SCOTUS takes case on Overall Limit to Political Donations

[waggy]

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.

this.

 

[werepossum]

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.

Pretty much my thoughts too, for the first paragraph. Politicians are beholden first to party, but also to special interests that fund the campaign. Problem is there's no way to remove private election funding without making the parties' hold even stronger. We obviously cannot fund a campaign for everyone who wants to run; the only possibilities I can see are either the parties selecting the candidates allowed to run, or some sort of beauty contest where people vote on who is allowed to run - a sort of pre-primary primary election sure to be dominated by very powerful special interests and subject as well to tampering. Even if we could somehow fix all this, the media's voice would then be correspondingly hugely influential. And the media is itself a special interest, or rather, two diametrically opposed special interests.

There is no way to limit outside spending on campaigns without expressly limiting free speech. Be very, very careful what you wish for. Things CAN get worse.

 

[ElFenix]

to me, donating money to a politician is not the same thing as using money to get out your message via airwaves/print/whatnot. the latter directly implicates the first amendment, the former does not.

 

[Fern]

to me, donating money to a politician is not the same thing as using money to get out your message via airwaves/print/whatnot. the latter directly implicates the first amendment, the former does not.

I rather think that the SCOTUS agrees with you, which is why contributions (directly) to a candidate can be limited.

The unlimited contributions are to PACs, which are used "to get out your message via airwaves/print/whatnot."

Fern

 

[Anarchist420]

They should repeal the limits on free expression.

This would not be an issue with the Articles of Confederation.