Roberts Court: Buying judges is bad, buying politicians still OK.

[nickqt]

I wonder if super pacs/citizens united would be the law of the land today if Gore had been elected.

Had SCOTUS just let FL courts do its state law thing?

Probably not.

"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

Remember, kids. Bush v. Gore is not precedent. Just a one time thing. 7-2 decision. Unsigned, of course.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

LOL, from people who think/thought that national debt is a big threat to the country, or that voter fraud is a significant issue despite only handful of cases, that they need to carry a gun to be safe, that Saddam had WMDs, etc, that is just precious.

Yes, there are some conservatives that believe what you're stated however, it doesn't change the fact you're not any different as you have pet fears as well.

 

[Mursilis]

Yes, I want a court that is partial to civil rights for women, gay people, and everyone for that matter, and that doesn't permit too much monied influence in government.

yes. I get the connection he is trying to make but its incredibly jaded. The money flows to the politicians then they vote on laws that that money wanted. We need to get money out of politics.

I know the spooky poor people get free shit but its better then the french revolution style revolt.

It amazes me that some of you still cling to the belief that you can get money out of politics. As BoberFett said, the federal gov't directly controls a budget in the trillions, and indirectly controls via laws, regulations, and policies many trillions more. To pretend the gov't can have that kind of power and still be immune to corrupting influences is to deny human nature itself. You might as well try to get the wetness out of rain.

 

[fskimospy]

Is it considered corruption or a bribe when a politician buys votes by giving away money to specific groups? Why or why not?

No, because corruption is when a public official accepts money or favors in exchange for official acts. Voters aren't public officials.

Voters are not only permitted to vote for the person that they think will benefit them the most personally, they are expected to do so as one of the foundations of our system.

It is a pretty funny question though: "is it corruption when politicians try to get people to vote for them by making their lives better?" Lol.

 

[fskimospy]

It amazes me that some of you still cling to the belief that you can get money out of politics. As BoberFett said, the federal gov't directly controls a budget in the trillions, and indirectly controls via laws, regulations, and policies many trillions more. To pretend the gov't can have that kind of power and still be immune to corrupting influences is to deny human nature itself. You might as well try to get the wetness out of rain.

While I would agree getting money out of politics entirely is a fool's errand, you can certainly lessen its influence. The amount spent on elections in the UK for example, is much smaller than the amount spent in the U.S. even after accounting for different populations and GDP.

 

[1prophet]

Had SCOTUS just let FL courts do its state law thing?

Probably not.

"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

Remember, kids. Bush v. Gore is not precedent. Just a one time thing. 7-2 decision. Unsigned, of course.

Bush vs. Gore should not have even come to that, it should have been a slam dunk for Gore, while everyone likes to argue about how the election was stolen over a relative few votes the more important question should be why was it even that close?

 

[1prophet]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/supreme-court-restrictions-judicial-fundraising-117474.html

Fine piece of logical Yoga by Roberts:


Politicians passing laws "out of fear or favor" of SuperPACs is still fine under Citizens United, but judges applying those laws for same reasons is somehow bad, according to Roberts. To be fair, the other 4 Republican "justices" are fine with money influencing both legislatures and judiciaries.

But somehow Democrats were very happy on the logical yoga he used on Obamacare for its true benefactors, the medical insurance industry.

 

[Mursilis]

While I would agree getting money out of politics entirely is a fool's errand, you can certainly lessen its influence. The amount spent on elections in the UK for example, is much smaller than the amount spent in the U.S. even after accounting for different populations and GDP.

True, we can create some sort of checks and balances to lessen the corruption, and that's a worthy goal, but I see this as very similar to the freedom vs. security question we also face as a society. At what point do the restrictions some want to enact become worse than the problems they're allegedly trying to address?

 

[dank69]

True, we can create some sort of checks and balances to lessen the corruption, and that's a worthy goal, but I see this as very similar to the freedom vs. security question we also face as a society. At what point do the restrictions some want to enact become worse than the problems they're allegedly trying to address?

Our freedom to give money to politicians in exchange for special treatment? I think that is a freedom everyone can live without.

 

[PokerGuy]

yes. I get the connection he is trying to make but its incredibly jaded. The money flows to the politicians then they vote on laws that that money wanted. We need to get money out of politics.

Anyone who believes you can get "money out of politics" is naive or stupid -- or both. Money / power / politics are essentially different parts of the same whole. They go together and are inextricably linked. As such, the notion that we "need to get money out of politics" is completely asinine, it's not only not possible, it's not desirable to try.

LOL, from people who think/thought that national debt is a big threat to the country

Yeah, it's not like owing 20 trillion dollars is in any way going to affect our country, who cares right? It's only future generations that are at stake.

While I would agree getting money out of politics entirely is a fool's errand

Finally, some sense.

, you can certainly lessen its influence. The amount spent on elections in the UK for example, is much smaller than the amount spent in the U.S. even after accounting for different populations and GDP.

First, how do you know the influence of the money is lessened? The fact that less is spent doesn't prove the influence is lessened, it just means less spending is needed to buy the desired level of influence.

The amount of money spent on elections is always going to be proportionate to the amount of power/influence wielded by the government, regardless of laws or restrictions. I don't know enough about the UK and it's political system to understand the factors driving spending on politics and elections there, but what exactly is it about the UK system that you think is the cause for the comparatively smaller spending? How would it compare to the US?

The brits are a lot more comfortable doing away with individual rights in the name of some supposed common good (stuff like criminalizing speech that might offend someone is a good example), so they might be much more inclined to stifle free speech and restrict monetary donations than people in the US would (or should) be comfortable with.

 

[Mursilis]

Our freedom to give money to politicians in exchange for special treatment? I think that is a freedom everyone can live without.

As soon as you can come up with a way to keep money out of politics while still protecting free speech, please share.

 

[dank69]

As soon as you can come up with a way to keep money out of politics while still protecting free speech, please share.

Convince me that money equals free speech.

 

[fskimospy]

Anyone who believes you can get "money out of politics" is naive or stupid -- or both. Money / power / politics are essentially different parts of the same whole. They go together and are inextricably linked. As such, the notion that we "need to get money out of politics" is completely asinine, it's not only not possible, it's not desirable to try.



Yeah, it's not like owing 20 trillion dollars is in any way going to affect our country, who cares right? It's only future generations that are at stake.



Finally, some sense.

First, how do you know the influence of the money is lessened? The fact that less is spent doesn't prove the influence is lessened, it just means less spending is needed to buy the desired level of influence.

The amount of money spent on elections is always going to be proportionate to the amount of power/influence wielded by the government, regardless of laws or restrictions. I don't know enough about the UK and it's political system to understand the factors driving spending on politics and elections there, but what exactly is it about the UK system that you think is the cause for the comparatively smaller spending? How would it compare to the US?

The brits are a lot more comfortable doing away with individual rights in the name of some supposed common good (stuff like criminalizing speech that might offend someone is a good example), so they might be much more inclined to stifle free speech and restrict monetary donations than people in the US would (or should) be comfortable with.

The most logical reason as to why the influence of money there is lessened is simply that less of it is spent, even after accounting for differences in GDP and population. I see no reason to believe that UK politicians are somehow so much more cheaply bought despite similar standards of living. Furthermore, even if that were the case it means that the levels of spending necessary to be impactful are dramatically lowered, meaning it is far more difficult for specific interests to dominate through spending. (Because more people can afford to match them)

Money spent is mostly about the regulations that permit it to be spent and expected return on investment. In the UK that seems to be lower.

 

[Mursilis]

Convince me that money equals free speech.

It's a nation of 300M+ people. Do you think it's free to get a message out to all or most of them? Free speech that exists only in a vacuum is pointless.

 

[fskimospy]

I would say that the UKs government easily wields power and influence comparable to or exceeding the power of the U.S. government, at least within their borders.

Probably the biggest things that control UK election spending are the strict limits on the length of campaigns and their parliamentary system. Giving money to an entire party is often not a productive enterprise if you're trying to get a specific policy enacted. In the U.S. you contribute to individuals, meaning you have greater influence over their choices and can extract credible commitments from them. When you're giving to a whole party it's much harder to demand specific things of them that they will credibly commit to.

We could certainly enact limits on campaign season, but more likely we would need to shift to a more party based system to really reign in money's influence. (This has a whole lot of benefits outside of just money too!)

As for the whole 'money is speech' thing, I find it unconvincing. Money is fungible, and so it can be anything and everything.

 

[Bowfinger]

It's a nation of 300M+ people. Do you think it's free to get a message out to all or most of them? Free speech that exists only in a vacuum is pointless.

That's a nonsensical claim. Freedom of speech is not an entitlement to be heard at all, let alone heard by every person in the country. Further, it is only relatively recently that money has been conflated with speech. For most of our history, everyone understood that funneling money to public servants was bribery, and served only to corrupt democracy. It is sad so many of you are willing to abandon democracy as a failure. In effect, your position is that it's no longer one person, one vote, but rather one dollar, one vote. You are implicitly endorsing a return to the days of aristocracy and serfs. No thanks.

 

[dank69]

It's a nation of 300M+ people. Do you think it's free to get a message out to all or most of them? Free speech that exists only in a vacuum is pointless.

So money can be used to amplify free speech. So what? That doesn't make it equivalent to free speech.

 

[Mursilis]

That's a nonsensical claim. Freedom of speech is not an entitlement to be heard at all, let alone heard by every person in the country. Further, it is only relatively recently that money has been conflated with speech. For most of our history, everyone understood that funneling money to public servants was bribery, and served only to corrupt democracy. It is sad so many of you are willing to abandon democracy as a failure. In effect, your position is that it's no longer one person, one vote, but rather one dollar, one vote. You are implicitly endorsing a return to the days of aristocracy and serfs. No thanks.

When did I ever say one is entitled to be heard by all? I merely said (indirectly) that without access to the general population, free speech is reduced to a truism - you may say whatever you like, as long as no one else hears you. You don't have to shut someone up to prohibit free speech - you merely have to inhibit their access to an audience. This is why the right to peaceable assembly is also mentioned in the same amendment.

 

[PokerGuy]

The most logical reason as to why the influence of money there is lessened is simply that less of it is spent, even after accounting for differences in GDP and population.
I see no reason to believe that UK politicians are somehow so much more cheaply bought despite similar standards of living.

I didn't say anything about them being more cheaply bought, but you're assuming facts not in evidence. I don't know enough about their political/governmental structure to know how influence is attained, but the mere fact that less is spent on elections does not show that there is less influence on government by those with money. The fact that less is spent does not mean the money spent results in less influence. It just means there are other channels for those with money to gain influence on government.

Furthermore, even if that were the case it means that the levels of spending necessary to be impactful are dramatically lowered, meaning it is far more difficult for specific interests to dominate through spending. (Because more people can afford to match them)

If we follow that to it's logical conclusion, it's obvious that becomes an arms race where more and more money is needed to 'buy' the influence desired, until eventually an equilibrium is reached. That level of equilibrium depends on the amount of influence/power available.

Money spent is mostly about the regulations that permit it to be spent and expected return on investment. In the UK that seems to be lower.

So lets pretend for a second that we could completely eliminate all direct money contributions in politics. Do you suppose that would lessen the influence of those with money? Of course not, that's silly, it goes back to the notion of "getting money out of politics" being impossible. Money will always pursue power/influence. Squeezing it out of one channel into another doesn't change the fact that it's going to flow in the pursuit of power/influence. The influence is always going to be there no matter what restrictions you put on direct money spending.

 

[dank69]

...

So lets pretend for a second that we could completely eliminate all direct money contributions in politics. Do you suppose that would lessen the influence of those with money? Of course not, that's silly, it goes back to the notion of "getting money out of politics" being impossible. Money will always pursue power/influence. Squeezing it out of one channel into another doesn't change the fact that it's going to flow in the pursuit of power/influence. The influence is always going to be there no matter what restrictions you put on direct money spending.

So since we can't prevent all murder, laws against murder are pointless?

 

[Mursilis]

So money can be used to amplify free speech. So what? That doesn't make it equivalent to free speech.

I never said money is the equivalent of speech, only that they're closely intertwined. Money gets the speaker better access to the audience. When you start restricting access to an audience, the effect is substantially similar as restricting the message itself.

 

[PokerGuy]

That's a nonsensical claim. Freedom of speech is not an entitlement to be heard at all, let alone heard by every person in the country. Further, it is only relatively recently that money has been conflated with speech. For most of our history, everyone understood that funneling money to public servants was bribery, and served only to corrupt democracy. It is sad so many of you are willing to abandon democracy as a failure. In effect, your position is that it's no longer one person, one vote, but rather one dollar, one vote. You are implicitly endorsing a return to the days of aristocracy and serfs. No thanks.

Very funny, you seem to think that one can have free speech without being able to spend the money needed to have that speech conveyed to others so they can hear it. Does someone who is allowed to say whatever they want but only in their room to nobody else have "free speech"? No. The reality is that spending money on supporting some cause is no different than vocally supporting that cause. If you restrict how someone spends their money in support of causes you are restricting free speech.

 

[dank69]

When did I ever say one is entitled to be heard by all? I merely said (indirectly) that without access to the general population, free speech is reduced to a truism - you may say whatever you like, as long as no one else hears you. You don't have to shut someone up to prohibit free speech - you merely have to inhibit their access to an audience. This is why the right to peaceable assembly is also mentioned in the same amendment.

I don't have a problem allowing people to advertise whatever they want with their own money. Giving money to a politician is where I have a problem. Even more so giving money to a politician anonymously.

 

[PokerGuy]

So since we can't prevent all murder, laws against murder are pointless?

You're taking the point to an irrational logical conclusion that makes no sense.

 

[dank69]

You're taking the point to an irrational logical conclusion that makes no sense.

No, you seem to be saying that since we can't get all money out of politics that we shouldn't bother restricting it at all. If you aren't saying that then please clarify.