Supreme Court [declines to hear] same sex marriage cases.[plus further developments (Ed.)]

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Terr

Only if you can show, for a certainty, that spending more money past a certain (significant, to be sure) amount gives you a big advantage. There us a saturation point after which more money provides very much diminishing returns. If that is so, then no, unlimited money in campaigns does not destroy any premises of a democracy.

The proof is that people do donate millions.

It is more than getting their guy/gal to win. Wall Street often donates substantially to both candidates in a presidential election.

They would not do so if it was worthless to do it. Clearly they do it because there is a quid pro quo at work. They dance around it because it is not explicit.

Edit: There is also the case that if you cannot drum up substantial monetary support you cannot even begin to compete. Does your study consider the people who never tried to run because they had nowhere near sufficient financial support?

[wonky]

@Whack-a-Mole

They would not do so if it was worthless to do it.

We-ell, I’m not sure you can make this statement considering the state of politics in this country. Seems like lots of people do incredibly stupid and worthless things all the time and get nothing for it.

For example, look at the donors to most of the 2012 Republican clown car.

[Terr]

@Whack-a-Mole

Edit: There is also the case that if you cannot drum up substantial monetary support you cannot even begin to compete. Does your study consider the people who never tried to run because they had nowhere near sufficient financial support?

As I said, there is a point PAST which you get greatly diminished returns. You definitely need to get TO that point in order to have a chance. But that point is not that high.

That is why when I hear that Hillary is going to spend $2B on the campaign, that doesn’t bother me. I mean, it’s great economic boon to advertising companies, TV/cable stations and other media, but in terms of helping her electorally, I am sure $1B would do just as much.

I mean come on - Meg Whitman outspent Jerry Brown by $100M to $3M or so. Didn’t help her a bit. If she spent $20M the results would have been almost exactly the same.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@jsgoddess

We-ell, I’m not sure you can make this statement considering the state of politics in this country. Seems like lots of people do incredibly stupid and worthless things all the time and get nothing for it.

For example, look at the donors to most of the 2012 Republican clown car.

Clown car though it may be they will get 40% or more of the vote just for showing up.

The money people are not in the habit of squandering money. They do it because they get a great return.

Look at the numbers. $3.24 billion was spent on lobbying in 2014 (do the math on that…consider how much that is per congresscritter). Do you really think that money was squandered by idiots with no clue or do you think it was an investment that paid off for the people spending the money?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Terr

As I said, there is a point PAST which you get greatly diminished returns. You definitely need to get TO that point in order to have a chance. But that point is not that high.

That is why when I hear that Hillary is going to spend $2B on the campaign, that doesn’t bother me. I mean, it’s great economic boon to advertising companies, TV/cable stations and other media, but in terms of helping her electorally, I am sure $1B would do just as much.

I mean come on - Meg Whitman outspent Jerry Brown by $100M to $3M or so. Didn’t help her a bit. If she spent $20M the results would have been almost exactly the same.

The plural of anecdote is data:

91% of the time the better-financed candidate wins. Don’t act surprised.

From that link:

• Candidates who out-fundraised their opponents were nine times more likely to win elections in 2012.

• Winning congressional candidates outspent their opponents by about 20 to 1.

• Winning candidates on average spent $2.3 million. Losing candidates, on average, spent $1.1 million.

[Terr]

@Whack-a-Mole

The plural of anecdote is data:

91% of the time the better-financed candidate wins. Don’t act surprised.

That doesn’t prove anything. In fact, it is not even an indication of anything. Correlation does not equal causation. Better/more electable candidates may have much easier time fund-raising. Incumbents may have much easier time fund-raising. Etc.

Levitt’s study actually tried to find causation. And did find it - but the effect or the money was very marginal.

[wonky]

@Whack-a-Mole

The plural of anecdote is data:

91% of the time the better-financed candidate wins. Don’t act surprised.

From that link:

Isn’t there a correlation problem with that stat?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Terr

That doesn’t prove anything. In fact, it is not even an indication of anything.

Huh?

It is right there…the better funded candidate wins more often than the less well funded candidate.

More to the point, if you were running for office, would you want to be better funded or less well funded than your opponent?

As you note you need at least some minimum and you will seek that out. That in itself means you are compromised.

Are you seriously suggesting that money in our elections is largely meaningless? Past some (relatively) minor amount it is meaningless?

:: Terr Campaign Headquarters ::

Campaign Manager: Terr! Our opponent is outspending us!

Terr: Don’t worry about it. It means nothing. Who needs money? We’ll be fine.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@jsgoddess

Isn’t there a correlation problem with that stat?

It sure seems telling.

You have to come up with other reasons that the people with the most money win 91% of the time.

Correlation is not causation but it can certainly be telling.

Put it this way:

If you were betting your own money on elections and you saw that stat who would you put your money on?

[Terr]

@Whack-a-Mole

Huh?

It is right there…the better funded candidate wins more often than the less well funded candidate.

Again, correlation does not equal causation. Do you understand what that means?

Hey, it is right there - if you drink milk, you will eventually die. Will you stop drinking milk?

Are you seriously suggesting that money in our elections is largely meaningless? Past some (relatively) minor amount it is meaningless?

Not meaningless, but very marginal. Did you look at the Leavitt’s study I cited?

[wonky]

@Whack-a-Mole

It sure seems telling.

You have to come up with other reasons that the people with the most money win 91% of the time.

Because more people are giving money because they like them more was the first thing I thought of.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Terr

Again, correlation does not equal causation. Do you understand what that means?

Hey, it is right there - if you drink milk, you will eventually die. Will you stop drinking milk?
Not meaningless, but very marginal. Did you look at the Leavitt’s study I cited?

Everyone who consumes strychnine don’t die either but many do.

But hey, correlation does not equal causation so why not eat some strychnine right? :smack:

Leavitt’s study does not trump reality which is politicians spend an extraordinary amount of their time trying to raise money and the effect that money has on our politics. Nor does it answer the fact that the politicians who spend the most win the most.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@jsgoddess

Because more people are giving money because they like them more was the first thing I thought of.

Nice. Naive but nice.

A few dozen wealthy individuals account for nearly a third of all super PAC donations

EDIT:

How 31,385 people fund national elections

Everyone knows that a relatively small number of wealthy people donate the lion’s share of money to political campaigns. But, you probably never suspected just how small that group actually is.
Thanks to the amazing Sunlight Foundation, we now know that just 31,385 people – one tenth of one percent of the overall U.S. population – are responsible for nearly 30 percent of the $6 billion (yes, billion with a “b”) contributed to federal campaigns and committees in the 2012 election.

SOURCE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/06/28/how-31385-people-fund-national-elections/

[wonky]

@Whack-a-Mole

Nice. Naive but nice.

A few dozen wealthy individuals account for nearly a third of all super PAC donations

I give more to causes where I like them more. Why is it naive to think that might be the same for politicians?

Why wouldn’t it be likely that someone would take in both more money and more votes from being more popular?

You are saying it’s automatic that money makes them popular. I am saying it seems likely that popular makes them money.

[Terr]

@Whack-a-Mole

Leavitt’s study does not trump reality

“Reality” as you see it. Not “reality” as it actually is.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

All the campaign finance discussion probably ought to go in a different thread. Let’s focus on the SSM case now before SCOTUS, please.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@jsgoddess

I give more to causes where I like them more. Why is it naive to think that might be the same for politicians?

Why wouldn’t it be likely that someone would take in both more money and more votes from being more popular?

You are saying it’s automatic that money makes them popular. I am saying it seems likely that popular makes them money.

The money you give is a pittance.

If Warren Buffet or David Koch calls someone in congress I am willing to bet the phone gets answered by the congresscritter.

If you call I am willing to bet your $100 donation doesn’t get your rep on the phone. You get a person in some phone bank.

[Terr]

@Elendil_s_Heir

All the campaign finance discussion probably ought to go in a different thread. Let’s focus on the SSM case now before SCOTUS, please.

You’re right. Sorry. Done.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I don’t plan on participating in the hijack any further, but I feel compelled to point out that Terr absolutely won that argument.

[John_Mace]

@Whack-a-Mole

No constitutional right is without limitations.

ALL of our rights are circumscribed. When the state can show a legitimate concern the courts let the state limit our freedoms.

We are well used to it. The right to bear arms does not mean you can own a nuke. The right to free speech does not mean you can slander/libel or yell “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

Limits on campaign finance can easily fall into this category. The downside of unlimited money in campaigns is self evident. It destroys the very premise of a democracy. One person, one vote becomes one person with the most money and the rest can go pound sand. We can see it happening now and it is no surprise to anyone including the justices who allowed it.

Just one note before we end this hijack. You do realize, don’t you, that CU left in tact the amount of money that can be contributed to campaigns. You do realize that the issue under review was whether the state could limit the release of a certain movie because it was about a candidate. CU says that the state cannot limit the amount of money people spend on advocating for causes. And no: “it’s self evident” isn’t an argument that is going to stand up in court. Let me quote from the wikidpedia article, which dispels many of the myths surrounding the decision:

This ruling was frequently characterized as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns,[24] or as removing limits on how much a donor can contribute to a campaign.[25] However, these claims are incorrect, as the ruling did not affect the 1907 Tillman Act’s ban on corporate campaign donations (as the Court noted explicitly in its decision[26]), nor the prohibition on foreign corporate donations to American campaigns,[27] nor did it concern campaign contribution limits.[28] The Citizens United decision did not disturb prohibitions on corporate contributions to candidates, and it did not address whether the government could regulate contributions to groups that make independent expenditures.[22] The Citizens United ruling did however remove the previous ban on corporations and organizations using their treasury funds for direct advocacy. These groups were freed to expressly endorse or call to vote for or against specific candidates, actions that were previously prohibited.[29] The ruling is also often incorrectly characterized as creating the idea that corporations may exercise speech rights, and that “corporations are people.” Both notions are also incorrect.

<snip>

The question in Citizens United was simply whether the First Amendment protected the rights of corporations to engage in a particular form of corporate speech.

An argument that would make sense is if there were only X amount of speech available and it was possible for a minority to acquire rights to 80% of X (or some large amount of X).

OK, now how about those Same Sex Marriages? I doubt that any of the folks here arguing against CU would mind if every corporation in the US put out an add in favor of SSM.