U.S. Politics: Register to vote, the election is nigh

[Athias]

This is absurd. As absurd as treating corporations as human beings. Campaigning requires money. Exercising free speech rights does not. Even in spirit, the concept of free speech never includes being able to reach the audience you want to reach. Your argument here will essentially legitimize the complaint that a commercial boycott against Limbaugh is limiting his free speech rights.

The problem with your argument, Terra, for seeking limitations on how much one can donate is in its restriction on the extent to which one can participate in a political campaign. It may not be an infraction on 'free speech,' but it is an infraction on a person's choice. You're holding donors liable, not because donating a lot of money is wrong, but because there's an imparity in the ability to finance, relative to other donors. But the extent to which one person can participate (through donation) should neither be stifled nor anchored to another person's options. How far are you willing to go to force parity? Why not retroactively legitimize McCain's candidacy because he was not as 'enigmatic' as Obama; or as well-funded; or in the same possession of celebrity endorsements?

Frankly, I don't care much for politics--let alone democracy. I just find the line of reasoning for limiting campaign finance to be inconsistent and rather specious, so you can say I'm playing devil's advocate.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Athias,

If you don't like democracy how would you, ideally, organize society?

[Athias]

Athias,

If you don't like democracy how would you, ideally, organize society?

That's the thing, Ser Scot--I would not organize anything, at least not in terms of a super collective. People should form their own arrangements. I'd just make a case for total privatization. Security, courts, hospitals -- all private.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

If we can sharply limit tobacco advertisements, we can also limit political advertisements. This is about what types of advertisement we're permitting people to buy. No, people don't get to spend their money on whatever they want, we have declared in a myriad of ways. Spending money isn't speech. Having money means having the means to produce and disseminate opinion, it is not opinion itself.

This won't persuade people like Athias who hate democracy, but it should at least be clear to anyone who falls somewhere on the liberal spectrum.

[Athias]

This won't persuade people like Athias who hate democracy, but it should at least be clear to anyone who falls somewhere on the liberal spectrum.

I don't "hate" democracy. I reject it as a morally legitimate cooperative arrangement.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I'll make a note of that crucial distinction.

[TrackerNeil]

The problem with your argument, Terra, for seeking limitations on how much one can donate is in its restriction on the extent to which one can participate in a political campaign. It may not be an infraction on 'free speech,' but it is an infraction on a person's choice. You're holding donors liable, not because donating a lot of money is wrong, but because there's an imparity in the ability to finance, relative to other donors. But the extent to which one person can participate (through donation) should neither be stifled nor anchored to another person's options. How far are you willing to go to force parity? Why not retroactively legitimize McCain's candidacy because he was not as 'enigmatic' as Obama; or as well-funded; or in the same possession of celebrity endorsements?

Frankly, I don't care much for politics--let alone democracy. I just find the line of reasoning for limiting campaign finance to be inconsistent and rather specious, so you can say I'm playing devil's advocate.

First of all, why don't we let the devil speak for himself, OK? He has plenty of advocates.

As to restricting choice, so what? Society restricts choices all the time, in the name of the general good. You can't drive at 85 on a residential street, or turn your home into a nuclear waste storage site, because those choices unduly endanger others. You also can't run a business without complying with various state and local regulations aimed at protecting consumers. That's reality, and if all these "infractions" bother you, well, you're living in the wrong country.

I'm not endorsing "forcing parity"; I'm saying that the law should take account of the gross disparity in the ability of individuals to use money to influence politics. IMO, acting otherwise is like asserting that rich and poor alike are free to sleep under bridges.

[Commodore]

This is absurd. As absurd as treating corporations as human beings. Campaigning requires money. Exercising free speech rights does not. Even in spirit, the concept of free speech never includes being able to reach the audience you want to reach.

"money is not press" so it's constitutional to cap the operating budget of the New York Times

"money is not religion" so it's constitutional to cap the operating budget of churches

"money is not assembly" so it's constitutional to cap the operating budget of political conventions like Netroots Nation or the NRA convention

and finally, "money is not speech", so it's constitutional to prohibit purchasing a megaphone or a radio antenna

[Athias]

As to restricting choice, so what? Society restricts choices all the time, in the name of the general good. You can't drive at 85 on a residential street, or turn your home into a nuclear waste storage site, because those choices unduly endanger others. You also can't run a business without complying with various state and local regulations aimed at protecting consumers. That's reality, and if all these "infractions" bother you, well, you're living in the wrong country.

And how is restricting one's ability to finance a campaign of his/her choice serving the "general good?"

I'm not endorsing "forcing parity"; I'm saying that the law should take account of the gross disparity in the ability of individuals to use money to influence politics. IMO, acting otherwise is like asserting that rich and poor alike are free to sleep under bridges.

No, you want use of the law to coerce limitations on other individuals so you can normalize inclusion--which is in essence forcing parity.

[Suttree]

More on dark money.

RR

The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that $100 million of dark money has so far been spent in the 2014 congressional elections, and that by Election Day that number will more than double. Recently, when the Republican Governors Association inadvertently disclosed the identities of “dark money” contributors, it embarrassed corporations like Walmart, Microsoft, and Aetna, that had each given $250,000, believing their donations would be kept secret. The whole purpose of so-called “social welfare” organizations that under Section 401-c-4 of the Internal Revenue Code need not disclose where their donors is to allow big corporations and billionaires to gain political influence without the rest of us knowing. There is no justification for this. Even four of the five Republican justices who joined together in the shameful “Citizens United” decision endorsed full disclosure that "allows voters to make informed choices in the political marketplace."

Even if we can’t reverse “Citizens United” anytime soon, we have to demand a full disclosure law. As former Justice Louis Brandeis once said, "sunlight is the best disinfectant." We must disinfect our democracy.

[awesome possum]

I missed this last week on John Oliver's show: Ayn Rand, How Is She Still a Thing?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Commodore,

"money is not press" so it's constitutional to cap the operating budget of the New York Times

"money is not religion" so it's constitutional to cap the operating budget of churches

"money is not assembly" so it's constitutional to cap the operating budget of political conventions like Netroots Nation or the NRA convention

and finally, "money is not speech", so it's constitutional to prohibit purchasing a megaphone or a radio antenna

You make an interesting point. I'm curious to see the advocates for strictly limiting money used for political speech to address this point.

[Fez]

I am not supporting a ban on all donations. I am arguing for a severe limitations on the total amount that a single voter can contribute in a given election cycle.

This is absurd. As absurd as treating corporations as human beings. Campaigning requires money. Exercising free speech rights does not. Even in spirit, the concept of free speech never includes being able to reach the audience you want to reach. Your argument here will essentially legitimize the complaint that a commercial boycott against Limbaugh is limiting his free speech rights.

Yes, campaigns with a alrger war chest will do a better job of campaigning, in general. That's not the point of distress for those of us complaining about the influence of money in politics. The distress, at least for me, is the widening gap of political influence between the have's and the have-not's of this country.

I am not okay with this, at all. I have to live with this, surely, but I would like to see the gap between the rich and the poor, when it comes to political influence, to be more narrow.

When you have to pool the resources of a million people to counter the activity of 2 people, then wouldn't you agree it necessarily causes a distortion in the concept of democracy?

We already accept that free speech is not entirely free, that there are reasons to limit, restrict, and monitor speech. It is not that far a leap to say that the distorting influence of large sums of money in politics is too dire a threat to the fundamentals of civics that we need to curb the influence and narrow the power differential across economic classes.

1) I'm not saying you specifically, just some people in this thread. And remember, I support limitations too; just not as strict.

2) Exercising free speech doesn't require money, but money can facilitate it; just like getting food doesn't require money, but money can facilitate it. And its not about having a right to an audience, its about a right to broadcast. Everyone can, and should, boycott Rush, but he absolutely has a right to have his platform, if he can convince the owners of his platform to let him keep using it.

3) The haves have always had a larger say than the have-nots, this isn't a new development. And while I stronger support actions to benefit the have-nots, I don't support taking away the rights of the haves to do so. Tax 'em? Absolutely. Silence 'em? Not so much.

4) That doesn't require limiting rights; it requires organizing and electing someone who you feel is less beholden to the haves.

5) Not at all. Our society is about equality of opportunity, not outcome; there will always be people more successful, sometimes significantly so, than others, and those people will have a larger impact than others. And that's fine, getting a larger say is one of the perks of being successful; just like getting a larger house or nicer car. Democracy is about everyone getting one vote, and about everyone being equal under the law, not about everyone getting an equal share of everything.

6) I don't dispute that restrictions are necessary. However, like all restrictions on constitutional rights, they need to be extremely well thought out and be strict to the minimum extent possible.

[aceluby]

"money is not press" so it's constitutional to cap the operating budget of the New York Times

"money is not religion" so it's constitutional to cap the operating budget of churches

"money is not assembly" so it's constitutional to cap the operating budget of political conventions like Netroots Nation or the NRA convention

and finally, "money is not speech", so it's constitutional to prohibit purchasing a megaphone or a radio antenna

These acts would probably not be, but I don't think the argument is necessarily capping the operating budgets, but where that money can be spent. At least that's the argument I've made. We regulate where money can be spent all the time, just look at beer and cigarette ads for examples of 'speech' that is already regulated in the same way. I'm sure they'd love to have My Little Pony smoking some Camels and looking cool during Saturday morning cartoons, yet we don't allow that, and it has been deemed constitutional. What we haven't done is limited their operating budget, they can still spend the same amount of money, it's just WHERE they spend it that's being limited. I don't see why campaigns and political advocate groups couldn't be regulated in the same, constitutional way.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ace,

You do realize that a big difference exists between regulating commercial speech (cigarette and beer ads) and political speech? The first amendment was enacted as a protection for political speech. Therefore, a different standard applies toward reviewing government action to regulate political speech.

[TrackerNeil]

And how is restricting one's ability to finance a campaign of his/her choice serving the "general good?"

No, you want use of the law to coerce limitations on other individuals so you can normalize inclusion--which is in essence forcing parity.

#1: Because I believe that, as TP said, when one individual can donate as much to a campaign as a million others, that creates pressures and incentives that are harmful to democracy.

#2: That's an extremely tendentious way to frame my position, don't you think? I'll frame my own position: I don't support entirely eliminating the ability of individuals to contribute to campaigns. I support reasonable limits on the amounts these individuals can donate.

[Commodore]

I support reasonable limits on the amounts these individuals can donate.

If there were no donation limits, what would be done with that money that you would disapprove of?

[TrackerNeil]

If there were no donation limits, what would be done with that money that you would disapprove of?

That money goes to campaigns, obviously. I don't know exactly what you're getting at here.

Let me also state, for the record, that I think money in politics is not the most toxic influence on democracy one can envision; I think "packing" of racial minorities and voter ID laws probably do as much if not more harm. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about it.

[TerraPrime]

3) The haves have always had a larger say than the have-nots, this isn't a new development. And while I stronger support actions to benefit the have-nots, I don't support taking away the rights of the haves to do so. Tax 'em? Absolutely. Silence 'em? Not so much.

Limiting a freedom is not the same as taking it away entirely, correct? Limiting the amount of contribution and the ways in which to spend it is not "silencing" the rich people with large disposable incomes, no more than making all public drinking fountains available to all citizens is taking away the rights of white people to have exclusive drinking fountains. Rich people can still donate, and by and large, their influence will still be larger than that of poor people. But at least with the reforms I propose, the differential would be smaller, such that it will not take pooling resources from a million voters just to counter the action of 1 individual. Maybe now it will take only 50 thousand, to counter the action of 1. That's an improvement.

4) That doesn't require limiting rights; it requires organizing and electing someone who you feel is less beholden to the haves.

Tihs is tautological. The premise on my side is that there are structural problems inherent in the electoral system and the reforms are meant to mitigate the ill effects of these flaws. Do you disagree that there are stuctural issues that make the system more responsive to single source donors with large donations?

5) Not at all. Our society is about equality of opportunity, not outcome; there will always be people more successful, sometimes significantly so, than others, and those people will have a larger impact than others. And that's fine, getting a larger say is one of the perks of being successful; just like getting a larger house or nicer car. Democracy is about everyone getting one vote, and about everyone being equal under the law, not about everyone getting an equal share of everything.

I'm not asking for equal share of political power. I am asking for a fighting chance for the interests of the lower SEC to be heard and considered, at all, by way of having politicians who actually will champion those issues becoming electable.

Your argument on the equality of outcome versus equality of opportunity also falls flat when we look at other examples of competition, like boxing. Your argument will say that if I go up against Mayweather, that'd be a fair fight because it's only fair that him being bigger gets to capitalize on that advantage. But for most people, we actually think that boxers of the same weight class should fight each other, out of fairness and out of consideration for the longevity of the sports. We see similar levels of sectioning off competitions in numerous other areas in order to preserve fairness in the competition.

6) I don't dispute that restrictions are necessary. However, like all restrictions on constitutional rights, they need to be extremely well thought out and be strict to the minimum extent possible.

Yes, careful considerations are needed, but I don't think we even agree yet on the fundamentals. For instance, do you see the effects that Koch, Adelson, and the super PACs, have on politics as a problem, or not? If so, what's the root of this problem? I am not sure that we agree on that basic premise yet.

Re: Commodore and Ser Scot

We absolutely do regulate the finance of companies when they over-step, like say, Microsoft's brush with monopoly complaints? We recognize that unrestrained exercise of monetary power can skewer the basic metrics of the system in which the endeavor operates and we have laws to regulate that. When multiple airlines wanted to merge, the government stepped in and made sure that the result won't create an unfair monopoly first, correct?

In all the cases that Commodore cited, the element lacking is one where the exercise of monetary power by one party necessarily swamps out the ability of the other party to equally exercise their rights. The airtime for radio and TV ads are limited and the purchase goes to the highest bidders. That is not the only problem of flooding campaigns with money but it is a big part of it. When all air time is bought up, how does that benefit democracy, which relies on having an informed and engaged electorate? When the "informing" part is the proper campaign territory and when the power differential is so huge as to essentially silence (yes, silence, not limit) the ability of candidates who don't have large donors backing them, we no longer have democracy in a meaningful sense. We are closer to the democracy that the HK students are protesting against, where the candidates are pre-selected by powers that do not answer to the will of the electorate. That, in my view, is a perversion of democracy.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

Didn't the Democratic Party argue in favor of "packing" to create districts where minorties could depend upon electing minority representatives to congess? I have seen the problem for years. It dilutes minority votes in non-minority majority districts. Is the Democratic Party ending its support for "packing"?

TP,

Didn't the Roman Catholic Church hide its money to prevent Plaintiffs in Sexual Abuse cases from getting big awards? Wasn't the money used to help hide abusive priests. Shouldn't the Government have the power to take those funds using the "it's really important" rational you are offering for campaign finance?