SCOTUS takes case on Overall Limit to Political Donations

[Ausm]

FINALLY, maybe this will lead to a Gubermint that is not bought and paid for?

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a challenge to federal campaign contribution limits, setting the stage for what may turn out to be the most important federal campaign finance case since the court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United, which struck down limits on independent campaign spending by corporations and unions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-campaign-finance-case.html?_r=0

 

[waggy]

interesting.

either way it does not really bode well for the us.

 

[Ausm]

interesting.

either way it does not really bode well for the us.

The corruption of the lobbyist needs to be addressed next in my opinion.

 

[Genx87]

The corruption of the lobbyist needs to be addressed next in my opinion.

Corruption of the politician is the issue.

 

[DrPizza]

I'm thinking, don't hold your breath. If the SC rules, "no limits", then it would take a Constitutional Amendment. While I would speculate that the vast majority of US citizens would be in favor of an amendment that said something like, "campaign contributions per individual or company or other organization are limited to the median annual salary of a citizen in the US per census data," such an Amendment would never see the light of day, since you would be taking away politicians' cash flow.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

A 2 year limit of only a max of $46,200 per candidate is unjustified, and too low. :whiste:

 

[Mursilis]

FINALLY, maybe this will lead to a Gubermint that is not bought and paid for?

Are you really this naive?

 

[Mursilis]

Corruption of the politician is the issue.

More like corruption of the populace. Or more accurately, sloth and ignorance of the populace.

 

[waggy]

I'm thinking, don't hold your breath. If the SC rules, "no limits", then it would take a Constitutional Amendment. While I would speculate that the vast majority of US citizens would be in favor of an amendment that said something like, "campaign contributions per individual or company or other organization are limited to the median annual salary of a citizen in the US per census data," such an Amendment would never see the light of day, since you would be taking away politicians' cash flow.

i think they will rule that way. I think then you will have more billionaires trying to influence elections.

also i really doubt it will matter in the long run.

 

[Genx87]

More like corruption of the populace. Or more accurately, sloth and ignorance of the populace.

Ultimately we can say that is the problem. But if the populace truely cares about the corruption within the political structure in this country. Then they should show it by removing corrupt politicians from office.

 

[Mursilis]

Ultimately we can say that is the problem. But if the populace truely cares about the corruption within the political structure in this country. Then they should show it by removing corrupt politicians from office.

It's more complicated than that - one politician's "corruption" is, to someone else, just looking out for one's constituents or their interests. For example, in a budget thread in Debate Club, someone mentioned that some Congress member wants the Army to buy 30-50 more tanks which the Army didn't want or need. Sounds like someone might have a tank plant in his/her district which that Congress member wants to keep open and operating. To the rest of us, that's a waste of money, but if your job at that plant is on the line, you may think having extra tanks for the Army is vital to national defense. Most of us have a narrow and self-interested focus, and we elect leaders who reflect the same.

 

[werepossum]

Corruption of the politician is the issue.

This.

I'm thinking, don't hold your breath. If the SC rules, "no limits", then it would take a Constitutional Amendment. While I would speculate that the vast majority of US citizens would be in favor of an amendment that said something like, "campaign contributions per individual or company or other organization are limited to the median annual salary of a citizen in the US per census data," such an Amendment would never see the light of day, since you would be taking away politicians' cash flow.

I do not believe that is possible, with a government as powerful and intrusive as our own. Government can literally make or break a business or even an industry at will through regulatory action but also via the tax code. As long as that stands, no major business or industry is going to stop trying to influence politicians; the stakes are simply too high. At most you can drive it underground, so that instead of campaign donations it's jobs for relatives or contributions to non-profits. More likely such a ban would simply drive money into negative attack adverts by PACs theoretically unattached to either party. To stop this would require the bizarre interpretation that political speech is not protected free speech but nude dancing is.

 

[werepossum]

It's more complicated than that - one politician's "corruption" is, to someone else, just looking out for one's constituents or their interests. For example, in a budget thread in Debate Club, someone mentioned that some Congress member wants the Army to buy 30-50 more tanks which the Army didn't want or need. Sounds like someone might have a tank plant in his/her district which that Congress member wants to keep open and operating. To the rest of us, that's a waste of money, but if your job at that plant is on the line, you may think having extra tanks for the Army is vital to national defense. Most of us have a narrow and self-interested focus, and we elect leaders who reflect the same.

Well said, but I think he's speaking more about politicians who make decisions for their own political benefit rather than legitimately looking out for their constituents at the expense of the nation.

 

[Ausm]

Are you really this naive?

No, just hopeful.

 

[Mursilis]

Well said, but I think he's speaking more about politicians who make decisions for their own political benefit rather than legitimately looking out for their constituents at the expense of the nation.

How would one's own political benefit differ substantially from looking out for one's constituents? Ultimately, the constituents are the ones that grant (or withhold) the power of political office. It seems like those two things would align fairly regularly, although there would be some exceptions, of course.

 

[airdata]

Corruption of the politician is the issue.

They're hand & hand.

Also need to impose term limits so there are no lifers on capital hill. Alot of them have forgotten they're holding a public office.

 

[1prophet]

Is this the same Supreme Court that said corporations are people too?

 

[Mursilis]

No, just hopeful.

Don't hold your breath. It's like werepossum said, with a gov't this big, anyone or any organization with the means to do so has to try to corrupt it for their own ends, if only to prevent their competitors from doing the same to them.

 

[trenchfoot]

The pessimist, the skeptical and the realist side of me tells me all branches and levels of our government are corrupted beyond repair (COBAR, the twin sister of FUBAR). The fact that the Judiciary was thoroughly corrupted by the rich and powerful came with the Citizens United decision and any decision being made to the contrary was/is only for appearances sake. Therefore, IMO, the chance for anything resembling true justice coming out of this case is nil, and the decision will only confirm how utterly corrupted our government is.

That being said, there is the optimist side of me that hopes the religious fundamentalists in the right wing will rise up and challenge the rich and powerful in their midst and demand that they right the wrongs they have committed against those that they exploit with glee. So that gives us at least a 1 in a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance that it happens. That's pretty good odds considering how we keep perpetuating this corruption with our votes.

 

[hardhat]

How would one's own political benefit differ substantially from looking out for one's constituents? Ultimately, the constituents are the ones that grant (or withhold) the power of political office. It seems like those two things would align fairly regularly, although there would be some exceptions, of course.

The most important problem is that looking out for one's political benefit makes politicians beholden to the parties instead of the people.
1. The party in control sets all committee assingments and leadership positions. Let's say you are a politician from Idaho. Getting on an agricultural committee makes you look good, but the only way to do that is by doing what your party wants.
2. Voting with your party is one of the only ways to ensure that in your party primary race you get the party's support instead of a challenger. And if you don't win the primary, there is usually a clause in the state's constitution saying you can't run as an independant in that race.
3. Politicians who raise money for the party are rewarded. The parties use this money to support candidates in difficult races.

So basically, politicians do what the party wants instead of what their constituents want to avoid being primaried out and to get leadership positions. This leads to gamesmanship instead of compromise and cooperation. Do you really think that all of the Republicans who voted against the ACA and tried to repeal it were actually adamantly opposed to it on constitutional grounds? No, most people know that there is a problem with our health care system. Maybe if the politicians did what was best for their constituents and tried to come up with a solution instead of did what would help the party, which was try to smear any success from the other side, we would have a better solution. This applies to the gun control debate and the union issues, too. Gun companies donate primarily to republicans, unions donate to democrats. So we see politicians who do what is right for their party instead of the people. Look at Michigan, where the governor said he wouldn't do anything about unions, but then when his party took the state congress signed legislation, despite outcry from constituents and a large majority opposed to the measure. More money from donations means more power to the party, so they can choose their candidates. That money can be used anywhere for any purpose.

I hope SCOTUS both limit the donation amount, and limit outside spending in political party races, though I don't see how the second part is possible.

 

[Ausm]

The most important problem is that looking out for one's political benefit makes politicians beholden to the parties instead of the people.
1. The party in control sets all committee assingments and leadership positions. Let's say you are a politician from Idaho. Getting on an agricultural committee makes you look good, but the only way to do that is by doing what your party wants.
2. Voting with your party is one of the only ways to ensure that in your party primary race you get the party's support instead of a challenger. And if you don't win the primary, there is usually a clause in the state's constitution saying you can't run as an independant in that race.
3. Politicians who raise money for the party are rewarded. The parties use this money to support candidates in difficult races.

So basically, politicians do what the party wants instead of what their constituents want to avoid being primaried out and to get leadership positions. This leads to gamesmanship instead of compromise and cooperation. Do you really think that all of the Republicans who voted against the ACA and tried to repeal it were actually adamantly opposed to it on constitutional grounds? No, most people know that there is a problem with our health care system. Maybe if the politicians did what was best for their constituents and tried to come up with a solution instead of did what would help the party, which was try to smear any success from the other side, we would have a better solution. This applies to the gun control debate and the union issues, too. Gun companies donate primarily to republicans, unions donate to democrats. So we see politicians who do what is right for their party instead of the people. Look at Michigan, where the governor said he wouldn't do anything about unions, but then when his party took the state congress signed legislation, despite outcry from constituents and a large majority opposed to the measure. More money from donations means more power to the party, so they can choose their candidates. That money can be used anywhere for any purpose.

I hope SCOTUS both limit the donation amount, and limit outside spending in political party races, though I don't see how the second part is possible.

Great points on this post. I think they only way we could accomplish your second point is to have RIGID transparency in place. We all know that now we have all kinds of untold amount of "dark" money coming into Political coffers.

 

[Ausm]

Is this the same Supreme Court that said corporations are people too?

Yes, I had to do a double take too.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I bet you'll squeal when this affects union contributions as well.

 

[Fern]

A 2 year limit of only a max of $46,200 per candidate is unjustified, and too low. :whiste:

You've materially misquoted the article.

The annual limit per candidate is $2,500. That would mean $5,000 over two years.

The $46,200 limit is total contributions (each individually no more than $2,500) to candidates over two years.

Just saying....

Fern

 

[Fern]

FINALLY, maybe this will lead to a Gubermint that is not bought and paid for?
-snip-

No, just hopeful.

One of us, you or I, have clearly misunderstood the article you linked.

Appears to me the decision will have one of two possible outcomes:

1. The law is upheld and the status quo prevails. I.e., there is no change. Or

2. The limits will be removed, meaning even more money flow into campaigns.

Not sure how this could possibly lead to some improvement where we have a "Gubermint that is not bought and paid for"

Fern