Obama: Mandatory voting to counteract BIG money

[Fern]

Your so-called "proof" is intentionally misleading, and has been refuted. There are plenty of ways to funnel money to support a politician besides direct campaign contributions. While such backdoor support used to be sharply limited, Citizens United blew that door off its hinges. Claiming it "hasn't really changed anything" is shamelessly dishonest.

My post above makes clear that I wasn't limiting it to "direct campaign contributions".

The Wiki piece demonstrates nothing has really changed.

Fern

 

[MongGrel]

Seems like it would be pretty easy to do really, and anyway you could simply structure it to be 'incentivized' voting vs. mandatory voting. Like give people a $25 credit or something for doing so.

I don't really buy the 'removes freedom' argument either. I mean we force people to do things all the time like jury duty, which is a way larger imposition than voting.

Regardless, Australia seems to pull it off just fine.

Yeah I seem to get jury duty pretty regularly these days, is just something you do every few years for some I guess.

Even was called to Federal Court for one last year for the first time.

 

[fskimospy]

I just find it funny how conservatives freak out at the idea that everyone in America might vote. This is particularly funny considering their ideas of the agency of an individual.

 

[Fern]

More on Citizens United:

Five years ago Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, striking down limits on independent political spending. Probably the most misunderstood case in modern legal history, Citizens United simply doesn't stand for what many people say it does.

Presidential mistakes

These laments echo President Obama's famous statement during his 2010 State of the Union Address: "The Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates of special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections."

In that one sentence, the former law professor made four errors that are all too common.

First, Citizens United didn't reverse a century of law. The president was referring to the Tillman Act of 1907, which banned corporate donations to campaigns. Such donations are still banned. Instead, the decision overturned a 1990 precedent that upheld a ban on independent spending by corporations. That 1990 ruling was the only time the court allowed a restriction on political speech for a reason other than the need to prevent corruption.

Second, the "floodgates" point depends on how you define those terms. In modern times, nearly every election cycle has seen an increase in political spending, but there's no indication that there's a significant change in corporate spending. And the rules affecting independent spending by wealthy individuals, who are spending more, haven't changed at all.

Third, Citizens United said nothing about restrictions on foreign spending in our political campaigns. In 2012, the Supreme Court summarily upheld just such restrictions.

Fourth, while independent spending on elections now has few limits, candidates and parties aren't so lucky. Even last year's decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, which struck down aggregate — not per-candidate — contribution limits, only affected the relatively few bigwigs (about 600 in the 2012 cycle) who had hit the $123,200 cap. The amount that an individual can give to a single campaign remains untouched.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...e-speech-anniversary-critics-column/22076597/

Crying about CU is Liberal FUD.

Fern

 

[highland145]

I just find it funny how conservatives freak out at the idea that everyone in America might vote. This is particularly funny considering their ideas of the agency of an individual.

But if the right was going to get a ~7% increase in mandatory turnout, would you still find it amusing?



Thanks, Fern for your info.

 

[Bowfinger]

Contrary to Liberals' claims, CU hasn't really changed anything:

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. The Supreme Court has recognized that corporations, as associations of people, may exercise many of the rights of natural persons at least since Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819, and has recognized that corporations are protected under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment since Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railway was decided in 1886. First Amendment protection for corporate speech has also been recognized since at least Valentine v. Christenson (1942), and in the realm of campaign finance since at least First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978). 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Publicly held corporations aren't contributing. Political campaign spending hasn't grown anymore than it has in prior years.

Much ado about nothing.

Fern

Rather than having you continually shifting your claims and conflating different issues to muddy them, let's start with this post. You start by claiming "CU hasn't really changed anything" -- your words. They are false. Citizens United had a huge impact on deep pocket spending on indirect campaign support. That is a fact, as I will document shortly.

To try to justify your claim, you then quote part of a Wikipedia piece explaining what CU does and does not do. Naturally, you focus on CU misconceptions, conflating direct campaign spending with indirect support to pretend you've disproved both. In the middle of your clip, however, is they key piece you want to ignore:

"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."
​

That is what opened the floodgates, not for direct campaign contributions but for indirect campaign support. "CU hasn't really changed anything" is preposterous.

Finally, in your penultimate paragraph, you again conflate the two by limiting the focus to "political campaign spending." That's only half of the issue.


Also, in the post to which I first replied, you claimed, "I've linked to proof of my remarks here at P&N before." The most recent example of such "proof" appears to be this thread, about Senator Cotton being bought by an Israel support group. You said:

"That lobby could not have given Cotton $700k. Here is [an FEC] chart with the limits, they range from $2,000 - $5,000."
​

I linked a campaign finance report showing just how misleading that claim was, with Emergency Committee for Israel reporting spending of over $950,000 on Cotton's behalf. Your purported proof is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I love how people get all up in arms about the specifics of "mandatory" voting as if any details would eliminate or , override the basic principle of people voting for "bread and circuses."

 

[Bowfinger]

More on Citizens United:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...e-speech-anniversary-critics-column/22076597/

Crying about CU is Liberal FUD.

Fern

No, op-eds from the Cato Institute are GOP FUD and self-serving propaganda. Here's something with actual data instead of unsupported hand waving:

How Citizens United changed politics, in 7 charts

By Chris Cillizza January 22, 2014

Four years ago today, the Supreme Court issued the Citizens United ruling, a case that has drastically re-shaped the political landscape in its relatively short life span. President Obama condemned it in his 2010 state of the union address, Democrats tried, unsuccessfully, to make the 2010 midterms about it, and it played no small part in making the 2012 presidential election by far the most expensive in American history.

So, what hath Citizens United -- which, in short, allowed corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited funds on direct advocacy for or against candidates - actually wrought? Here are six charts -- many thanks to WaPo's Matea Gold for her help -- that tell the story. Got a favorite chart that details the impact of Citizens United? Send it my way at chris.cillizza@washpost.com and I will add it to the post.

1. This chart details all spending by outside groups from 1990-2014. The surge in 2012 is obvious but compare outside spending in the 2006 midterms (pre Citizens United) vs outside spending in the 2010 midterms (post Citizens United). Big difference.

Image courtesy of Open Secrets

2. Here's a look at all outside group spending through Jan. 21 (aka today) of an election year. Spending at this point in the 2014 cycle is already almost three times as much as it was at this time in the 2010 election. And it's 25 times more than at this point in the 2006 election.

Image courtesy of Open Secrets

3. Conservatives have a far better organized and financed outside operation than do liberals. It's also worth noting that Republicans had a contested presidential primary in 2012 with vast sums spent by a handful of individuals to elect their preferred candidate, skewing the numbers below a bit.

Image courtesy of Open Secrets

4. That GOP organization/fundraising advantage translates into more TV ads when it matters. The chart below -- courtesy of CMAG/Kantar Media -- tracks the raw number of ads run by candidates, party committees and outside groups beginning 130 days before the 2010 and 2006 elections. It's no mistake that the red (Republican) line soared between 2006 and 2010 while the blue (Democratic) one stayed largely steady.

Image courtesy of CMAG's Harley Ellenberger

5. While the soaring spending on elections -- by unions, corporations and individuals -- is well known by this point, what is less well understood is how Citizens United drove massive amounts of cash into the non-profit political world, a world where disclosure is not required. This chart details the over $300 million spent by outside groups with no disclosure of donors.

Image courtesy of Open Secrets

6. And this one shows the rapid drop in the amount of donor disclosure by outside groups.

Image courtesy of Open Secrets

7. This chart, courtesy of Brendan Doherty, a political scientist at the U.S. Naval Academy, shows the rapid increase in first term fundraisers by presidents. Writes Doherty: "The combination of rising campaign costs and contribution limits that were low relative to those costs for decades led presidents to spend increasing amounts of their scarcest resource, their time, raising campaign funds. Citizens United accelerated these dynamics, as the prospect of outside groups receiving contributions in the millions provided an even greater incentive for President Obama to spend a great deal of time raising money in the increments in the low thousands required by campaign finance law."

"CU hasn't really changed anything," my eye.

 

[Fern]

Rather than blah blah blah etc.
-snip-

See post #204, or are you ignoring it because somehow US Today is yet another news source that isn't on the approved list for the Liberal echo chamber?

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

See post #204, or are you ignoring it because somehow US Today is yet another news source that isn't on the approved list for the Liberal echo chamber?

Fern

/facepalm

My post was a reply to #204. How obtuse can you be? It was an op-ed written by a guy from Cato, as I pointed out in my very first sentence. I know you don't want to read anything that challenges your faith, but quitting before the end of the fist sentence is beyond lame.

Note that his claims and yours are nicely refuted by the data I cite above. "CU hasn't really changed anything," is blatantly dishonest.

 

[Fern]

/facepalm

My post was a reply to #204. How obtuse can you be?
-snip-

How obtuse can YOU be?

FFS you quoted my post #146, not #204.

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

How obtuse can YOU be?

FFS you quoted my post #146, not #204.

Fern

Post #208 was my reply to #204, just like I already said. L2read.

 

[Zorkorist]

You have a hanging chad.

Government being anywhere near elections, is just as scary as it sounds.

-John

 

[fskimospy]

But if the right was going to get a ~7% increase in mandatory turnout, would you still find it amusing?

Thanks, Fern for your info.

It's a pretty tough argument to make that people shouldn't vote in a democracy, no?

 

[Zorkorist]

It only goes to show the Jackboot Heel of Government, forcing people to vote.

-John

 

[frowertr]

So we can't force people to show I.D. at elections but we can force them to vote?

This administration is so ass backwards at time its amusing.

 

[ivwshane]

So we can't force people to show I.D. at elections but we can force them to vote?

This administration is so ass backwards at time its amusing.

You missed the presidents point entirely

 

[frowertr]

You missed the presidents point entirely

The president's true point is that the minorities and poor are already aligned with the Democratic Party. But they don't vote en masse. Forcing them to vote all but guarantees democratic victory at every major election.

This speaks to a bigger problem of the GOP doing a better job at attracting those people. But make no mistake, the Obamanator isn't asserting all of this for the good of the nation. It is for himself and his party.

And even if I did miss his point, how can we enforce mandatory voting when the Democrates are against showing I.D. at the polls? Seems you can't have one without the other.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
And even if I did miss his point, how can we enforce mandatory voting when the Democrates are against showing I.D. at the polls? Seems you can't have one without the other.

Of course you can. They already "take attendance" at the polls. No additional ID is necessary.

But to reiterate my earlier post, I don't currently support mandatory voting. I do think it's an interesting idea that merits discussion.

 

[CZroe]

People who don't vote are voting to let those who do vote vote for them. This works out well because those who do feel strongly enough to vote are obviously more informed. Forcing the uninformed to vote means forcing an ignorant outcome.

 

[fskimospy]

People who don't vote are voting to let those who do vote vote for them. This works out well because those who do feel strongly enough to vote are obviously more informed. Forcing the uninformed to vote means forcing an ignorant outcome.

Ooh, another person who thinks that those they view as not informed shouldn't vote.

Maybe people think you're poorly informed and shouldn't vote?

 

[CZroe]

Ooh, another person who thinks that those they view as not informed shouldn't vote.

Maybe people think you're poorly informed and shouldn't vote?

No. I'm saying that those who wouldn't vote unless forced shouldn't be forced to vote as they have already chosen to allow those more informed to vote for them. Big difference.

 

[fskimospy]

No. I'm saying that those who wouldn't vote unless forced shouldn't be forced to vote as they have already chosen to allow those more informed to vote for them. Big difference.

On what evidence are you basing the idea that those who don't vote are doing so in order to allow the more informed to vote? I've certainly never seen anything to back that idea up. In fact, partisans often vote at very high levels and yet often have very high levels of misinformation that are almost impossible to dislodge.

I'm quite well informed and I don't vote, so there seems to be a problem with this theory?

 

[CZroe]

The uninformed are perfectly welcome to vote. There is also a difference between being "perfectly welcome" or "forced" to vote. I'm glad to assist you in understanding this.

On what evidence are you basing the idea that those who don't vote are doing so in order to allow the more informed to vote? I've certainly never seen anything to back that idea up. In fact, partisans often vote at very high levels and yet often have very high levels of misinformation that are almost impossible to dislodge.

I'm quite well informed and I don't vote, so there seems to be a problem with this theory?

Choosing not to is a choice and a vote in and of itself to allow others to make the decisions that affect them. That is the outcome. It doesn't matter if that was their intention or not. Information is motivation. If they were informed well enough to care or knowingly negatively impacted as a direct result of not voting, it is motivation to vote.

You, yes, YOU, chose to let

 

[fskimospy]

The uninformed are perfectly welcome to vote. There is also a difference between being "perfectly welcome" or "forced" to vote. I'm glad to assist you in understanding this.

Ah, good to hear. If you don't care how many uninformed people vote so long as they elect to do so your objection clearly isn't with the uninformed voting. That means we can dispense with that argument.

You've also not shown any standard for what would count as 'informed' or any metric for why only allowing the 'informed' to vote would yield a superior outcome, but I guess that hardly matters now.

Choosing not to is a choice and a vote in and of itself to allow others to make the decisions that affect them. That is the outcome. It doesn't matter if that was their intention or not. Information is motivation. If they were informed well enough to care or knowingly negatively impacted as a direct result of not voting, it is motivation to vote.

Or maybe they're aware that voting is mathematically pointless? Information is obviously not motivation, as in my case that information is why I don't vote.

Regardless of how you frame someone's voting decision you still haven't provided any convincing arguments against mandatory voting?

I'll provide one for it: democracy exists to translate the will of the people into action, therefore we should take into account the will of all the people.