Court Strikes Down Overall Limits On Campaign Contributions

[nehalem256]

This whole "money is speech" routine is an abomination.

Funny, we had a whole thread yesterday where liberals kept insisting that money was speech and therefore it was fine to try and get a guy fired for having made a political donation they don't like 6 years ago

 

[Fern]

-snip-
The Washington Post put together a series of graphs detailing pre and post CU spending on elections. The change is pretty enormous.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/t...citizens-united-changed-politics-in-6-charts/

Here's another take on CU from one of your favorite sources:

Legally speaking, zillionaires were no less able to write fat checks four years ago than they are today.
------------
Even so, the Supreme Court’s ruling really wasn’t the sort of tectonic event that Obama and his allies would have you believe it was. “I’d go so far as to call it a liberal delusion,” Ira Glasser, the former executive director of the A.C.L.U. and a liberal dissenter on Citizens United, told me.
----
Richard L. Hasen, an expert on campaign finance at the University of California at Irvine, recently wrote an article for Slate titled, “The Numbers Don’t Lie,” in which he showed that total outside spending, as measured through March 8 of every election season, seemed to explode after the Citizens United decision, reaching about $15.9 million in 2010 (compared with $1.8 million in the previous midterm cycle) and $88 million this year (compared with $37.5 million at the same point in 2008). “If this was not caused by Citizens United,” he wrote, “we have a mighty big coincidence on our hands.”

But there are alternate ways to interpret this data. The level of outside money increased 164 percent from 2004 to 2008. Then it rose 135 percent from 2008 to 2012. In other words, while the sheer amount of dollars seems considerably more ominous after Citizens United, the percentage of change from one presidential election to the next has remained pretty consistent since the passage of McCain-Feingold. And this suggests that the rising amount of outside money was probably bound to reach ever more staggering levels with or without Citizens United.
---------
According to a brief filed by Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, and Floyd Abrams, the First Amendment lawyer, in a Montana case on which the Supreme Court ruled last month, not a single Fortune 100 company contributed to a candidate’s super PAC during this year’s Republican primaries. Of the $96 million or more raised by these super PACs, only about 13 percent came from privately held corporations, and less than 1 percent came from publicly traded corporations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/m...-the-political-game.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

It's a bit of a long article, I'll try to summarize for those who don't care to read it all:

1. CU has not resulted in an increase of money into politics/campaigning. It was always there.

2. CU made some technical changes to how that money flows. Before CU it flowed through 527's and social welfare orgs, now it flows through Super PACs. (Note: Technically almost all political orgs fall under 527 but there are differences.)

3. Before CU “express advocacy” and “electioneering communications” (60 day rule) were outlawed for 527's, but are now OK for Super PACs. Other than the 60 day rule this doesn't seem to be of any real significance though:

So under the old rules, the Club for Growth couldn’t broadcast an ad that said “Vote Against Barack Obama,” but it could spend that money on as many ads as it wanted that said “Barack Obama has ruined America — call and tell him to stop!” as long as it did so more than 60 days before an election. (The distinction between those two ads may sound silly and arcane to you, but that’s why you don’t sit on the Federal Election Commission.)

4. There's a limit, or point of diminishing returns, to the effectiveness of money in a campaign. Once you have reached the required amount, additional expenditures are likely overkill.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

Funny, we had a whole thread yesterday where liberals kept insisting that money was speech and therefore it was fine to try and get a guy fired for having made a political donation they don't like 6 years ago

WTF are you rambling about?

 

[Incorruptible]

Funny, we had a whole thread yesterday where liberals kept insisting that money was speech and therefore it was fine to try and get a guy fired for having made a political donation they don't like 6 years ago

Gotta love the hypocrisy of liberals and their double standards.

 

[glenn1]

So if we take power away from government, who does it go to? The corporations who are currently buying up the government? What changes? In our society, money has always been power, regardless of whether it's the government, the corporations, the industrialists, whatever. The trick is in getting money out of politics, not getting power out of politics, thus weakening the connection between money and power. There's no push for that to happen because the only people who could implement the change would suffer if it came to pass.

The main government powers are to tax and spend. Reduce the amount they do of both and there would be less reason for those rich people to make such large campaign contributions. If you want to keep handing out taxpayer money, then it's really naive to get mad that you can't maintain airtight control over where and to whom that money flows. Sorry if it offends you that some rich guy might get some of the government cheese instead of going exclusively to laid off union workers and solar power vendors, but that's reality.

 

[theeedude]

The main government powers are to tax and spend. Reduce the amount they do of both and there would be less reason for those rich people to make such large campaign contributions. If you want to keep handing out taxpayer money, then it's really naive to get mad that you can't maintain airtight control over where and to whom that money flows. Sorry if it offends you that some rich guy might get some of the government cheese instead of going exclusively to laid off union workers and solar power vendors, but that's reality.

I don't see how allowing more money in politics will result in less spending and lower taxes for the average American. The people buying these politicians expect a return on their investment. That means both government spending that benefits them and tax breaks that benefit them. Who is going to make up the difference? Surely not them.

 

[PokerGuy]

So if we take power away from government, who does it go to?

It should be with the people, the way originally designed under the constitution. Obviously there will always be government and government power, but the smaller the scope of government, the smaller the problems of money corrupting the political process.

The trick is in getting money out of politics, not getting power out of politics, thus weakening the connection between money and power. There's no push for that to happen because the only people who could implement the change would suffer if it came to pass.

If there is power, then there will be money pursuing it. The notion that you can get money out of politics and power is naive at best. That can never happen. You can't stop money from pursuing power, and you can't stop power from pursuing money.

 

[glenn1]

I don't see how allowing more money in politics will result in less spending and lower taxes for the average American. The people buying these politicians expect a return on their investment. That means both government spending that benefits them and tax breaks that benefit them. Who is going to make up the difference? Surely not them.

You're thinking of the cause and effect backwards, rethink it through. You're correct that more money in politics won't lead to less spending and lower taxes. But less spending/lower taxes would result in less money in politics because then there is less influence worth buying for those contributions. Sure, some big money donors might still give to politicians because they believe in American principles such as Momma and apple pie, but most give because they want a monetary return on their "investment" and less spending reduces the possibility for a return.

 

[Pens1566]

Oh look! The leftist is upset because I oppose him. This is a good ruling because it protects freedom of speech and it's a big screw you to you and your ilk.

He's not upset because you "oppose" him. He's upset because you're a moron.

 

[schmuckley]

I wonder how fast they'd strike down mandatory bribery prosecution.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

It should be with the people, the way originally designed under the constitution. Obviously there will always be government and government power, but the smaller the scope of government, the smaller the problems of money corrupting the political process.

But how do we ensure that the power remains with the people and not with corporations or the mega-wealthy? We went with a system of limited government for a century after the founding of this country, and we ended up with the robber baron industrialists who employed children, made people work 16 hour days, didn't pay a living wage, crushed unions, killed striking workers and let employees get mauled or die rather than installing basic safety precautions, all in the name of personal profit and the worst income inequality our country has ever seen. Do you really want to go back to that?

Incidentally, the way that people were given power in the Constitution is through their control of the government. Intentionally weakening the government takes power away from the greater populace and leads to a situation where the people who control the money/resources control everyone. That's not an improvement.

 

[Incorruptible]

He's not upset because you "oppose" him. He's upset because you're a moron.

Resorting to insults as usual, not surprised at all.

 

[Pens1566]

Resorting to insults as usual, not surprised at all.

There's no point having a rational, intelligent, informed discussion with you because you're none of the 3.

 

[Incorruptible]

There's no point having a rational, intelligent, informed discussion with you because you're none of the 3.

Keep resorting to insults, it's all you do.

 

[Bowfinger]

There's no point having a rational, intelligent, informed discussion with you because you're none of the 3.

That is exactly why you should stop responding to it. Over 9,000 posts, and not one hint of intelligence or reasoned thought in any of them. It is barely more than a troll script, plopping out a steady stream of useless turds copied from a small set of nutter bumper stickers ... plus random personal attacks, of course.

I'm not sure why it's still here, tainting Anand's forums, but it is. All we can do is stop helping it. By responding to it you double its ability to drown out signal with noise. Silence the noise by ignoring it. Kill the troll by not feeding it. Deny it the spotlight it craves.

 

[Pens1566]

Keep resorting to insults, it's all you do.

Maybe that's all you see since your comprehension skills are obviously lacking above a middle school level (yes that was an insult). But again, you really don't deserve any better.

Here's an idea, start a poll thread asking who contributes the least to this forum between yourself and me. I'll bet my account that you receive the overwhelming # of votes.

 

[nehalem256]

WTF are you rambling about?

So I take you missed the people wanting the Mozilla CEO fired for making a Prop 8 contribution 6 years ago.

And all the liberals screaming about how people have the right to free speech, but they can still be held accountable for exercising it

 

[Bowfinger]

It's not about Congress. It's about all of the thousands of other local races where $2600 is a substantial amount, maybe more than anybody ever spent to gain that office.

This decision amplifies the power of wealth enormously in that regard, as I pointed out earlier. 10,000 candidates- $26M. Chump change for the financial elite.

At the state & local level, the right wing nut cases will likely be crawling out of the woodwork.

At least donors have to put their name on it, unlike the other money laundering methods commonly employed.

As I understand this ruling, it only applies to federal elections.

 

[Fern]

As I understand this ruling, it only applies to federal elections.

Interesting.

Fern

 

[Incorruptible]

So I take you missed the people wanting the Mozilla CEO fired for making a Prop 8 contribution 6 years ago.

And all the liberals screaming about how people have the right to free speech, but they can still be held accountable for exercising it

He's a hypocrite and hack, don't expect anything of substance from him.

 

[Pens1566]

So I take you missed the people wanting the Mozilla CEO fired for making a Prop 8 contribution 6 years ago.

And all the liberals screaming about how people have the right to free speech, but they can still be held accountable for exercising it

You have no idea or understanding of the concept of "free speech".

 

[thraashman]

So I take you missed the people wanting the Mozilla CEO fired for making a Prop 8 contribution 6 years ago.

And all the liberals screaming about how people have the right to free speech, but they can still be held accountable for exercising it

A donation is an action. The Mozilla CEO actively worked towards the destruction of equal rights of the LGBT community. That is not speech, that is action. Money is not speech but a donation of money to a cause that is specifically aiming to destroy civil rights is an evil action. I have trouble believing anyone could be as remarkably stupid as you.

Keep resorting to insults, it's all you do.

We have a yearly ownage of the year, if we start an "ironic post of the year" tradition, I'd like to nominate this post.

 

[TerryMathews]

A donation is an action. The Mozilla CEO actively worked towards the destruction of equal rights of the LGBT community. That is not speech, that is action. Money is not speech but a donation of money to a cause that is specifically aiming to destroy civil rights is an evil action. I have trouble believing anyone could be as remarkably stupid as you.



We have a yearly ownage of the year, if we start an "ironic post of the year" tradition, I'd like to nominate this post.

Legally, precedent disagrees with you. SCOTUS has been clear: political contributions are speech.

Which means he was dismissed for exercising his right to free speech. Keep in mind, that's a two-way street. For every anti-LGBTer employed in Cali, there's going to be another pro-LGBTer employed by a conservative in Texas. Will be interesting to see if you pro-dismissal people feel the same when the situation is reversed.

 

[nehalem256]

A donation is an action. The Mozilla CEO actively worked towards the destruction of equal rights of the LGBT community. That is not speech, that is action. Money is not speech but a donation of money to a cause that is specifically aiming to destroy civil rights is an evil action. I have trouble believing anyone could be as remarkably stupid as you.

So I take it you missed the liberals in the other thread claiming that his donation was speech right?^_^

 

[Atreus21]

My dad linked me to this yesterday. I didn't know the Volokh Conspiracy wrote on WaPo.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...sent-in-mccutcheon-the-campaign-finance-case/

2nd half of the article:

Thus, Justice Breyer, writes, “Consider at least one reason why the First Amendment protects political speech. Speech does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, political communication seeks to secure government action. A politically oriented ‘marketplace of ideas’ seeks to form a public opinion that can and will influence elected representatives.” Just to make sure he’s not being too subtle, Breyer goes back to the source, Justice Brandeis, citing his opinion in Whitney for the proposition that freedom of speech is protected because it’s ”essential to effective democracy.”
Further showing off his affinity for the Progressive statism of a century ago (noted by Josh Blackman and me here), Breyer turns constitutional history on its head, by declaring that the purpose of the First Amendment was not to prevent government abuses, but to ensure ”public opinion could be channeled into effective governmental action.” As Tim Sandefur points out, “Actually, the framers devised the constitutional structure to prevent public opinion from being channeled into effective government action. One cannot honestly read The Federalist without understanding that the system was designed in order to ensure that public opinion would only be translated into government action when it had been sufficiently challenged, weighed, and considered for its correspondence to principles of justice.”

In any event, Breyer adds that “corruption,” by which he means individuals engaging in too much freedom of speech via campaign donations, ”derails the essential speech-to-government-action tie. Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard. Insofar as corruption cuts the link between political thought and political action, a free marketplace of political ideas loses its point.”

The danger of this argument is that analogous reasoning could be used to censor major media corporations such as the New York Times, Hollywood, and so on, to wit: ”When Hollywood spends billions of dollars each year advancing a liberal agenda, the general public will not be heard. Instead of a free marketplace of ideas, we get a marketplace in which major Hollywood moguls have hundreds of thousands of times the ‘speech power’ of the average American.” And given that almost everyone deems it appropriate to regulate the economic marketplace to counter inefficiencies and unfairness, why should the much-less-efficient (because it’s much more costly for an individual to make an error in his economic life than to have a mistaken ideology) marketplace of ideas be exempt from harsh regulation?

In short, once one adopts the Progressive view of freedom of speech as only going so far as to protect the public interest in a well-functioning marketplace of ideas, there is no obvious reason to limit reduced scrutiny of government “public interest” regulation of speech to campaign finance regulations. Nor is it obvious why the Court should give strict scrutiny to speech restrictions that don’t directly affect the marketplace of ideas, instead of just using a malleable test balancing “speech interests” versus other interests.
Not surprisingly, then, Breyer is the Justice who is least inclined to protect freedom of speech in a variety of contexts. And it’s troubling that his three liberal colleagues joined his opinion today. Josh Blackman and I wrote three years ago, “Breyer’s apparent ascendance as doyen of the Court’s liberal wing threatens to roll back decades of pro-liberty precedents, and to destroy the consensus on the Court that freedom of speech and other essential rights must not be sacrificed to the shifting whims of legislative majorities.” I hope to be a failed prophet.

EDIT: Shit. Get it while it's hot. Per wikipedia, after June 2014, Volokh Conspiracy content will be behind a paywall.