Yes, it’s a good thing, if done right with no loopholes.
From The Next American Nation, by Michael Lind (The Free Press, 1995), pp. 256-259 (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.
From the same book, pp. 311-313:
Most of the world’s democracies have election systems in which private campaign contributions are not allowed to play any significant role in politics, and it seems to work out well enough for them. No voice is stifled, and no voice is artificially amplified by wealthy backers. See these threads:
You are claiming, without any basis, that the progress of the nation in terms of political equality would have happened precisely the same regardless? But who is to say that such progress might not have happened more quickly, had there not been more equal distribution of access? And, of course, there is the rather obvious fact that such equal distribution of access is, in itself, progress, or at least one very important aspect of it. So, in a way, you are claiming that progress is the result of progress.
There are some lefty theorists who believe that social and political progress is inevitable, following a somewhat warped Marxian view of a historical imperative. I do not. Progress can be halted, reversed, or cease to exist altogether.
No, I didn’t, and I would very much appreciate it if you would not speak for me, and then argue against your own misinterpretation. At no time have I ever suggested that anyone be “shut down”, simply that some constraints need be applied so that some are not more equal than others. Will this be troubling and difficult? Very likely, that has nothing to do with whether or not it is desireable.
Then you either do not understand it or are willfully arguing against positions of your own devise. If you require a sock puppet to make arguments that you can easily rebut, please go find you own.
That’s too bad. Perhaps if you listen closely, you might actually understand what those views are. “Equality of outcomes” is your own paraphrase, you are free to argue against it if you find arguing with my actual postions vexing.
Huh? I have no idea what you are saying here. Actually, there is a bald interpretation, but I am reluctant to answer on it, it would seem opportunistic to exploit such an utterly witless statement. Hence, I offer you the opportunity to reflect and rephrase, as you can’t possibly be this dense.
Of course its difficult, and troublesome. Progress just about invariably is. That has no bearing on whether or not it is right or wrong.
Would you kindly stop reinterpreting my remarks to suit your agenda? Thanking you in advance. If you wish to discuss criticizing elected officials, bring it up yourself, don’t claim that I did by an inference of your own selection.
We seek to equalize those rights as close to an ideal, a very similar idea to one person, one vote. Take, for instance, Richard Mellon Scaife, wealthy supporter of right wing causes, think tanks, and institutions. Do you think you and he are equal in your ability to affect political discourse?
Yep.
Such promise, so quickly dashed…
No, it means his is enhanced. Unjustly.
This is your conclusion, it cannot be part of your argument, buggering the question. How does it “beat the alternative”. Does it beat* all* the alternatives? Is there only one?
You’re stuck on that, insisting that rights are being abridged. If one has an equal right to self-expression, he has what he is ensured. More than that he is not ensured, nor is he entitled. One cannot “lose” rights one does not have and does not deserve. Nor can nonexistent rights be abridged, just as unicorns cannot be herded.
As a practical matter, this may be true. That does not mean it will always be true, that it is some unalterable foundation of reality. And even if it were, wouldn’t it be incumbent upon us to hew as closely to justice as we can manage? Simply because we cannot be perfect is no reason not to improve ourselves.
Well, of course they do, and have done, and will continue to do so. Which you know, even before you posted this naive tautology.
Thats quite true, the poor have equal rights to purchase politcal speech, just as the rich retain an equal right to beg for bread and sleep under bridges.
Well, you’re right, your restatement of my postion doesn’t make any sense. Please stop doing it.
I’m going to pass this by, I haven’t the slightest idea what point you are trying to make here.
And hallelujah, this is a good thing. But, tell me, have you ever tried to start a small local newspaper? Are you quite sure that those barriers are “very, very low”?
As I illustrated in my link above, there is no evidence that contributors are “buying special favors” with campaign contributions. In fact, those who have actually studied this issue (as distinguished from people with a few anecdotes) conclude that contributions follow ideology. That is, people contribute to candidates who share their views. The contributions do not cause the candidates to hold certain views.
But, if you’d prefer anecdotes, I can give you plenty. I used to work for a U.S. Senator and I have contributed to candidates. When I contributed, I did so because I wanted to see that candidate in office based on that candidates views on the issues of importance to me. I was not doing so expecting that I would get some sort of special favor from him. And when I worked for a Senator we had no idea who contributed to the Senator when we had meetings or were helping constituents. The constituent’s ideas were judged on the merits, not on how much he or she had contributed.
And as far as money not being speech, that’s just silly. It’s like saying that you have freedom of religion, but you just can’t spend money to build a church or hire a preacher or buy Bibles. Restricting how money can be spent on speech is restricting speech.
All I’m saying is that history is on my side here. Of course, you’ll accuse me of being dense without addressing the actual issues, so why should I even bother?
OK, perhaps not “shut down,” just restrained. So they will be able to speak a little, just not as much as they want. How is that any better?
Then what exactly are you saying? Again, as I understand it, everyone will be permitted a little bit of political speech, but not too much. How much, of course, will be an arbitrary determination. If I’m wrong, please spell it out for me.
The opportunity is not yours to offer, just like my right to free speech isn’t yours to take away. Of course, you seem to think that you have all the answers about what people should be allowed to say, so I guess this idiotic comment is pretty much par for the course with you.
Why don’t you actually answer my objection instead of trying to avoid the issue. If elections aren’t about criticizing elected officials, then what are they?
You seem to fail to understand that the right to free speech doesn’t need “equalized.” Unless the government prevents that right, people have it. Your notion that everyone should only be allowed to express a certain amount of free speech would certainly “equalize” everyone to a certain extent, though. It would come at the expense of our inalienable rights, however, and would be the exact opposite of the idea of freedom of speech. Why you fail to understand this mystifies me.
No. So? You are asserting there some right that everyone must be equal in political discourse. Not only is that not a right, it’s not even desirable.
But since you bring up Scaife, I’d say he’s useful to illustrate why it is good to allow the rich to spend whatever they want to advocate their ideas. The type of speech supported by Scaife is the type of speech with which I agree. He is funding speech that I would be unable to fund. Just like Soros funds speech that low- or moderate-income are unable to fund. Limiting them is limiting the expression of ideas that many people, whether rich or poor, would like to see out in the realm of debate.
I fail to see how it is “unjust.” Because you think he has spoken over his quota he is unjust? Too much political speech from one person is wrong? And you wonder why I compared your ideas to totalitarianism.
So a person doesn’t deserve an unlimited right to free speech?
Why? He gets more political speech than I do. I think it’s a bad idea that education is being stressed in a federal presidential campaign. My rights are being abridged, according to you.
Yes, they are, in fact. It’s very easy to start a blog, it’s getting easier and easier to start a newspaper. Your idea that only the rich can express their political views effectively and thus they must be silenced (except for a little bit of speech you’d generously permit) is ridiculous.
You’re kidding, right? Having a bit of a droll joke, right?
No doubt. Precisely the point, actually.
No, I don’t. Please don’t trouble yourself with anonymous evidence, it places us in an awkward position, as I find this alleged pure-as-the-driven-snow Senator a bit hard to believe in. To say the least.
Which would be illegitimate if not done for a legitimate reason. It is not legitimate for the Democrats to restrict the free speech of the Republicans, how then is it legitimate for Republicans to have more capacity to exercise that speech?
Your thesis seems to lean toward the notion that injustice is unavoidable, that the rich are somehow entitled to power. That they have such power is a fact, that they are entitled to that power is a lie. I do not suggest that you are a liar, only that you have not adequately examined the thesis you put forward, a person as intelligent as yourself should not be burdened with such a load of horseshit.
Campaign contributions do not necessarily buy votes. They buy legislation. They buy earmarks .They get tax breaks. Big contributors have many ways the pols can pay them off. Thats why they do it.
Of course not, Gonzo! When the pharmacuetical lobby pressured Congress to ensure that Medicare will not bargain for the lowest prices, they did so entirely out of concern for the protection of the consumer, that socialistic medicines not taint our precious bodily fluids. OK, they may have made a few millions of pennies more, but what is that in comparison to their unflinching civic virtue?
Examples abound of corporate patriotism. Just look at how many American corporations have offered to support our troops by providing the necessary materials on an “at cost” basis, eschewing profit as unseemly in such a situation. How many have turned away from incorporating themselves offshore to avoid the taxation that supports our heroes? The sacrifices made by Halliburton, Blackwater, and so many, many others are a shining beacon, and a singular example of the sort of patriotic fervor that guides American business.
No, just presenting evidence from someone who has madea an academic study of the subject. But since it’s clear that you have vast knowledge on this topic, then please present some evidence of how it’s flawed.
You can believe or disbelieve what you want. Considering that I have actually worked in the system and, given your statements here, know much more about both the electoral and lawmaking process than you, I am not all that concerned.
In the first case, the government bans something (or colludes with people who privately restrict it). In that case there are people who want to do something and the government stops it. In the second (assuming the GOP has a greater capacity to fund political speech) there are people willing to freely give their money to purchase air time or newspaper ads or whatever. No one is being restricted from doing anything. If one set of ideas is more popular, then it will attract more funding. The rights of no one are being infringed upon. The speech that is being funded does not mean that other speech is being supressed. You truly can’t see the fundamental difference here?
I don’t think it’s injustice if people are free to spend as much money as they want to promote the ideas in which they believe. That, to me, is the essence of justice and freedom. As far as the rich being “entitled to power,” I’m not sure where you are getting that from. The rich are entitled to freedom, just like the poor. The rich should be free to speak or spend their money, just like the poor. Yes, the rich will be able to buy more things than the poor, but that is not unjust. The rich should not have less of a right to spend money just because they happen to have more of it.
I have, indeed, examined my views very closely. I support freedom and liberty. You, on the other hand, want to empower government to restrict the free speech rights of people who have an excess of money, in your view. The type of class hatred has certainly been held by a variety of smart people, a class to which you clearly think you belong, but it’s one I reject. I prefer to base my political views on freedom, not envy.
What’ do you work in a conservative think tank?
Your thinking would allow access and rights to the rich that the poorer could never have. Yet you defend this inequity like it is actually just being fair . Your sense of freedom and logic is horribly distorted.
Well, about that. From an article in NRO Onlilne? From a visiting scholar from the American Enterprise Institute? It probably escaped your notice that you are offering as objective study the product of pointedly conservative sources. Otherwise, you might have included a caveat, rather than just brazen it out. Not saying that means it ain’t so, but you might have mentioned it. Just as you might have thought to mention that this fellow Lott has…rather a checkered career.
Because I didn’t wish to actually insult you. But, to be bluntly frank, your anecdote of a pristine pure Senator without the slightest notion about whom his campaign contributors might be, or what their wants and needs are, is, in the original sense of the word, incredible. Simply incredible.
Your claims of experience and expertise are just that, claims.
Is this what you imagine is happening here? The popularity of conservative, pro-business philosophy is what fills the coffers over at American Enterprise and Heritage? Seriously? Thousands of ordinary people, sending a bit of their hard-saved money, out of civic pride and patriotism? I ask that because I want to be sure that you are actually saying something so brazenly self-serving, before I mock you for it.
Unless that thing they wish to spend money on is political power that exceeds their just desserts. Everyone has a personal set of rights. Anyone who attempts to exceed those rights, whether or not it is done by limiting another’s rights, is violating the contract of democracy. Of course, if it were accomplished by limiting anothers rights, that would be worse, but the absence of such doen’t make it right and proper, the goal is not legitimate, the means used will not make it so
How very noble of you. Clearly, since you profess a higher standard of ethics than I, certainly you must be in the right. Uh-huh. Sure thing.
(I mean, seriously, was that intended as some argumentative point, or just a bit of self-aggrandizing ad hominem?..)
(You remind me of a friend of mine who was infected with Ayn Rand’s Disease, and has yet to recover…)
This is a rather snarky thread for Great Debates, but ah well.
One of the top ten economies in the world held a election a few years ago for their head. There were well over a hundred candidates on the ballots, thanks to a open, fair democractic system to ensure that more than just the rich could run. Specifically, a citizen needed only to gather 65 signatures from their own party and pay a nonrefundable $3,500 fee to become a candidate, or “in lieu” of the fee collect up to 10,000 signatures from any party, the fee being prorated by the fraction of 10,000 valid signatures the candidate filed. No candidate in fact collected more than a handful of signatures-in-lieu, so that all paid almost the entire fee. In addition, however, candidates from recognized third parties were allowed on the ballot with no fee if they could collect 150 signatures from their own party.
This was a wonderful exercise in open elections and democracy. However, if this had been publicly funded, it could have bankrupted the economy of this powerhouse.
Going through this is why I oppose the public financing of campaigns.
My proposal is similary to others above:
Only registered voters my donate. No corporations, no PACs, etc.
Donations are uncapped, to keep them centered on the candidate rather than dumped into issue advertising.
Donations must be disclosed electronically within X hours (X being whatever the accountants and IT folks say is reasonable - but in my opinion it should be less than 3 days).
No loans. You either have the money or you do not.
Finally, people keep on making the statement that money buys votes (or some reasonable variation). The closer reality is that money follows its backers. The NRA donates to pro-gun candidates, I am not aware of candidates that have switched their opinion due to an NRA donation.
The article refers to a study he completed. And, yes, I’m well aware of Lott’s problems. But your attack on the man (and where he works) does nothing to refute the content of the study. Of course, considering your propensity towards name calling, I believe that you probably think that simply questioning the intellligence or motives of someone proves your point.
I have provided evidence, you have merely asserted your unsupported opinion.
Please point to where I ever said that about my former boss. I said that we, as staff, had no knowledge of contributors. I’m sure my boss did. I’m also sure that this knowledge never got to us. Since we did a lot of the day-to-day work, drafted the bill language, met with constituents and lobbyists, etc., I’d think that if the world worked as you claimed that type of knowledge would be posted in everyone’s cubicles. After all, since money drives the system, we all were working for the contributors, right?
They are, indeed, the truth. Not that it really matters. But I know that my knowledge of the system is far superior to yours. That is why I am trying to impart some of that knowledge to you, since your views have little resemblance to reality. Unfortunatley it looks like I’m making little headway.
Oh, I forgot, conservative and libertarian ideas only achieve success because a cabal of rich, evil men have bought off the system.
They are merely buying a forum to express their ideas. They are not buying power. Each person only has one vote.
Since you have asserted that people have some sort of right to an “equitable” expression of political views – a “right” which is made up out of whole cloth – you’ll have to forgive me if I decline to take a lesson from you about “rights.”
I’m glad you agree.
You tell me, since that is clearly what you thrive on here. Or am I being too “dense” again?
I dislike Rand, to be frank.
I don’t think inequity is a bad thing. People are different. People will use their god-given talents and intelligence differently. Equality before the law is a good goal; equality in economic outcomes is a recipe for totalitarianism. My view of freedom is that the government should give people as much of it as possible. As to my logic, I find it highly ironic that you think mine is “distorted” considering your track record here.
Not quite. You might have mentioned it, is all. A full disclosure sort of thing. And I made no attack, simply pointed out facts that you were fully aware of, but neglected, in your haste, to mention.
Well, thats very different. I misunderstood.
But, still, I don’t see what that is supposed to prove. OK, you didn’t know who his contributors were. How this equates to a complete innocence of unworthy influence escapes me. Did he purposely keep you in the dark? Couldn’t you have found out if you had wanted to? For that matter, why didn’t you? And, of course, how is your anecdotal evidence to be taken as proof of a much larger thesis? Am I to be stunned and astonished that an honest conservative exists?
Well, of course not, you are simply clubbing me with claims of expertise to support assertions of superior understanding. For that to hold water, you would have to assert further that everyone with your level of experience is in complete agreement with your political stance. Which is, as I’m sure you know, nonsense. There are all manner of politically lefty people with similar experience to your own. And even, dare I suggest, perhaps even superior to yours. Hell, if experience led inexorably to more conservative views, Teddy K would be just the right of Calvin Coolidge.
You want to say childishly dumb things, go right ahead, freak freely. But be so kind as not to pretend you are presenting my views. I can present my own views adequately enough, thanks anyway. Does it give you comfort to try and pretend that my views are that simplistic? You are aware, of course, that these views are not unique to me, that they are widely shared amongst some pretty smart people, who simply don’t agree with you.
Though, now that you mention it, where the hell does the American Enterprise Institute get the money to pay its drivel spouts? Not from me. Not from anybody I know. I never thought to ask.
Peachy. Keeps them off food stamps. But if these views are so self-evidently worthy and right, why should they need to?
Well, either rights are equitable, or they are not equal, no? And the equitable expression of views follows directly from the right to have those views, and the right to express them. Pretty simple really.
Ooooh, snap! Wilde?
In my experience, when someone claims his argument is superior because he himself is superior, it is a tacit recognition that the argument is weak, and must be supported from outside. Otherwise, you wouldn’t need it.
Good for you, because my friend is nuts. Batshit pizza. Deliberately tries to avoid collective pronouns like “we”. Took Anthem waaaaay too seriously, like some people did with Stranger in a Strange Land
So, it is impossible to move towards economic equality without the imposition of totalitarian rule? With all of our intelligence, and our imagination, this cannot be done, and should not be attempted because any such attempt must invariably lead to humanity being crushed beneath the jackboots of liberals. People who can land on the moon can’t cobble together a rough and workable form of economic justice, without imposing some brutal tyranny?
In a word, why? And in two words, sez who? You say these things like they were the Written Truth, eternal and unchanging. In essence, dogma. To which you are welcome, so long as you are willing to accept them for what they are, and don’t try to present them to me as proven facts.
Considering that this how you’ve conducted yourself throughout this thread, I’d say that you certainly have vast expertise with which to make this claim. And considering the lack of actual content in your previous post, I think it’s a good idea to end this “disussion” before it becomes even more childish.
The problem is, you can’t make the rich remain silent. You will drive the money elsewhere, and it will be more difficult to track. The 527s are a perfect example of this. If the rich want to influence voting habits, they can do so any of number of ways besides giving cash to candidates.
Nevertheless, there are many democracies where the rich have significantly less influence on elections than they have in the U.S. CFR is not pointless just because it can’t be 100% effective.