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

[PokerGuy]

Even more so giving money to a politician anonymously.

In the age of political shaming and browbeating through social media etc, anonymity is more critical than ever. The founding fathers knew it way back then when they had to anonymously write pamphlets and letters etc to convey messages to the public without getting punished by the brits.

 

[PokerGuy]

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.

No, I'm saying that money will always seek power/influence. Placing restrictions on how it flows does not work -- the influence will be attained regardless. It's essentially the equivalent of the "war on drugs". You know in advance that it's a futile and pointless attempt to 'win' something that can't be won.

 

[dank69]

In the age of political shaming and browbeating through social media etc, anonymity is more critical than ever. The founding fathers knew it way back then when they had to anonymously write pamphlets and letters etc to convey messages to the public without getting punished by the brits.

Then make it possible to donate to a party, not an individual. When we protect the ability to donate to an individual anonymously we are just making it impossible to stop quid pro quo.

 

[PokerGuy]

Then make it possible to donate to a party, not an individual. When we protect the ability to donate to an individual anonymously we are just making it impossible to stop quid pro quo.

So instead of buying influence through an individual you purchase it wholesale through the party? I don't think that's going to change the core issue (an undue influence of those with more money) at all.

 

[Mursilis]

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.

Direct campaign donations are already capped, but that does nothing to stop so-called independent "issue" advertising which mentions certain politicians by name (in both good and bad ways). I'm not sure how you'd stop this flow of money into the election process, or even if you should.

As far as anonymous donations, I don't support that - the public has a right to know who's contributing to who. One pundit has suggested that if we mandate anonymous contributions (for example, forcing all contributors to contribute via the FEC, which would then funnel the money to a designated candidate without that candidate's knowledge of where the money originally came from), we'd go a long way toward reducing the corrupting influence of money. It's certainly an intriguing idea.

 

[dank69]

So instead of buying influence through an individual you purchase it wholesale through the party? I don't think that's going to change the core issue (an undue influence of those with more money) at all.

It would change things dramatically. A person donating $1M to the GOP will find it much harder to call in a favor from the entire party versus one individual.

 

[Jhhnn]

In the age of political shaming and browbeating through social media etc, anonymity is more critical than ever. The founding fathers knew it way back then when they had to anonymously write pamphlets and letters etc to convey messages to the public without getting punished by the brits.

So, uhh, right wing billionaires are freedom loving insurrectionists?

Why do they hate a system that made them billionaires?

 

[fskimospy]

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.

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.

Not really. It depends on the amount of influence and power available and the methods by which that influence can be achieved. For some good reading about how political structures influence incentives I would suggest an article/book called "The Logic of Political Survival". It talks about how leadership incentives are altered by the mechanism countries use to select leadership, and this is pretty easily relateable to what we're talking about here. (you just have to flip things around)

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.

I'm unaware of any coherent empirical argument that the amount of influence wielded by economic elites is constant no matter the political structures and regulations in place. I would say that's pretty obviously untrue actually, considering comparative levels of elite influence in different countries around the world.

 

[Mursilis]

In the age of political shaming and browbeating through social media etc, anonymity is more critical than ever. The founding fathers knew it way back then when they had to anonymously write pamphlets and letters etc to convey messages to the public without getting punished by the brits.

It's not the same - the Brits didn't recognize the right to free speech, and under their rule, you could be legally punished for some of the things the Founding Fathers advocated. Under our current laws, the gov't can't sanction me (outside of very narrow constraints) for the content of my message, no matter how repugnant, but society can still shun me if my views are especially abhorrent. Society should have that right.

 

[PokerGuy]

Direct campaign donations are already capped, but that does nothing to stop so-called independent "issue" advertising which mentions certain politicians by name (in both good and bad ways). I'm not sure how you'd stop this flow of money into the election process, or even if you should.

That's another good example that illustrates my larger point that "getting money out of politics" is futile and attempting to do it is counter productive. So you cap how much someone can pay directly to a candidate. Did that severely reduce the influence? Of course not, the money simply uses other avenues to achieve the same result.

You can never separate money/influence/power/politics. They are all inextricably intertwined.

As far as anonymous donations, I don't support that - the public has a right to know who's contributing to who.

Anonymous donations to a specific candidate is one thing, but anonymity in contributing money to support political causes is more critical than ever.

One pundit has suggested that if we mandate anonymous contributions (for example, forcing all contributors to contribute via the FEC, which would then funnel the money to a designated candidate without that candidate's knowledge of where the money originally came from), we'd go a long way toward reducing the corrupting influence of money. It's certainly an intriguing idea.

Definitely an intriguing idea, which I'm sure would have unexpected side effects. I could see how that might make sense when it comes to direct contributions to specific politicians, but the vast majority of money is not spent that way anyway.

 

[Blackjack200]

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.

Okay, so do you support unlimited campaign contributions by individuals and groups (corporations and unions), and unlimited direct payments to politicians by individuals and groups?

 

[Mursilis]

Okay, so do you support unlimited campaign contributions by individuals and groups (corporations and unions), and unlimited direct payments to politicians by individuals and groups?

I've often wondered if a system of unlimited but not anonymous contributions wouldn't work better than our current systems. I see two big upsides - first, if a politician gets a few big "angel" contributors, that would at least reduce the number of outside parties to which that politician is beholden. Second, as long as the public knows who's contributing to who, they can respond accordingly, thereby negating some of the effect of the contribution itself. For example, if GM gave $100M to the American Nazi party, the public can (and likely will, hopefully) boycott GM products.

Obviously, this system has flaws, so I don't know if it would really work, but it's interesting regardless.

 

[PokerGuy]

It's not the same - the Brits didn't recognize the right to free speech, and under their rule, you could be legally punished for some of the things the Founding Fathers advocated. Under our current laws, the gov't can't sanction me (outside of very narrow constraints) for the content of my message, no matter how repugnant, but society can still shun me if my views are especially abhorrent. Society should have that right.

If unpopular views are punished or squashed -- whether it be by government or by others -- you lose freedom. Anonymity is a critical component of freedom. You should be able to contribute to whatever causes you want without others knowing about it. Again, contributing to something or some cause is not the same as contributing directly to a politician. I'd argue that society is entitled to know who is contributing to specific legislators, but not entitled to know who is contributing to other organizations.

 

[PokerGuy]

Okay, so do you support unlimited campaign contributions by individuals and groups (corporations and unions), and unlimited direct payments to politicians by individuals and groups?

Yes, I don't see any benefit in pretending to control money influence. The only stipulation I would have is that direct contributions to politicians and groups directly controlled by them should be disclosed. Everything else is fair game.

It would be nice to see a cool little chart come election time that shows "who owns candidate x? 12% Goldman Sachs, 7% RIAA, 15% Evil Inc" etc.

Again, keep in mind that direct contributions to politicians are just a fraction of the money actually spent on elections.

 

[Blackjack200]

I've often wondered if a system of unlimited but not anonymous contributions wouldn't work better than our current systems. I see two big upsides - first, if a politician gets a few big "angel" contributors, that would at least reduce the number of outside parties to which that politician is beholden. Second, as long as the public knows who's contributing to who, they can respond accordingly, thereby negating some of the effect of the contribution itself. For example, if GM gave $100M to the American Nazi party, the public can (and likely will, hopefully) boycott GM products.

Obviously, this system has flaws, so I don't know if it would really work, but it's interesting regardless.

Okay, but nobody is worried about large flows to the Nazi party. We clearly have a two party system and money generally flows to those parties, many industries and large firms will support both major party candidates in an election. Industry is generally not ashamed of spending on lobbying efforts.

How is the public going to respond to large flows of campaign money from groups, even if it is disclosed?

 

[Blackjack200]

Yes, I don't see any benefit in pretending to control money influence. The only stipulation I would have is that direct contributions to politicians and groups directly controlled by them should be disclosed. Everything else is fair game.

It would be nice to see a cool little chart come election time that shows "who owns candidate x? 12% Goldman Sachs, 7% RIAA, 15% Evil Inc" etc.

Again, keep in mind that direct contributions to politicians are just a fraction of the money actually spent on elections.

So you would support direct payments to politicians, the effective definition of a bribe, as long as it's disclosed. Wow. I don't really have anything more to say about that.

 

[PokerGuy]

So you would support direct payments to politicians, the effective definition of a bribe, as long as it's disclosed. Wow. I don't really have anything more to say about that.

...... you do realize that's exactly how it already is today, right? There are caps in place for individual contributions, and there are definitely regulations against direct quid pro quo arrangements, but you act as if it's somehow some crazy new idea.

 

[Bowfinger]

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.

No, I'm restricting bribery and similar, indirect attempts to corrupt public servants. As I already pointed out, it is only recently that this destructive notion of legalized bribery has gained support, that money is somehow the same as protected speech. It's a notion intended to serve the few at the expense of the citizenry as a whole. That's not democracy. It's a return to aristocracy.

 

[Bowfinger]

I've often wondered if a system of unlimited but not anonymous contributions wouldn't work better than our current systems. I see two big upsides - first, if a politician gets a few big "angel" contributors, that would at least reduce the number of outside parties to which that politician is beholden. Second, as long as the public knows who's contributing to who, they can respond accordingly, thereby negating some of the effect of the contribution itself. For example, if GM gave $100M to the American Nazi party, the public can (and likely will, hopefully) boycott GM products.

Obviously, this system has flaws, so I don't know if it would really work, but it's interesting regardless.

Interesting idea. It would still be legalized corruption, but at least it would be transparent legalized corruption. That's a step forward, of sorts.

 

[PokerGuy]

No, I'm restricting bribery and similar, indirect attempts to corrupt public servants. As I already pointed out, it is only recently that this destructive notion of legalized bribery has gained support, that money is somehow the same as protected speech. It's a notion intended to serve the few at the expense of the citizenry as a whole. That's not democracy. It's a return to aristocracy.

Baloney, pure and simple. Without money your speech can't be heard. What's the point in having the ability to speak but not the ability to broadcast the speech?? "here, speak into this microphone. Yes, it's not on, and nobody can hear you, but you're free to say whatever you want"

Again, you have to separate direct contributions to politicians from contributions to organizations or causes. The vast majority of money goes toward the latter. Contributions to politicians are already subject to caps and regulations to prevent quid pro quo.

 

[Bowfinger]

So, uhh, right wing billionaires are freedom loving insurrectionists?

Why do they hate a system that made them billionaires?

Because greed knows no bounds. Why do the serfs not understand that the uber-elite are entitled to buy whatever and whomever they want?

 

[dank69]

Baloney, pure and simple. Without money your speech can't be heard. What's the point in having the ability to speak but not the ability to broadcast the speech?? "here, speak into this microphone. Yes, it's not on, and nobody can hear you, but you're free to say whatever you want"

You are mixing money spent on advertising and money spent on making a politician your personal bitch.

Again, you have to separate direct contributions to politicians from contributions to organizations or causes. The vast majority of money goes toward the latter. Contributions to politicians are already subject to caps and regulations to prevent quid pro quo.

Except you can earmark the latter for specific candidates.

 

[Bowfinger]

Baloney, pure and simple. Without money your speech can't be heard. What's the point in having the ability to speak but not the ability to broadcast the speech?? "here, speak into this microphone. Yes, it's not on, and nobody can hear you, but you're free to say whatever you want"

So what? Freedom of speech simply does not include an entitlement to be heard, no matter how badly you want to infer one. Freedom of speech has never been unlimited. And yet again, until very recently, freedom of speech was not perverted to pretend money was speech.

Look at this from the opposite perspective. If your take is correct, that freedom of speech includes an inherent right to broadcast that speech to all, how do you reconcile this with the fact that all Americans have the right to free speech? If broadcasting that speech is an inseparable part of free speech, all Americans must be entitled to broadcast. How do you propose to support their broadcast rights? What you're really saying is that broadcasting speech is a right limited to a special few. That makes it a privilege, not a right. The Constitution recognizes no such privilege.

One person, one vote. Not one dollar, one vote.

 

[Blackjack200]

...... you do realize that's exactly how it already is today, right? There are caps in place for individual contributions, and there are definitely regulations against direct quid pro quo arrangements, but you act as if it's somehow some crazy new idea.

I don't know what you mean, but that is most certainly not how it is today. Groups are barred from direct campaign contributions, and direct payments to politicians are absolutely illegal.

 

[Brainonska511]

We should just go back to the good old days: