We can, and do, pick which parties are serious and which are frivolous. At state level anyway, a party typically has to get a certain percentage of the vote to be eligible for official recognition, including getting its candidates on the ballot and, where applicable, public funding for campaigns. The presumption, with which you may disagree, is that a serious position, and party, will be able to gain a respectable level of support even without Big Money behind it.
Interesting cite from the Freakonomics books, btw. While certainly nonrigorous, they are very entertaining and even thought-provoking. But the notion that 1 percent of the vote either way is insignificant is way off, in a country where a 55-45 result is labeled a “landslide”. Margins of less than 1 percent are pretty damn common, and especially in the aggregate make a huge difference in resulting policies and actions. Money isn’t ultimately definitive, no, but it does matter, and quite a lot.
We do what we do with federal matching funds, which have been around for decades in Presidential office: only give them to candidates or parties which demonstrate a reasonable base of support by past electoral performance. If the WSP picks up 5% of the vote in 2012, there’s no reason they shouldn’t receive public funding in 2014.
Considering that Ralph Nader never managed to qualify for matching funds despite garnering enough votes to swing the 2000 election, it’s clearly not a low bar to meet.
Well, Bricker, let me introduce you to the concept of “man bites dog” as it applies to journalism. The idea of course, is that “dog bites man” is not a story because it happens all the time, in the normal course of events. “Man Bites Dog” IS a story, because it rarely happens.
So when we see extensive coverage of Meg Whitman and Carly Fiarucci’s campaign and how amazing it was that they lost considering what an economic advantage they had over their Democratic opponents, you have to figure that the norm for political campaigning is that the candidate with a significant edge in terms of campaign money is very likely to win … otherwise, candidates who DIDN’T win would not be a story.
It seems to me that it would be a simple thing to compare wins vs. losses in the post-publicly financed campaign era, as I believe that campaign disclosure laws are still in effect. That might settle things.
Okay. Under the law in question, before the Supreme Court overturned the provisions it did, what did a candidate have to do to qualify for matching funds in Arizona?
(Here’s a hint - the bar was set pretty low.)
I am not a fan of other matching funds schemes - but they don’t tip into problems wrt the First Amendment IMO because they are pinned to the party’s support in the last election, as you note - not to the success of the fundraising of your political opponents.
The attached table shows a lengthy list of losers - even the people who won their offices pretty much stalled once they got them.
Money can have a huge advantage in a election, but it is the more prosaic kind of money that generally does this, like floods of small donations to the Obama 2008 website. I didn’t see many complaints on this board when that was going down.
Then you tell us, if you think it advances the discussion. I’m no more interested in playing *your *games than, oh, let’s just say “anyone else’s” games.
This is one of many instances where Constitutional rights and principles come into conflict with each other, isn’t it? They’re far more common than the cut and dried kind, at least IMHO. Here, the conflict is between the First Amendment (or at least one way of interpreting it), and the underlying principles of democracy itself. To declare it to be all about that particular interpretation of the First, and nothing else, is to declare victory even before the war - and to get the other guys to say it too is to achieve that victory.
But it isn’t really all about free speech, is it? The purpose of any political speech in a campaign is ultimately to win the election. That’s what this is all about, not protecting the First - which, as you know, has other hard exceptions to it based on other public needs. No, it’s fundamentally about creating and institutionalizing an advantage in achieving the goal of winning elections, isn’t it? And aren’t there public needs involved with that issue that come into conflict with it?
You claimed that the state “typically” set requirements on who would get the public funds. Basically I’m asking you for a cite on what those requirements are.
Well, I agree with that, actually. And that’s why I have said other funding schemes are permissible, and restrictions that are based on ensuring transparency and combating corruptions are permissible. The only thing struck down here is a scheme that bases matching funds on the actions of another party - this isn’t a dealbreaker for democracy.
Is the right to free speech the only part of the First Amendment? That would be news to me.
Check out that part about the right of the people to freely assemble, and get back to me.
Implicit in the right to assemble is the right to form associations and even parties. Part of that right is the right to support those organizations using your own funds - and one would suppose that one cannot be forced to directly support an organization that one opposes with his own funds.
The federal presidential matching funds that come from tax funds have to be voluntarily checked off on individual returns to avoid this constitutional problem.
So you’re going off on a complete tangent that has nothing to do with anything that we’ve been discussing here?
Well then, using your logic, I guess the Supreme Court’s actions were wrong. The people of Arizona wanted to exercise their right to assembly by contributing money in the way you described. And the Supreme Court denied them that right.
The people as a whole may not deprive an individual of his rights without due process.
How is due process served when money is simply handed out - is there any way to challenge that?
I realize the Court didn’t cite a violation of the right of assembly. I see one, though, plain as day, and it is a pretty plain First Amendment violation on its own. What they cited was the chilling effect - how people might refrain from certain campaign activities since they do not want their opponents to get matching funds.
For people in this thread who are advocating for a more expansive debate, this should be the opposite effect than the one they want - unless that was a stalking horse for leveling the playing field. Indeed, oral arguments in this case noted that the commission that administered this law listed a level playing field as an important part of its function.
Never mind that using the law in this way is unconstitutional.
This could have been simple - just give candidates money according to some formula or as decided by some commission and there is no constitutional issue. Making some of the funds conditional on the free speech actions of others is a constitutional problem. Better to get rid of that aspect of the law.