# The FEC throws up its hands and surrenders **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 3, 2015, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156 "2015-05-03T16:42:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2015, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/101 "2015-05-18T18:07:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Now, if we’re talking about a situation where there is a _quid pro quo_ from our elected officials tied to money spent, then I think we have something where we can agree that action needs to be taken. What about the following situation? Koch runs into Bush at the Iowa state fair and they get to talking about this and that, ending with Koch telling Bush how much he admires him for his pro business stance. Three months later Koch PAC blankets the airwaves with ads pointing out that if Hillary is elected we will all become communists. Two months after he’s elected, Bush is visited by a Koch lobbyist and mentions that what would really be pro business would be to reduce the EPA requirements safe water restrictions that are stifling the job creators (and also as it happens reducing Koch profits). One month later EPA announces that based on a cost benefit analysis, the levels of allowable arsenic in factory runoff will be increased to a level that by happenstance allows all of Koch’s paper plants to be in compliance, and saving the Koch’s $50,000,000 Is this a quid pro quo? What action should be taken? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2015, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/102 "2015-05-18T18:25:53Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Is this a quid pro quo? What action should be taken? Who knows? It’s your scenario - why don’t you suggest the principled position on how you think that should be handled in a way that doesn’t limit speech. Remember, money counts as speech. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2015, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/103 "2015-05-18T18:26:49Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > What about the following situation? > > Koch runs into Bush at the Iowa state fair and they get to talking about this and that, ending with Koch telling Bush how much he admires him for his pro business stance. > > Three months later Koch PAC blankets the airwaves with ads pointing out that if Hillary is elected we will all become communists. > > Two months after he’s elected, Bush is visited by a Koch lobbyist and mentions that what would really be pro business would be to reduce the EPA requirements safe water restrictions that are stifling the job creators (and also as it happens reducing Koch profits). > > One month later EPA announces that based on a cost benefit analysis, the levels of allowable arsenic in factory runoff will be increased to a level that by happenstance allows all of Koch’s paper plants to be in compliance, and saving the Koch’s $50,000,000 > > Is this a quid pro quo? What action should be taken? Hows about we forbid PACs from coordinating their activities with specific political campaigns? If they do, then throw the book at them!! Oh wait, we already do that! So, we’re good then, right? Additionally, we have Congressional oversight of the EPA, so there is a check there to make sure that lobbying groups don’t do what happens in your hypothetical. There’s also the issue, raised by the article linked to in the OP, that the FEC is at a political stalemate because it’s made up of 3 Ds and 3 Rs. Seems to me this should be something set up and run as an independent institution. The problem I have with limiting money instead of enforcing existing laws is that it presupposes that all expenditures of money will result in illegal activity down the road. It’s like forbidding people from entering banks as a way of preventing bank robberies. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2015, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/104 "2015-05-18T18:57:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That’s not what I said. I said you don’t get to subvert (override is probably a better term) a right simply because some good can be achieved by doing so. Yes, we override rights all the time, but only when there is a legitimate government interest in doing so… Political equality, justice. Legit. Totally. You may say, if you like, that a proposal will not meet those ends, but not that they are not legitimate. Actually, you could, of course, but I doubt you will, you will just keep hectoring for details as if that proves something. > [@](#): > > …I don’t know how effective it is. I trust people to make up their own minds. I wonder how many people on this MB would say that they are swayed in their beliefs by what they hear from the Koch Brothers. I’m not. Are you?.. _They_ certainly seem to think it is effective. I would be pleased to think that it isn’t so, but I don’t think that. And I am swayed by what I hear about their beliefs, every time I hear more, the less I like it. > [@](#): > > …Also, I’m going to ask once again that we differentiate between campaign contributions and political speech. CU did not change the amount of money that can be contributed to political campaigns. It doesn’t serve the purpose of honest debate to conflate the two… Have you been keeping up with the super PACs? Like, how Jeb Bush wants to turn over the bulk of his campaign to this Right to Rise PAC. Which will, of course, not ever in the least bit coordinate with his campaign, because that would be wrong. Are _you_ buying that fairy tale? > [@](#): > > …Doesn’t work that way. You want to limit a right, you have to prove that there is a legitimate government interest in doing so… Straight out of the Gospel According to **Bricker**. With all due awe, sez who? > [@](#): > > …No, this is an issue of rights, so it’ll be decided by the courts, not the legislature. You’re Justice Kennedy, casting the decide vote. How much money can people spend? Or, if that doesn’t suite your taste, what is your own personal opinion on the subject? How much do you think we should allow people to spend?.. It isn’t going the be me who makes the decision. Us. Just like I said. > [@](#): > > …It was always thus and always will be thus… In the words of political theorist Sportin’ Life, it ain’t necessarily so. It may well be true that injustice and oppression always has been, but I’m going to fix it. With your help, of course. Wouldn’t be right not to let you have some of the fun. > [@](#): > > …The political power that we posses is in the vote we can cast. We can try and persuade others to vote as we want them to, but that is not a source of political power. Now, if we’re talking about a situation where there is a _quid pro quo_ from our elected officials tied to money spent, then I think we have something where we can agree that action needs to be taken… But at this juncture, that is implicit. The money guys know who has their best interests at heart, who is most concerned with creating a healthy environment for business. Who is most likely to keep union thugs and tree-hugging hippies at bay. Seriously, **John** , you don’t already know this? > [@](#): > > …But just because person A is able or willing to engage in more speech than person B does not mean that person A has more “political power”… Well, the guys throwing the megabucks in sure seem to think so. They’re wrong? Wonderful news! Got anything behind that, it would be a cite for sore eyes… > [@](#): > > …The only way we could equalize that would be to ensure that no single person spends more money on speech than the poorest person in the country is able to. Aw, c’mon! Seriously? Is this what you’re reduced to? ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2015, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/105 "2015-05-18T19:03:57Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Who knows? It’s your scenario - why don’t you suggest the principled position on how you think that should be handled in a way that doesn’t limit speech. Remember, money counts as speech. However as suggested above I see prevention of bribery as sufficiently in the public interest enough to limit the degree to which Koch can blanket the airwaves with their message about a specific candidate. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s like forbidding people from entering banks as a way of preventing bank robberies. Or perhaps prevent people who are brandishing weapons from entering the bank, despite the fact that doing so may limit their second amendment rights. IF someone enters the bank brandishing weapon there is a good chance that he has the intention of robbing the place. Just like if someone spends millions of dollars on a PAC in favor of a candidate he there is a good chance he does so with the expectation that this will make the candidate look on them more favorably in the future. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2015, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/106 "2015-05-18T19:04:28Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > …Have you been keeping up with the super PACs? Like, how Jeb Bush wants to turn over the bulk of his campaign to this Right to Rise PAC. Which will, of course, not ever in the least bit coordinate with his campaign, because that would be wrong. Are _you_ buying that fairy tale?.. Cite: [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/us/politics/super-pacs-are-remaking-16-campaigns-official-or-not.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/us/politics/super-pacs-are-remaking-16-campaigns-official-or-not.html) > [@](#): > > …Jeb Bush has hired a campaign manager, press aides and fund-raisers — yet insists he is not running for president, just exploring the possibility of maybe running. > > And Senator Marco Rubio’s chance of winning his party’s nomination may hinge on the support of an “independent” group financed by a billionaire who has bankrolled Mr. Rubio’s past campaigns, paid his salary teaching at a university and employed his wife. > > With striking speed, the 2016 contenders are exploiting loopholes and regulatory gray areas to transform the way presidential campaigns are organized and paid for… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2015, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/107 "2015-05-18T19:07:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Hows about we forbid PACs from coordinating their activities with specific political campaigns? If they do, then throw the book at them!! > > Oh wait, we already do that! So, we’re good then, right? … See above. TL;DR: No. We are not. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2015, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/108 "2015-05-18T19:18:32Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Just like if someone spends millions of dollars on a PAC in favor of a candidate he there is a good chance he does so with the expectation that this will make the candidate look on them more favorably in the future. It couldn’t possibly be that they agree with the candidate’s positions and are in favor of implementing them? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2015, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/109 "2015-05-18T20:00:49Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > However as suggested above I see prevention of bribery as sufficiently in the public interest enough to limit the degree to which Koch can blanket the airwaves with their message about a specific candidate. What is the limit? ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2015, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/110 "2015-05-18T20:16:04Z")
It’s very interesting that the same people swear up and down that the historically disastrous Russia policy adopted during Hillary Clinton’s stewardship of the State Department has absolutely nothing to do with the Russian donors to the Clinton Foundation, but allowing people to buy ads saying “here is my opinion about coal mining” will corrupt American democracy beyond repair. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2015, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/111 "2015-05-18T20:25:55Z")
Name one. Just one, a person who swears “… up and down that the historically disastrous Russia policy adopted during Hillary Clinton’s stewardship of the State Department has absolutely nothing to do with the Russian donors to the Clinton Foundation…” and also says “…allowing people to buy ads saying “here is my opinion about coal mining” will corrupt American democracy beyond repair”. Just one. Double dog dare you. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2015, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/112 "2015-05-18T20:40:04Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > However as suggested above I see prevention of bribery as sufficiently in the public interest enough to limit the degree to which Koch can blanket the airwaves with their message about a specific candidate. The mere fact that someone wants to exercise their right to free speech, even if they want to exercise it A LOT, is not a de facto indication that they are trying to bribe someone. Also, you anti-speech folks would be better served if you didn’t ALWAYS point to someone that you disagree with when you throw out examples of speech that needs to be limited. > [@](#): > > Or perhaps prevent people who are brandishing weapons from entering the bank, despite the fact that doing so may limit their second amendment rights. IF someone enters the bank brandishing weapon there is a good chance that he has the intention of robbing the place. Just like if someone spends millions of dollars on a PAC in favor of a candidate he there is a good chance he does so with the expectation that this will make the candidate look on them more favorably in the future. It’s already illegal to open a PAC in favor of a candidate. But I can’t accept your analogy of equating free speech to “brandishing a weapon”. No, not everyone who wants to shout his political thoughts to the rooftops is a likely briber. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2015, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/113 "2015-05-18T20:44:17Z")
**Elucidator** : I want to cut through all the nonsense and get down to brass tacks. Let’s bring this discussion down to specifics. What is the limit that should be put on money spent for political speech? My proposal: No limit. Your proposal: ?? Pony up here. We all know that your proposal has no weight to rule the day, but we’d like to know what the limit is going to be if there is going to be a limit. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2015, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/114 "2015-05-18T21:04:02Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > What is the limit? It should be some amount less than would make an individual’s contribution be likely to heavily influence a legislator’s vote. $3,000 per individual per year sounds reasonable. I admit that I don’t have a piece of legislation with all the loopholes closed sitting on my desk, and there should be something carved out to distinguish legitimate news and media from campaigning. Even though I recognize it as the media arm of the Republican party, I don’t want to shut down Fox news, and in fact i would have been in favor of a narrow ruling in Citizens United that allowed the movie to stand but didn’t demolish all campaign finance reform. I want all sides to be able to get their message out, I just don’t like the current system where the only way to get elected is to put yourself in the pocket of big donors. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2015, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/115 "2015-05-18T21:08:00Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > It should be some amount less than would make an individual’s contribution be likely to heavily influence a legislator’s vote. $3,000 per individual per year sounds reasonable. Does that apply to newspapers and periodicals? And just to be clear, does that mean that I can’t spend more than $3,000 advocating for political causes each year? This is all inclusive (ie, including travel expenses)? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2015, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/116 "2015-05-18T21:15:22Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > I don’t want to shut down Fox news, and in fact i would have been in favor of a narrow ruling in Citizens United that allowed the movie to stand but didn’t demolish all campaign finance reform. CU did NOT abolish all campaign finance reform. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2015, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/117 "2015-05-18T21:18:08Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The mere fact that someone wants to exercise their right to free speech, even if they want to exercise it A LOT, is not a de facto indication that they are trying to bribe someone. Also, you anti-speech folks would be better served if you didn’t ALWAYS point to someone that you disagree with when you throw out examples of speech that needs to be limited. > > It’s already illegal to open a PAC in favor of a candidate. But I can’t accept your analogy of equating free speech to “brandishing a weapon”. No, not everyone who wants to shout his political thoughts to the rooftops is a likely briber. You’re okay with not being able to hire ten thousand people with ten thousand microphones and have them scream negative ads all night in residential areas, right? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2015, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/118 "2015-05-18T21:23:12Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > You’re okay with not being able to hire ten thousand people with ten thousand microphones and have them scream negative ads all night in residential areas, right? Yes, because there is a legitimate government interest in allowing people to sleep. The right to free speech has never meant you can say anything, anywhere at any time. If I’m mistaken about that, I’d love to be corrected. **Buck Godot** : BTW, thank-you for having the balls to put your proposal out there! ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2015, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/119 "2015-05-18T21:26:52Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Also, you anti-speech folks would be better served if you didn’t ALWAYS point to someone that you disagree with when you throw out examples of speech that needs to be limited. OK, change Bush to Clinton, Koch to Soros and EPA to trade negotiations, I’ll still sign off on it. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s already illegal to open a PAC in favor of a candidate. and yet everyone knows that [“Priorities USA Action”, is Clinton’s PAC, “Right to Rise” is Bush’s PAC, “America’s Liberty PAC” is the PAC for Rand Paul, etc.](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/17/us/elections/2016-presidential-campaigns-staff-connections-clinton-bush-cruz-paul-rubio-walker.html) > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Does that apply to newspapers and periodicals? > > And just to be clear, does that mean that I can’t spend more than $3,000 advocating for political causes each year? This is all inclusive (ie, including travel expenses)? See the rest of my post > [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > I admit that I don’t have a piece of legislation with all the loopholes closed sitting on my desk, and there should be something carved out to distinguish legitimate news and media from campaigning. Even though I recognize it as the media arm of the Republican party, I don’t want to shut down Fox news, and in fact i would have been in favor of a narrow ruling in Citizens United that allowed the movie to stand but didn’t demolish all campaign finance reform. I want all sides to be able to get their message out, I just don’t like the current system where the only way to get elected is to put yourself in the pocket of big donors. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2015, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/120 "2015-05-18T21:37:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > CU did NOT abolish all campaign finance reform. I said demolish not abolish. Yes there are still some campaign finance rules, but they have been made effectively irrelevant in terms of preventing corruption, with the new avenues that they opened up. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156.md?page=7)