Should we just auction off political offices? Another Supreme Court 5-4 ruling

[Craig234]

I mean, why keep up the pretense we're doing anything else?

The right is on a tear to destroy democracy, handing over elections to the richest.

We know about opening up corporate coffers for unlimited money to pay for campaigns for the first time in American history, money starting to dwarf the political parties.

One of the few things I liked providing a tiny bit of democracy against money were laws some places that would use public funds to help candidates with less money level the playing field some against those with deep pockets or big donors, so that both voters could hear both candidates and elections weren't just bought.

First the Supreme Court tore down the state's rights to have such laws against wealthy candidates in 2008 - in a 5-4 vote with the usual sides, the radical right 4 in the majority.

This last Monday, the court tore down the rest of the states' rights to choose to do that, declaring Arizona's - that liberal bastion - public campaign financing unconstitutional.

5-4, usual sides again.

So, unlimited corporate money shifting funds heavily to the right (or whoever corporations favor), and no public financing to counter it allowed.

Here's what this ruling said. Let's say interested parties want to give $10 million to candidate Ima Hore. Before this ruling, they can, no problem, and he can use it to try to get votes, no problem. So what's the problem?

The public financing would then give some money to his opponent to 'level the playing field' - i.e., so that voters hear something of 'his side', not just Hore's advertising.

The radical 4's logic was that some of those wealth donors, seeing that they can't simply buy the election by dominating the funding since the opponent will get some public funds, might make them question if it's worth buying.

And this 'violation' of their 'right' to feel they're buying a one-sided election that could discourage them from donating if they can't have it one-sided, is a 'right' the radical right 4 justices said *is a violation of the donors' free speech*.

Note, the law did nothing to prevent the donors giving money and buying their 'free speech' - rather it was the people's choosing to use public funds to make it a bit more level, that might discourage the donor when he can't have a one-side election that violates his free speech. Forget the free speech rights of the people to be able to use state public funds for their free speech to let both sides be heard.

We may not notice it because the effects aren't immediate in replacing Congress with all corporate sellouts, but we are institutionalizing massive corruption permanently. 5-4.

Save234

 

[Genx87]

The democrat party is full of rich people. Or is their rich different than republican rich?

And anybody else find it amusing Craig is now complaining about campaign financing after Obama set records for raising money in 08?

 

[nick1985]

The United States is not a democracy

 

[PokerGuy]

Ah yes, the usual Craig drivel. At least the wall was a little smaller than usual this time

The court basically said "hey, the government should not be financing candidates just because they're not raising as much money as another candidate. It should not be in the business of picking what opinions / politicians to support financially, it puts other candidates at a disadvantage and stifles free speech".

Perfectly logical.

The ironing of course is that you whine about money in the election process while the obummer is the biggest money raiser of all times, and that's IN ADDITION to the fee publicity he gets from his adoring throng (aka, the media).

 

[EagleKeeper]

The democrat party is full of rich people. Or is their rich different than republican rich?

And anybody else find it amusing Craig is now complaining about campaign financing after Obama set records for raising money in 08?

My thoughts exactly.

Hypocritical partisans exist in both camps apparently. So nice to see that one of our biggest ones fits the mold.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

The political system needs total revamping.

There should be no adverising or promotion allowed at any media outlet other than allowed by law. And even then it shoudl be VERY limited so that intelegent middle class people would have a shot fianancially speaking.

I would vote for a middle class engineer that ran a busienss for 10 years over anyone in office right now. I would also vote For Charlie Munger or Warren Buffett in a heartbeat also. Rather have Munger in office though since he is one of the smartest peopel I have ever heard speak and he is a republican.

 

[Mursilis]

The political system needs total revamping.

There should be no adverising or promotion allowed at any media outlet other than allowed by law. And even then it shoudl be VERY limited so that intelegent middle class people would have a shot fianancially speaking.

In other words, you hate the First Amendment. Got it.

 

[Sinsear]

I take it because Craig is bitching about the SCOTUS they made a good decision?

 

[Thump553]

Craig did go a bit overboard in describing this decision, but it is a horrible one. It is based on the premise that having public campaign funding with a specified step up in public funding to counter highly funded private campaigns impedes the free speech rights of donors to the private campaigns because it influences them to keep their donations below the level to trigger the step-up in public funding for their opponent. Talk about convoluted logic to reach the desired result-bar public campaign funding by just about insuring it will always be funded lower than a privately funded campaign.

We had a problem a few years ago with lobbyists corrupting our state politicians (GOP governor went to prison) and a very nice bipartisan public campaign funding program was instituted under a republican governor . I haven't seen any recent article locally about the effects of this decision yet, but my guess is that it totally guts the CT law.

Great decision for lobbyists. You decide if this is a good decision for the USA or not.

 

[PokerGuy]

Craig did go a bit overboard in describing this decision, but it is a horrible one.

Craig is an idiot, we're used to it. The decision is not a horrible one at all, it's logical. It really boils down to: the government should not be in the business of funding candidates under the pretense of "leveling the playing field". It basically means the government is using MY tax money (as well as that of other tax payers) to fund candidates I don't support. That dilutes my donation to the candidates I do support.

Great decision for lobbyists. You decide if this is a good decision for the USA or not.

How does this help the lobbyists? They were purchasing government before, and they will continue to do so.

 

[Anarchist420]

This court sucks because they neither support nor respect the compact theory. They're a bunch of Lincolnians, and Craig does have a good point about that, even if it's misguided.

 

[silverpig]

The new Conservative government just did something similar here in Canada too.

Many years ago, a multi-partisan and partially independent commission came up with a campaign funding program for political parties that was quite well thought out. Parties could raise money from corporations and citizens, and the donors would get a tax credit for their donation. In addition, each party would get money from the government for each vote it got in the previous federal election. Recently, this value was pegged at $2 a vote. You get 1M people to vote for you, you get $2M to run your next campaign.

Semi-recently, the previous Liberal government, popular with corporate donors and wealthy individuals, decided to make the system more fair, putting a cap on the size of a donation by an individual, and eliminating corporate donations.

And now, the Conservatives have cut the per-vote subsidy, saying that the government shouldn't be paying for parties to run their campaigns.

This is totally stupid IMO.

First, if I donate $100 to party X, that party gets $100, I have to front the $100, but come tax time, I get a tax credit for $75. At the end of the day, party X gets $100, I'm out $25, and the government is out $75. How is this not using taxpayer money to fund political parties?

Second, this reduces the ability of poor people to have their voices heard. Many can't afford to donate to political parties, and many more can't afford to front the $100, even if they could afford $25.

Third, with a per-vote subsidy, parties were rewarded for getting people to vote, and got funding which was directly proportional to their support. I think both of these things are good things which are now eliminated.

Fourth, cutting off a source of funding like this now means that our politicians will have to spend more time fundraising and less time governing.

Fifth, ensuring that the parties are more dependent on private sources of money means they are more easily "bought". While this isn't in reality a "we'll give you a cheque if you do exactly what we want" situation, they have to pay more attention to what their donors want and less attention to what the country as a whole wants. This leads to polarization.

Sixth, if 50% of your funding comes from "the public" and 50% comes from "your base" it shifts your responsibilities somewhat, as opposed to all 100% coming from your supporters alone. I like the idea of my government having to consider the public when determining policy.

 

[PokerGuy]

First, if I donate $100 to party X, that party gets $100, I have to front the $100, but come tax time, I get a tax credit for $75. At the end of the day, party X gets $100, I'm out $25, and the government is out $75. How is this not using taxpayer money to fund political parties?

I agree with the last part: political contributions should not be tax deductible. If you want to donate to support someone, feel free to do so, but I don't think other taxpayers should subsidize that donation.

Second, this reduces the ability of poor people to have their voices heard.

Huh? that makes no sense. Having no money also reduces your ability to buy a BMW. So what? You have a right to vote, like anyone else. No more, no less.

Third, with a per-vote subsidy, parties were rewarded for getting people to vote, and got funding which was directly proportional to their support.

Sounds like a snowball effect: the more votes you get, the more money you get, the fewer votes you get the less money you get. That's just a mechanism to keep the big parties in power.

Fourth, cutting off a source of funding like this now means that our politicians will have to spend more time fundraising and less time governing.

This is true.

 

[silverpig]

I agree with the last part: political contributions should not be tax deductible. If you want to donate to support someone, feel free to do so, but I don't think other taxpayers should subsidize that donation.

I agree. It isn't the case here now though.

Huh? that makes no sense. Having no money also reduces your ability to buy a BMW. So what? You have a right to vote, like anyone else. No more, no less.

For example the NDP is the left wing/union/poor people/seniors party here. They got public support through votes, but don't do so well with fundraising. Much of their advertising is dependent on the per-vote subsidy (or was anyways). Advertising dollars translate very well into votes. The Conservatives out-spent the next party something like 5:1 during the last election, and it got them a majority. By kneecapping the party that represents the poor, you take away the ability of that party to represent its people.

This is a bit of an odd example to make because the NDP had its best showing ever this past election. It wasn't really due to anything they did though (okay, some of it was), but rather most of it was due to the Liberals and BQ imploding. Also, they were able to use per-vote subsidy money in their last campaign. We'll see how the next election goes for them.

Sounds like a snowball effect: the more votes you get, the more money you get, the fewer votes you get the less money you get. That's just a mechanism to keep the big parties in power.

Actually, it's a bigger benefit to the smaller parties. Even with 1M votes (or about 6% of the popular vote), some parties never get a seat and a voice in government. They don't do well fundraising because they are a "fringe" party. $2M for election spending is serious money here, especially considering the state of the party's finances without that money.

Adding $2M to the coffers of a small party is a bigger benefit than adding $8M to the coffers of a major political party.

 

[Thump553]

* * *

How does this help the lobbyists? They were purchasing government before, and they will continue to do so.

Under the reform system put into place in CT lobbyists, their families and state contractors were all essentially barred from making contributions for state offices.

I'd suggest when analyzing decisions like this people do their best to leave their political bias at the door. It's pretty clear under an objective analysis that this decision favors big money donors (to any party) based upon a very weak and convoluted free speech premise. Rather than applying the law it looks more like the five member majority started with their desired result and rconstructed a rationale to support it.

 

[Craig234]

Craig did go a bit overboard in describing this decision

Please elaborate. You seem to have described the ruling pretty simlarly.

, but it is a horrible one. It is based on the premise that having public campaign funding with a specified step up in public funding to counter highly funded private campaigns impedes the free speech rights of donors to the private campaigns because it influences them to keep their donations below the level to trigger the step-up in public funding for their opponent. Talk about convoluted logic to reach the desired result-bar public campaign funding by just about insuring it will always be funded lower than a privately funded campaign.

We had a problem a few years ago with lobbyists corrupting our state politicians (GOP governor went to prison) and a very nice bipartisan public campaign funding program was instituted under a republican governor . I haven't seen any recent article locally about the effects of this decision yet, but my guess is that it totally guts the CT law.

Great decision for lobbyists. You decide if this is a good decision for the USA or not.

My version:

The radical 4's logic was that some of those wealthy donors, seeing that they can't simply buy the election by dominating the funding since the opponent will get some public funds, might make them question if it's worth buying.

And this 'violation' of their 'right' to feel they're buying a one-sided election that could discourage them from donating if they can't have it one-sided, is a 'right' the radical right 4 justices said *is a violation of the donors' free speech*.

Actually, I have some sympathy for the majority's point that 'elections are so important we have to be very careful about the state influencing the outcome.'

In theory, that's a valid caution; but there is a real problem of corrupting democracy with money and the people have some right to ensure elections aren't just effectively bought.

A better solution would be to undo this court's decisions that made a level playing field so important to democracy, especially Citizens v. United.

Now, we just need a constitutional amendment against it.

You were more strong in your condemnation of the court's motivation, but I think you're probably right. These are agenda-driven and ideological people.

 

[werepossum]

Under the reform system put into place in CT lobbyists, their families and state contractors were all essentially barred from making contributions for state offices.

I'd suggest when analyzing decisions like this people do their best to leave their political bias at the door. It's pretty clear under an objective analysis that this decision favors big money donors (to any party) based upon a very weak and convoluted free speech premise. Rather than applying the law it looks more like the five member majority started with their desired result and constructed a rationale to support it.

A "very weak and convoluted free speech premise"? Look a bit deeper. The AZ law struck down requires tax money to support a candidate for no better reason than he has raised less money than his opponent. Any political candidate needs to be able to stand on her own two feet and pull her own weight; if she has not the support to attract campaign donations, she should not be able to attach herself prematurely to the public teat based just on that lack of support.

 

[hal2kilo]

It's very simple. Now, we have the best government and judicial system money can buy.

 

[ElFenix]

A "very weak and convoluted free speech premise"? Look a bit deeper. The AZ law struck down requires tax money to support a candidate for no better reason than he has raised less money than his opponent. Any political candidate needs to be able to stand on her own two feet and pull her own weight; if she has not the support to attract campaign donations, she should not be able to attach herself prematurely to the public teat based just on that lack of support.

when you put it that way it sounds like a political question to be decided by the duly elected political branches, rather than something reaching the first amendment.

 

[soulcougher73]

This is why donations need to be made illegal. I think states and fed need to set up funding for each position. each candidate gets the same amount to spend as they see fit on advertising etc. All debates will be funded by the state or fed as well and each candidate will get even airtime.

That is the only way to make this a fair game for all candidates. Got to take the money equation out of it and make it about the politics and who stands for what.

Wont happen since it makes too much common sense.

 

[woolfe9999]

when you put it that way it sounds like a political question to be decided by the duly elected political branches, rather than something reaching the first amendment.

Yes dead on. His argument has nothing to do with the First Amendment, nor does the majority ruling here, in spite of the fact that it nominally purports to be about it. This is an activist ruling to support an ideological agenda, where the SCOTUS is legislating from the bench, and state law no less. It shouldn't matter if one supports or opposes this particular law, because it quite clearly is not unconstitutional. There is no banning or censorship of speech involved. The court is departing immensely from any concept of "strict constructionism" here and going way out on a limb, employing tortured reasoning to support a pre-determined result.

I suggest that anyone wanting to defend this ruling should at least attempt to do so on Constitutional grounds, since that is the only basis upon which the SCOTUS has the authority to throw this law out. Arguments about why someone does or does not like this law are not relevant.

- wolf

 

[piasabird]

Distinctly remember Heinz heiress not knowing what Chilli was???

 

[soundforbjt]

It's very simple. Now, we have the best government and judicial system money can buy.

Haven't we always in some way or another?

 

[werepossum]

Yes dead on. His argument has nothing to do with the First Amendment, nor does the majority ruling here, in spite of the fact that it nominally purports to be about it. This is an activist ruling to support an ideological agenda, where the SCOTUS is legislating from the bench, and state law no less. It shouldn't matter if one supports or opposes this particular law, because it quite clearly is not unconstitutional. There is no banning or censorship of speech involved. The court is departing immensely from any concept of "strict constructionism" here and going way out on a limb, employing tortured reasoning to support a pre-determined result.

I suggest that anyone wanting to defend this ruling should at least attempt to do so on Constitutional grounds, since that is the only basis upon which the SCOTUS has the authority to throw this law out. Arguments about why someone does or does not like this law are not relevant.

- wolf

Contrary to the left's belief, the First Amendment is not solely to protect nude dancing and flag burning. Protecting political speech is the original intent, and in this case the government (at the state level) is actively and preferentially opposing money spent as political free speech with tax money. I could make an argument either way, but I don't think that government should be favoring one candidate's political free speech rights over another candidate's political free speech rights. That might not be banning or censuring a candidate's free speech rights, but it is certainly watering them down - in fact, that's the stated goal of the law, to reduce the effectiveness of one candidate's political free speech by increasing his opponent's political free speech.

 

[wayliff]

This is why donations need to be made illegal. I think states and fed need to set up funding for each position. each candidate gets the same amount to spend as they see fit on advertising etc. All debates will be funded by the state or fed as well and each candidate will get even airtime.

That is the only way to make this a fair game for all candidates. Got to take the money equation out of it and make it about the politics and who stands for what.

Wont happen since it makes too much common sense.

This 1000 times.

No other way to prevent someone from 'buying' an election.