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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Straight out of the Gospel According to Bricker. With all due awe, sez who?
It isn’t going the be me who makes the decision. Us. Just like I said.
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.
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?
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…
Aw, c’mon! Seriously? Is this what you’re reduced to?
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.
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 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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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)?
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?
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.