve said repeatedly that freedoms in this country have always been necessarily circumscribed by context. I recommended books to that effect, two of which were written by preeminent constitutional scholars, and all of which demonstrate emphatically that freedom is not an absolute concept. We are not free, in this country, to do whatever we want. Nor are we free to say whatever we want, or gather wherever we please, or print whatever we might like in the local newspaper…or, for that matter, to give money to whomever we see fit. There are legitimate limits to our freedom, and pointing out that fact doesn’t make me any less of an American. So kindly get off that tall equine upon which you’re currently residing, and join the rest of us down here on the ground.
Let me quote you an excerpt from a book I referenced earlier, Thomas Emerson’s The System of Freedom of Expression:
(emphasis mine)
Hey, look at that–Not only are First Amendment freedoms not regarded as an absolute, but there’s never been enduring agreement about what constitutes free speech and free expression anyway. Huh. Emerson goes on to say this:
And therein lies the distinction between our views. I believe that the giving of money is not purely expression, and can therefore be regulated. You disagree. Fine. But duly note, please, that the doctrine of the Supreme Court is on my side in this one.
Speaking of the Court, back to your post. I said that if Buckley had been decided by the Rehnquist Court, “the contribution limit would likely be struck down,” prompting you to make this remark:
Actually, I didn’t say “it is basically only a matter of time until this law was struck down” at all. No offense, but do you know how the Supreme Court comes to decisions? For one thing, they place a premium on precedent–if a previous Court has decided a certain way, the current Court will only rarely act to overturn that holding. Had Buckley come before today’s Court, it would likely have been decided differently (though it may not have; I can easily see a plurality emerging in favor of contribution caps). Since it didn’t, the judgments of the Burger Court–especially inasmuch as they were rendered per curiam–are probably not going to be summarily reversed in future cases. Instead, what the Court can do is limit the scope of past decisions…as the Rehnquist Court has done thus far in decisions which uphold the use of soft money. However:
The second thing the Court tends to value highly is the judgment of the legislature. Felix Frankfurter was at the extreme, here, in that he didn’t believe it was ever really the place of the judiciary to override Congressional will, but most justices are leery of striking down federal law without a damn good reason. So if McCain-Feingold passed both houses and was signed by the President, I doubt very much that the Court would summarily invalidate it–especially given the adherence of the bill to the spirit of Buckley, as I showed earlier.
And as for the strict constructionists, that’s something entirely different–start another thread; I’d be happy to jump in. Specifically, I’d like your take on the reconcilement of the Ninth Amendment with contemporary constructionist principles, and I’d like to know which of the subsequent Amendments–particularly the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth–you think should be repealed to achieve harmony with the intents of the Framers and the text of the Constitution. And which Framers, anyway?
To you, dear. Blatantly offensive to you. Many people, including those learned souls who wrote Buckley, feel differently. They (and I) believe that money has too much influence in politics–that, in fact, the ability of a few to gain disproportionate access to our lawmakers and our laws at the expense of the democratic process is what is “blatantly offensive.” You’ve yet to make your case in any but the most hyperbolic terms. Show me, please, how allowing corporations, unions, and millionaires to subvert our campaign finance laws with a wink and a nudge in order to further their own interests is beneficial to democracy. The wink and the nudge have become solidly institutionalized; congressmen spend literally half of their time in office fundraising, pressing the flesh of big donors to the exclusion of most anything else. So tell me again why restricting a practice which is being demonstrably abused–because soft money goes to candidates, flouting existing laws–is so inherently harmful to a democratic society.
Yup, that’s exactly what I’m arguing. How canny of you to see through my ploy. For the sake of those without your acumen, though, here’s the comparison I was making: The legislature and the courts have the power to restrict speech, First Amendment notwithstanding, in certain circumstances. The legislature and the courts also have the power to restrict the transaction of money, your free market sensibilities notwithstanding, in certain circumstances. Both of these are especially the case if those circumstances are deemed harmful to the welfare and integrity of the social structure, the political structure, or the nation. Hey, I don’t agree with that unilaterally, either–the Sedition Acts spring to mind, and other attempts to suppress “subversion”–but it’s the way it is. Make the argument that soft money doesn’t confer undue influence, if you like, but stop trying to invoke the First Amendment. Constitutional jurisprudence isn’t really with you on this one.
I can understand the appeal of campaign finance reform, but I have yet to see a proposal that wouldn’t make things WORSE.
Many people point to George W. Bush as an aexample of a guy who won the nomination purely because he had so much money. This is sheer nonsense. If anything, the REVERSE is true! Bush didn’t win the nomination because special interests gave him a lot of money- rather, special interests gave him a lot of money because they perceived he was going to win!
Now, just suppose we had a system in which the law set a cap on campaign spending, and in which the major networks were required to give X number of hours of free time to all candidates. Who would benefit from such a system?
The Media, of course. Since the public would rely upon the media to tell them what the candidates stood for, the media would become FAR more powerful. No wonder the media support campaign finance reform (as do media butt-kissers like John McCain).
People who already have famous names. In short, you’d see a lot more political dynasties (Bush, Kennedy, Gore, Rockefeller, etc.). That’s because name recognition would be crucial. There will also be more Sonny Bonos, Steve Largents, and “Gopher” Grandys in COngress. An unknown candidate HAS to spend a lot of money just to become well known (let alone to get votes). If there are limits to how much a candidate can spend, the beneficiaries are the candidates who are already famous. Which includes…
Incumbents. Right now, NOBODY in California knows who Joe Blow is. If he wants to run for the Senate against Barbara Boxer (whom EVERYBODY knows), he has to spend a ton of money on advertising. SHE, on the other hand, has the franking privilege, which means she can send out propaganda literature to her constituents for free, any time she wants to. And her position means she can go on TV almost any time she wants.
So, if you’re famous, an incumbent, or a member of the media, I see why you’d suport campaign finance reform. Otherwise, it would be a mixed blessing at best.
Or, alternatively, who would lose in your hypothetical situation:
The media, who would lose revenue from the numerous TV adds funded under the present system.
Famous names: they would still have the name recognition that they enjoy today, but they would not be able to parlay that name recognition into imeense advantages in fund raising as they can under the present system. Joe Blow would have the same access to media advertising that Joe Kennedy has, thus mitigating the initial advantage of name recognition.
The incumbents, who presently enjoy an almost insurmuntable advantage in fund raising do to the power and priveledges of their office and the intimate connections they have to party heirarchies.
That is unfortunate. Since the Court members have all been appointed by members of the major parties, this does not surprise me.
Specifically, I’d like your take on the reconcilement of the Ninth Amendment with contemporary constructionist principles, and I’d like to know which of the subsequent Amendments–particularly the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth–you think should be repealed to achieve harmony with the intents of the Framers and the text of the Constitution. And which Framers, anyway?
[/quote]
Heck, I didn’t know there would be a quiz. Yes, I like the ninth amendment. Um… the end. Well, do I get some credit just for turning something in??
I’m not a big fan of the 16th amendment, but the one I find most troubling is the 17th. If senators were still appointed by the state legistlatures, that would be a rather good circuit breaker to the corrupting influence of money – don’t you agree?
I really don’t think corporations and unions should have the same rights as individuals. If citizens in these organizations want to give money, fine.
But a law that essentially says, should I want to start my own party, I can’t spend more than a thousand dollars of my own money to do so is very troubling to me. That money doesn’t buy much more than a soap box, some used bunting, and a small ad in the local greensheet.
Because no new parties could ever be established when there are such arbitrary limits. If you want to ban political parties completely, good luck. When under the law, does a group become a political party anyway? Do you support limiting contributions to all groups with political agendas?
People are innocent until proven guilty in this county. Just because some politicians are corruptible, doesn’t mean everyone is automatically corruptable. If you put everyone in prison you wouldn’t have any crime – and sure, everyone is a potential criminal – but that is still an unfair solution. You can label that “hyberbole” all you like, but that is effectively what you are supporting.
jmullaney: Would you support a bill which closed the soft money loophole but allowed contributions to party organizations to continue? That is, given existing campaign law, if donations to individuals which are illegally funneled through the party were stringently uncovered and punished? Because the bulk of contributions to party organizations do go straight to individual campaigns–and we haven’t even touched on bundling or issue advocacy yet! The point is that the soft money practice itself looks to be irreparably corrupt; it’s simply far too easy to get around contribution limits by giving money to the party with an understanding that it will benefit the campaign of your choice. So in that sense, there’s no “innocent until proven guilty” about it, because even when people are guilty the system does nothing. Which is why McCain-Feingold tries to attack the problem at its root. But if there were a way to severely prosecute all people who misused the soft money loophole, while preserving the right of party contributions, would you back that? It seems to me that the bureaucratic and investigative authority needed to assure that no contributions were being improperly earmarked would involve far more an infringement upon people’s business and welfare than would a law that simply played it safe and put a cap on soft money altogether. Maybe that’s just me.
One more thing: I don’t get it…you speak out fervently for democracy, yet you’d like to see the amendment allowing for popular election of senators to be repealed?? Mmmkay. If you’d like a more open political system, one not dominated by an institutional duopoly, check out my fanciful idea on the I’ve Got a Pretty Good Governmental System thread. You and I agree, jmullaney, about the need for a more open and level playing field. We’re just prescribing wholly different medicines.
Your answer on constructionism didn’t quite cut it for me. 
Do you not think that the intent of the Ninth Amendment is counter to most contemporary constructionist philosophy? And what about future amendments that override the original text of the Constitution? Like I said, the Reconstruction amendments spring somewhat readily to mind. And how do you determine original intent, anyway, when there were so many original intentions? If you don’t start the thread, I will. grin You constructionist types got some 'splaining to do.
No. What is party building if a party can’t help fund those running under their banner?
So what? Shouldn’t a party be allowed to support its candidates? What else is a party for?
They aren’t guilty of anything. Having members of your party put into office is a party building activity.
I think such a proposal is impossible, unless you want to reduce the parties to just issue advocacy groups. You setup an impossible alternative and point out that McCain-Feingold is superior! It is still a bad bill even if there are worse proposals.
Since they would not have to campaign to more than a few hundred state reps, that would solve the campaign finance problem. Your argument is that people are not smart enough to figure out when not to vote for a senator who has been corrupted by contributers, right? And thus people’s rights to monetarily support the candidate and party of their choice should be done away with, correct? I’m simply suggesting that you might be right – perhaps people are too stupid to be trusted with electing the Senate, and that a Senate that was not corruptable would screen out any corruptness of the house. That was why the framers set this up this way I have always been taught. I don’t think randomly abridging peoples rights to political freedom is a better solution than the original one.
Um. Is the answer “B”? Er… 7? Pi! OK, I fail. I just want judges who aren’t going to read things into this document that are not there and that take freedom seriously. I’m not qualified for a debate on more technical terms than that.