Robert Reich nails it: This is what this election is about

[octopus]

@wolfpup

Wow, that has got to be the most astounding oxymoron I have ever heard uttered on these or any forums.

Hey, dude, what do you think “government” is? You know, that “for the people, by the people” thing?

If you have reason not to trust a democratically elected government then maybe you should kick its members out on their asses through the duly enacted democratic processes and elect members and leaders that do represent your interests. Because the government truly is that democracy thing that was once touted as “the last best hope of mankind”. The government. The servants of the people. Not the billionaire Koch brothers, rogue lawbreakers, defilers of the environment, and self-serving self-enriching plutocrats, who spend billions convincing you – apparently successfully – that they, and they alone, are your friends.

If the government were of the people, by the people, and for the people BLM would be redundant. We wouldn’t have a million in jail. We wouldn’t have corrupt judges selling juveniles to a for profit prison industry. We wouldn’t have extrajudicial executions. We wouldn’t have politicians bailing out the donor class because of too big to fail. Government is nothing more than an avenue to power.

[BrainGlutton]

@Grumman

Because the right to free political speech is vital to the functioning of a democracy, and it is abhorrent that you would want to suppress that right specifically because it is important?

Once again, no campaign-finance reformer is trying to “suppress” political speech. From The Next American Nation, by Michael Lind (The Free Press, 1995) (from before the McCain-Feingold Bill, but I don’t think the picture has changed all that much since it passed):

Campaign financing is by far the most important mechanism for overclass influence in government. The real two-party system in the United States consists of the party of voters and the tiny but influential party of donors. The donor party in the United States is made up of an extraordinarily small number of citizens. In 1988, according to one study, only 10.2 percent of the American public made a contribution to a candidate, party, or partisan group. . . . The group of large political donors is a still more exclusive club. According to a study by Citizen Action, in the 1989-90 election cycle only 179,677 individual donors gave contributions greater than $200 to a federal candidate, political action committee (PAC), or party: “Thirty-four percent of the money spent by federal candidates was directly contributed by no more than one-tenth of one percent of the voting age population.” One may reasonably doubt that this one tenth of one percent is representative of the electorate or the population at large.

<snip>

Special interests buy favors from congressmen and presidents through political action committees (PACs), devices by which groups like corporations, professional associations, trade unions, investment banking groups – can pool their money and give $10,000 per election to each House and Senate candidate. Today there are more than 4,000 Political Action Committees (PACs) of various kinds registered with the Federal Election Commission; in 1974, when they were sanctioned by law, there were only 500. PAC money is driving campaign costs to new heights. In 1992, the average Senate incumbent spent more than $3.6 million for re-election; that is the equivalent of raising $12,000 a week in a single six-year term. Members of Congress, by comparison, spend only an average of $557,403 to be re-elected – a “mere” $5,000 a week for a two-year term. The average cost of a House campaign has risen to this level from $140,000 in 1980 – and $52,000 in 1974.

The chief beneficiaries of rising campaign costs and PAC contributions have been incumbents. In 1972, 52 cents of the average PAC dollar went to incumbents, compared to 25 cents to challengers (the rest went to candidates for open seats); in the 1988 House elections, incumbents received 84.4 cents of each PAC dollar and challengers only 8.6 cents. It makes more sense for lobbies to buy access to established members of Congress and senators – particularly those with important leadership positions – than to fund challengers, who, if elected, would have no seniority and little influence. . . . Former Senator Barry Goldwater has lamented, “The Founding Fathers would frown in their graves if they saw us rationing candidacies sheerly on the basis of money: who has – or can raise – the millions necessary to run for office.”

Democrats, when they were members of the majority party, received more PAC money than Republicans, though both parties are saturated with it. Contrary to conservative claims that liberal lobby groups dominate Congress, PAC funds come overwhelmingly from business: in 1990, 65 percent of PAC contributions came from business PACs, compared to 24 percent from labor and only 11 percent from ideological groups (including conservative as well as liberal pressure groups). “At one point,” John Judis has pointed out, “the American Petroleum Institute employed more lobbyists in Washington than the entire labor movement.”

They don’t come much more libertarian than Goldwater, and even he was appalled at this state of affairs.

Now, if that money does not buy influence over politicians (or, more importantly, is not useful for getting the pol the donor wants into office), then why do the donors spend that much, year after year after year?! These are people/organizations who ordinarily really, really hate to waste money.

From the same book:

Today’s U.S. government is democratic in form but plutocratic in substance. . . . In a misguided 1976 decision, Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court held that Congress could not limit spending by rich Americans promoting their own candidacies. This decision was to the equalization of voting power what Dred Scott was to abolitionism. In The Yale Law Review, Jamin Raskin and John Boniface have argued that political candidates in the United States must win a “wealth primary.” Candidates without enormous amounts of money, either from their own fortunes or from rich individuals and special interest groups, cannot hope to win the party primaries – much less general elections. Indeed, the Buckley decision is one reason why more than half the members of the Senate today are millionaires. . . .

It is time to build a wall of separation between check and state. Curing the disease of plutocratic politics requires a correct diagnosis of its cause: the costs of political advertising. The basic problem is that special interests buy access and favors by donating the money needed for expensive political advertising in the media. Elaborate schemes governing the flow of money do nothing to address the central problem: paid political advertising. Instead of devising unworkable limits on campaign financing that leave the basic system intact, we should cut the Gordian knot of campaign corruption by simply outlawing paid political advertising on behalf of any candidate for public office. The replacement of political advertising by free informational public service notices in the electronic and print media would level the playing field of politics and kill off an entire parasitic industry of media consultants and spin doctors.

An outright ban on paid political advertising and the imposition of free time requirements on the media are radical measures, but nothing less is necessary if we are to prevent our government from continuing to be sold to the highest bidders. The argument against strict public regulation of money in politics is based on a false analogy between free spending and free speech protected under the First Amendment. The analogy is false, because limits on campaign finance do not address the content of speech – only its volume, as it were. It is not an infringement on free speech to say that, in a large public auditorium, Douglas will not be allowed to use a microphone unless Lincoln can as well.*

*A much more compelling analogy would be between the electoral process and the judicial system, with the electorate playing the role of the jury. In our system of trial by jury, there are elaborate rules governing the presentation of evidence to the jury by plaintiff and defendant (the “candidates”). If our judicial system were organized the way our judicial system is, then rich candidates would be allowed to buy time before the jury. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, in one Senate election, outspent his opponent by 300 to 1; the equivalent, in the judicial system, would be allowing a rich defendant to buy, say, six months to present his side of the case, while the poor plaintiff might be able to purchase only twenty minutes for his side.

“Wall of separation between check and state” is, at least, something you can get on a bumper-sticker.

FWIW, some Wikiquotes on campaign-finance reform:

“Today’s political campaigns function as collection agencies for broadcasters. You simply transfer money from contributors to television stations.” Senator Bill Bradley, 2000.

“We’ve got a real irony here. We have politicians selling access to something we all own -our government. And then we have broadcasters selling access to something we all own — our airwaves. It’s a terrible system.” Newton Minow, former Federal Communications Commission chairman (2000).

“You’re more likely to see Elvis again than to see this bill pass the Senate.” Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (1999) on the McCain-Feingold Bill on Campaign Reform

“Unless we fundamentally change this system, ultimately campaign finance will consume our democracy.” Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) (1996).

"[Buckley v. Valeo is] one of the most weakly reasoned, poorly written, initially contradictory court opinions I’ve ever read. "Senator (and former federal district court judge) George J. Mitchell (D-ME) (1990).

“We don’t buy votes. What we do is we buy a candidate’s stance on an issue.” Allen Pross, executive director, California Medical Association’s PAC (1989).

“Political action committees and moneyed interests are setting the nation’s political agenda. Are we saying that only the rich have brains in this country? Or only people who have influential friends who have money can be in the Senate?” Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) (1988).

“The day may come when we’ll reject the money of the rich as tainted, but it hadn’t come when I left Tammany Hall at 11:25 today.” George Washington Plunkett (1905).

“Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor, not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and propitious fortune.” James Madison, Federalist 57 (1788).

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

Democracy is a means to an end, the end being liberty.

:rolleyes: No, it is a means to a lot of ends, and liberty is only one of them. Equality is another, and no less important. Likewise with the general welfare.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

. . . plus you’ve got a party that encourages the ignorant to vote . . .

:dubious: It’s the GOP that encourages the ignorant to vote. Just look at the people who attend their events!

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

Absolutely not. On 75% of them, he’s right, although we disagree on means and ends in some cases. But campaign finance reform is just a useless waste of time, of more concern to politicians(who hate having to fund raise from thousands of people) . . .

No, they hate having to fundraise from dozens of people.

@adaher

. . . and the media(who hate having to compete for the kingmaker role).

To the extent the media have that role, there is no good reason why they should have to share it with the Koch Brothers, is there?

[SlackerInc]

@BrainGlutton

:dubious: It’s the GOP that encourages the ignorant to vote. Just look at the people who attend their events!

If we’re going to be accurate, Democrats have an coalition of the most and least educated voters: high school dropouts and people with postgraduate degrees are heavily Democratic. Republicans’ strongest groups are those with high school degrees only, or “some college” but not a degree.

As for all the rest of what you posted, I am certainly not denying that there is the risk of corruption, and most likely de facto corruption rampant in the system. But your proposed cure is worse than the disease! Under your proposed regulatory framework, how can MSNBC exist? How can Michael Moore distribute his films? How can anyone with money not find loopholes, unless there is a draconian regulatory bureaucracy micromanaging every one of their purchases?

[BrainGlutton]

@SlackerInc

If we’re going to be accurate, Democrats have an coalition of the most and least educated voters: high school dropouts and people with postgraduate degrees are heavily Democratic. Republicans’ strongest groups are those with high school degrees only, or “some college” but not a degree.

That seems odd at first glance, but it’s no great mystery: The highly educated are Dems because they’re highly educated; they know enough to know why Dem policies generally make more sense. The least educated are mostly poor folks, and are at least smart enough to see which party has their interests at heart, at least compared to the other. And the Pubs . . . offer an illustration of why “A little learning is a dangerous thing.”

@SlackerInc

As for all the rest of what you posted, I am certainly not denying that there is the risk of corruption, and most likely de facto corruption rampant in the system. But your proposed cure is worse than the disease! Under your proposed regulatory framework, how can MSNBC exist? How can Michael Moore distribute his films? How can anyone with money not find loopholes, unless there is a draconian regulatory bureaucracy micromanaging every one of their purchases?

See post #122. How is simply banning paid campaign advertising going to muzzle MSNBC – or Fox News, for that matter?

[SlackerInc]

Then the rich will simply compete with each other (or pool their money) to buy media outlets which promote their views. That’s arguably worse than paid ads, which at least are offset from programming and do not infiltrate the entire network’s content.

[octopus]

@BrainGlutton

Once again, no campaign-finance reformer is trying to “suppress” political speech. From The Next American Nation, by Michael Lind (The Free Press, 1995) (from before the McCain-Feingold Bill, but I don’t think the picture has changed all that much since it passed):

They don’t come much more libertarian than Goldwater, and even he was appalled at this state of affairs.

Now, if that money does not buy influence over politicians (or, more importantly, is not useful for getting the pol the donor wants into office), then why do the donors spend that much, year after year after year?! These are people/organizations who ordinarily really, really hate to waste money.

From the same book:

“Wall of separation between check and state” is, at least, something you can get on a bumper-sticker.

FWIW, some Wikiquotes on campaign-finance reform:

“Today’s political campaigns function as collection agencies for broadcasters. You simply transfer money from contributors to television stations.” Senator Bill Bradley, 2000.

“We’ve got a real irony here. We have politicians selling access to something we all own -our government. And then we have broadcasters selling access to something we all own — our airwaves. It’s a terrible system.” Newton Minow, former Federal Communications Commission chairman (2000).

“You’re more likely to see Elvis again than to see this bill pass the Senate.” Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (1999) on the McCain-Feingold Bill on Campaign Reform

“Unless we fundamentally change this system, ultimately campaign finance will consume our democracy.” Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) (1996).

"[Buckley v. Valeo is] one of the most weakly reasoned, poorly written, initially contradictory court opinions I’ve ever read. "Senator (and former federal district court judge) George J. Mitchell (D-ME) (1990).

“We don’t buy votes. What we do is we buy a candidate’s stance on an issue.” Allen Pross, executive director, California Medical Association’s PAC (1989).

“Political action committees and moneyed interests are setting the nation’s political agenda. Are we saying that only the rich have brains in this country? Or only people who have influential friends who have money can be in the Senate?” Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) (1988).

“The day may come when we’ll reject the money of the rich as tainted, but it hadn’t come when I left Tammany Hall at 11:25 today.” George Washington Plunkett (1905).

“Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor, not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and propitious fortune.” James Madison, Federalist 57 (1788).

Who defines what content in radio, print, Internet, movies, etc is political? What about volunteering for a candidate or cause? What dollar amount will be assigned to that labor? What about the efforts of the political,parties? What value does the letter (D) or (R) have? You people really don’t think this through.

[elucidator]

Whereas you, failing to convincingly support “Should not be done” simply shift to “Cannot be done”. If you are so sure it can’t be done, what’s your problem with letting us try?

[BrainGlutton]

@SlackerInc

Then the rich will simply compete with each other (or pool their money) to buy media outlets which promote their views.

So what? They do that now.

[BrainGlutton]

@octopus

Who defines what content in radio, print, Internet, movies, etc is political? What about volunteering for a candidate or cause? What dollar amount will be assigned to that labor? What about the efforts of the political,parties? What value does the letter (D) or (R) have? You people really don’t think this through.

The proposal is simply for a ban on paid political advertising – a system that works well enough in some other democracies – and to which all the points you raise are irrelevant.

[SlackerInc]

@BrainGlutton

So what? They do that now.

I assure you they will step it up if the option to buy advertising is taken away.

[elucidator]

Well, there you go, BG, now, you are assured. Is there something else you need to be assured about?

[sleestak]

@septimus

Speaking of reading books, I’ve read several books and watched several documentaries related to the mortgage bubble, 2008 credit crisis, etc. They all paint a picture of financial malfeasance. The Bush-appointed Special Inspector General of TARP complained about unpursued prosecutions.

Yet many on this board deny that criminal fraud played a large role in these scandals. Can those people please cite the books where they get their information? I want to broaden my knowledge.

BTW: A favorite right-wing talking point is that it was misguided liberal government policies that led to the mortgage bubble. This is incorrect (see, e.g., Stiglitz’s book) but to the extent that government misregulation exacerbates such problems it is largely due not to “liberal” overreach, but to subornation of government’s role by vested interests and their right-wing political stooges.

A bit off topic but…

Really? It is all the evil <insert business here> who caused all the problems and the government had nothing to do with it?

(Note, I know of no one, other than folks on some message boards who like to create straw men, that claim the 2008 crisis was due to one particular actor. There were a bunch of actors involved, one of them was the government)

In 1992, Congress passed the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act. This gave HUD the power to pursue policies for ‘affordable’ housing. The law required the Fannies to buy a certain percentage of loans from borrowers who were at or below the median income for the area in which they lived. Originally, the quota was 30%.

Now, stop for a moment and think. The Fannies had to buy a certain percentage of loans from the lower income borrowers. Right off the bat, that is going to increase defaults, right?

Ok, so on we go. In 2000, Andrew Cuomo who was HUD Secertary, increased the quota to %50.

Now, stop and think about that. The government ruled that the Government Sponsored Enterprise (the Fannies) had to increase lending to those most likely to default.

In 2004, sayth Issue Brief: HUD’s Affordable Housing Goals for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, p.5.:

Lower-income and minority families have made major gains in access to the mortgage market in the 1990s. A variety of reasons have accounted for these gains, including improved housing affordability, enhanced enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, more flexible mortgage underwriting, and stepped-up enforcement of the Fair Housing Act. But most industry observers believe that one factor behind these gains has been the improved performance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under HUD’s affordable lending goals. HUD’s recent increases in the goals for 2001-03 will encourage the GSEs to further step up their support for affordable lending.

Linky http://democrats.financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/media/file/press/112/fcic%20488-491.pdf Warning, PDF.

And they did it again in 2004.

Millions of Americans with less than perfect credit or who cannot meet some of the tougher underwriting requirements of the prime market for reasons such as inadequate income documentation, limited downpayment or cash reserves, or the desire to take more cash out in a refinancing than conventional loans allow, rely on subprime lenders for access to mortgage financing.* If the GSEs reach deeper into the subprime market, more borrowers will benefit from the advantages that greater stability and standardization create.*

http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2004-11-02/pdf/04-24101.pdf

And 2005: From HUD PDR, May 2005, HUD Contract C-OPC-21895, Task Order CHI-T0007, “Recent House Price Trends and Homeownership Affordability”, p.85.

More liberal mortgage financing has contributed to the increase in demand for housing. During the 1990s, lenders have been encouraged by HUD and banking regulators to increase lending to low-income and minority households. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), government-sponsored enterprises (GSE) housing goals and fair lending laws have strongly encouraged mortgage brokers and lenders to market to low-income and minority borrowers. Sometimes these borrowers are higher risk, with blemished credit histories and high debt or simply little savings for a down payment. Lenders have responded with low down payment loan products and automated underwriting, which has allowed them to more carefully determine the risk of the loan.

The Fannies increased the percentage of low income loans from %30 to %54. *And HUD themselves claim responsibility for the increased lending to low income borrowers. *

So the press released that HUD themselves put out show that they were pushing loans that, in part, caused the financial meltdown.

Slee

[Hank_Beecher]

@elucidator

Whereas you, failing to convincingly support “Should not be done” simply shift to “Cannot be done”. If you are so sure it can’t be done, what’s your problem with letting us try?

Because we aren’t fond of people restricting our right to criticize politicians.

“Fixing” Citizens United Will Break the Constitution

You seem to think that there is a need for you to limit certain parties right to engage in political speech, to protect the public from hearing and being unduly influenced by it. And the groups who’s speech you wish to quell just happens to be those who’s political opinions you most strongly disagree with. But of course you haven’t been influenced by this speech, those in favor of this sort of censorship always see themselves as too sophisticated to be manipulated like this, just like no one ever seems to think that they are personally susceptible to advertisement or sales techniques. The message you want to limit is just sooo dangerous and sooo influential that we should limit people’s fundamental rights to thwart it. Take your word for it.

Your argument is simply an anti-corporate tautology.

You know what? All kinds of people have the ability to have a greater than average influence on public opinion. The Koch bros represent just one way this occurs. There are many others. Just look at the far-left’s prominence in much of academia that dominates the climate of public opinion on issues like nuclear energy and GMO food. Their anti-science propaganda is arguably much more dangerous and pervasive that anything the Tea Party is pushing. And these same academics seem to often favor these restrictions on free speech, too, which of course would increase their relative share of public voice.

And of course incumbent politicians have much more say than you or I over what messages people get to hear.

You are congratulating yourself for having the enlightened, forward thinking position, when, in actuality, by preferring that the government decide who can criticize politicians and how much they can do it, you are squarely on the side of totalitarianism.

[elucidator]

Koch Brothers
Can start to shakin’
Today’s pig
Tomorrows bacon.

• • Buddha Shave*

[Hank_Beecher]

If their money is as all powerful over public opinion as you imagine, then they will just use it to tweak your poop stains on the constitution to their favor.

[elucidator]

Well, just as I said upstream, there is hints and evidence that media buys aren’t getting it any more. Like how Jeb(!)'s PAC spent north of $20 million dollars and got nada. Big Oink’s power to buy media used to be the #10 Hammer of Thor, now, maybe not so much. From my lips to the Ears.

Maybe its just like a rich kids hobby, like owning sports teams. They don’t really expect to get anything for all that money, they’re just screwing around. Still don’t want to be around.

[BrainGlutton]

@Hank_Beecher

Because we aren’t fond of people restricting our right to criticize politicians.

How can you keep repeating that bullshit? Banning paid campaign advertising would do nothing of the kind.

The argument against strict public regulation of money in politics is based on a false analogy between free spending and free speech protected under the First Amendment. The analogy is false, because limits on campaign finance do not address the content of speech – only its volume, as it were. It is not an infringement on free speech to say that, in a large public auditorium, Douglas will not be allowed to use a microphone unless Lincoln can as well.