I've been listening to people prattle on lately about how much money has been spent on the senate race in NC, and every year I keep thinking the same thing, no matter what election we're talking about.

Why can't we get rid of campaign financing altogether? For this state's stupid senate race, 10's of millions of dollars have been spent. Just think of how much good all that money could do in the hands of charities.

So I wish we could enact a couple of pieces of reform.

1. Get rid of super PACs.
2. Only a person's campaign can run ads.
3. Have governments fund campaigns, with a set amount allotted to each candidate, based on the type of election. Obviously, the larger the audience, the more each candidate should get. The amount should be equal for each candidate. This would level the playing field, and a person doesn't have to be wealthy to run a well-funded campaign. Also, it would allow independent candidates a fair shot, without having to have a huge party to back you up.

Sure there are those that come from poor backgrounds that can rally enough money to have a fighting chance, but I think there are a lot of good people out there that don't run for at least 2 reasons - their families are put through the ringer, and they feel like they don't have the money to successfully run.

Maybe this seems like a really simplistic and stupid idea, but like I said, I think it would level the playing field, and I think it would prevent people running from office to have to pay back favors for campaign donations.

I

11/2/2014 7:41:06 PM

Yes, yes, and yes. Plus you shouldn't mention the other candidates more than you talk about yourself.

11/2/2014 7:52:23 PM

Yeah, good luck with that.

The 2 parties that have a stranglehold on this country will never allow any meaningful reform in anything related to the election process.

11/2/2014 7:54:44 PM

The simplest of campaign reform bills, the DISCLOSE Act, whoms main goal is to require full disclosure of all political giving, was on the floor earlier this year (last year?) and I believe some version of ot is floating around the senate somewhere. It was supposed to be relatively bipartisan, since it's still allowing all contributions (because money is speech blah blah ) we just get a better idea of the source of all the dark money.

Nope, opposed by a majority of republicans, killed in the senate, because freedumb.

11/3/2014 6:26:18 AM

"full disclosure of all political giving"

not quite. the high reporting threshold of $10k was one of the reasons it died.

"The simplest of campaign reform bills"

nope. one of the reasons it failed was because of all the special exemptions that got tacked on in later versions. many republicans supported its original / simple form.

11/3/2014 8:31:46 AM

chinga la politcians

11/3/2014 8:47:23 AM

I know the OP is frustrated by the barrage of campaign ads and I'm sure they're full of good intentions, but does it really need to be explained how wrong it would be to "have governments fund campaigns?"

11/3/2014 8:51:32 AM

do you understand that public campaign financing already exists in various places and in various ways in the US?

11/3/2014 9:19:57 AM

As long as rethugs and SCOTUS think businesses are private people with political thoughts, free speech, and religious beliefs, we are fucked.

I'm as angry about the degradation of the word person by SCOTUS as the rethugs are about marriage with SSM.

11/3/2014 9:22:32 AM

Republicans CLAIMED that's why they didn't support DISCLOSE. Their support was low to begin with, like 5 cosponsors. But read the text, its a simple bill, only two pages long (one of the reasons I'm a fan of it), labor organizations are treated in the same manner as non-profits, PACs etc. I don't see the special exemptions:

Senate version:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/s3369-112/text

House version:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/hr4010-112/text


Bills that have been introduced recently:

DISCLOSE Act reboot:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2516/text

Government by the People Act of 2014:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr20

Fair Elections Now Act:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr269

Grassroots Democracy Act:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr268/text

Walter Jones (NC) is the only republican to cosponsor any of the above recent bills.




All of these obviously face a huge uphill battle, none seem to raise the interest of the media and democrats, for whatever reason, don't seem to think they can make hay off republicans blocking them. They just linger in committee, but its at least an attempt at reform, an acknowledgement that there is a problem.

[Edited on November 3, 2014 at 9:26 AM. Reason : more clearer]

11/3/2014 9:25:41 AM

^i was/am a fan of DISCLOSE, but the famous example that sticks out in my mind was the amendment that catered to the NRA almost exclusively.

plenty of conservatives raged about it even,

11/3/2014 9:37:04 AM

i seem to remember republicans being upset at the NRA for selling out to congress for the exemption (the NRA opposed the bill, but after the exemption was included the NRA said they would not oppose)

i can understand liberals not liking an exemption for the NRA, but why would Republicans not like that?

Quote :

"Just as opposition was building in the House to the unconstitutional and burdensome DISCLOSE Act, which is intended to help Democrats in the November election by stifling the political speech of corporations and many non-profit advocacy organizations (but not unions), the National Rifle Association has apparently sold out."

-Hans von Spakovsky
senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/231891/disclose-act-and-nra-some-bad-news-hans-von-spakovsky

[Edited on November 3, 2014 at 10:03 AM. Reason : .]

11/3/2014 9:59:29 AM

But they didn't rage because the NRA got an exemption, they raged because the NRA withdrew it's opposition to the bill after it got the exemption. Note that some other large issue oriented organizations would also been exempted like Humane Society, Sierra club, etc.

Republicans think that not disclosing who you are is a part of your 1st amendment rights, for some reason and I'm guessing will continue to oppose similar bills.

IMO, if you support campaign finance, then you CANNOT vote republican.

11/3/2014 10:06:10 AM

Quote :

"I know the OP is frustrated by the barrage of campaign ads and I'm sure they're full of good intentions, but does it really need to be explained how wrong it would be to "have governments fund campaigns?""

"Governments" wouldn't fund campaigns. In my idea, there would be a set amount of money available for each candidate. That amount wouldn't be negotiable. Yea, it would suck for taxpayers, but we suffer enough as it is during campaign seasons. And it isn't like your money isn't already making its way into campaign coffers through lobbyists, super PACs, and other organizations.

11/3/2014 10:17:11 AM

^^yep, boehner made an entire speech about how the NRA defends the 2nd amendment but apparently not the 1st as long as they get special treatment

or something similar

11/3/2014 12:00:19 PM

The most obvious reason to not have disclosures of political giving is the chilling effect it will have on giving/speech. The most recent example being Brandon Eich who was drummed out of Mozilla for contributing to a political campaign. Now you could argue that Eich deserved that for his views, but the issue is applicable elsewhere too. Imagine being drummed out of your job because you contributed to ending the war on drugs, or even 20 or 30 years ago before the public opinion changed, contributed to supporting gay marriage.

Beyond that, the folks with the money to spend will always have ways to funnel it into donations and contributions. We already have laws about campaign financing and they are routinely violated over and over again. And when was the last time you saw a politician removed from office for that? Usually by the time an investigation is completed, the politician has already been elected, and in some cases already served their term. So all the law in question did was prevent those that follow the law from speaking in a certain way, and did nothing to stop those that wouldn't. And plenty of times it's some low level grunt that takes the blame and goes to jail.

As for limiting only a person's campaign from running ads, and especially as the line between traditional media and social media continues to blur, how do you define a "campaign ad"? Obviously we have the things that run during the commercial segments of radio and TV, but what if the ad in question simply asks for votes against an individual or issue rather than supporting someone? Are the newspaper editorials declaring support for or against a candidate an ad? What about blog posts? Tweets? Facebook campaigns?

11/3/2014 12:40:27 PM

^^^ You literally stated in your opening post that you wanted to have governments fund campaigns, I was merely quoting you. And in your electoral utopia, who would determine the set amount each candidate received? Currently elected officials?

Why do you think you know better than each individual how much they should be forced to contribute to a campaign rather than allowing for them to voluntarily contribute to the candidate/group of their choosing?

11/3/2014 1:05:59 PM

why not just mirror or build on one of the public funding models that already exist and are in use in the US or abroad?

11/3/2014 1:26:13 PM

Who cares if it has a chilling effect. The 1st amendment doesn't grant anonymity when exercising free speech. If Eich walked around Mozilla dropping homophobic speech, would it be ok for mozilla to force him out? What if he campaigned with some hateful preacher on TV? Why should giving money (as a form of speech allegedly) to a public campaign be treated any differently?


Isn't this directly similar to libertarian arguments against civil rights laws/hate speech laws? That it should be legal to discriminate at your business, or to stand on the corner and preach hate, but that social ostracization and boycotts will curb the problem more effectively?

11/3/2014 1:35:48 PM

Quote :

"Who cares if it has a chilling effect. The 1st amendment doesn't grant anonymity when exercising free speech."

You're absolutely right, the 1st amendment doesn't grant anonymity. It also doesn't grant a right of free speech. It specifically protects that already existing right from encroachment by the government. So it seems to me that talking about what the 1st amendment "grants" is a pointless discussion.

As for who cares about chilling effects on speech? I would imagine anyone that has a political opinion that runs contrary to the prevailing opinion of the public at large (or even just within their local area). Again, pick another issue. 30 years ago, Eich wouldn't have been drummed out of his job, but someone who supported gay marriage might well have been. Or I'm sure you remember McCarthy yes? Should you be drummed out of your job for contributing to the Communist Party? Again, do you support an end to the war on drugs? You'd better hope your boss does too. Do you support secret ballots or do you think that every vote of every person should be public record? Do you sincerely believe that you personally will be on the "correct" side of every single political battle such that you are willing to wager your continued employment on it?

Remember the hollywood blacklists weren't that long ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist) and if you think that something like that could never happen again in this country, I have a bridge to sell you. Small bills only please.

[Edited on November 3, 2014 at 2:27 PM. Reason : asdf]

11/3/2014 2:24:45 PM

Eich wasn't drummed out for having an unpopular opinion, he was drummed out for not communicating well.

There should be protections from being fired, but if you step down form a position because you don't know how to communicate, or you can't handle the accountability of donating to the KKK (or whatever), then don't donate. The "chilling effect" of this is a myth-- it would be non-existent.

11/3/2014 2:37:17 PM

youre going to turn the world into one big wolf web

there are users here who actively try to figure out who other unpopular users are IRL so they can mess with them

its ok as long as theyre outnumbered right

11/3/2014 2:52:46 PM

^^Keep telling yourself he wasn't drummed out for having an unpopular opinion.

11/3/2014 3:09:11 PM

ban street signage, billboards, and mailers

11/3/2014 3:29:08 PM

Quote :

"2. Only a person's campaign can run ads."

Where this becomes a problem is when you run an issue ad. Say if you go and buy some Internet advertising and setup a website supporting the legalization of drugs, legalization of gay marriage or stronger gun control. Doesn't say vote for a specific candidate or cause, just a simple national ad referencing a website with more information on the topic. Just so happens that this ad runs as the same time as a referendum in some mid-sized town somewhere on this very same issue in the United States, or perhaps, its a race where this issue is a key one for the two candidates in the running. How do you determine if this ad is a campaign ad or just you exercising free speech? Should I shut down your website? Force you to file hundreds of pages in declarations?

Or perhaps we have a national tragedy, like another school shooting. Group of activists decide to shame sitting senators who didn't pass a particular gun control bill and list out their names in a big ad in a local paper. Again, this happens to be near an election. Does this count as a campaign ad?

11/3/2014 3:46:11 PM

Quote :

"There should be protections from being fired, but if you step down form a position because you don't know how to communicate, or you can't handle the accountability of donating to the KKK (or whatever), then don't donate."

Again, you're getting hung up on the "bad opinions" angle of this. North Carolina is a right to work state. Let's say you support unions and want to see more of them with more protections in NC. Should you be drummed out of your job because you donated to a bill supporting unions? Do you want Duke Energy being able to troll the campaign contribution lists to see who's contributing to politicians that make Duke's life more difficult?

Let's even move beyond the actions your employer might take. Let's say you live in a city known to have corrupt or abusive politicians. Say perhaps a certain Joe Arpaio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio). Do you want your voting and contribution records public for his perusal? Especially if you have the wrong skin color?

[Edited on November 3, 2014 at 4:41 PM. Reason : asdf]

11/3/2014 4:12:23 PM

Quote :

"You're absolutely right, the 1st amendment doesn't grant anonymity. It also doesn't grant a right of free speech. It specifically protects that already existing right from encroachment by the government. So it seems to me that talking about what the 1st amendment "grants" is a pointless discussion. "

If one accepts that money is speech (I don't, but that's not the world we live in currently), then the ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL way to restrict campaign finance is through disclosure. That's why I mentioned the 1st amendment.


Any time a person contributes to or joins a cause, there would be a chance of repercussions (of course the entity doing it had better think long and hard about what comes next after firing someone for their political views).

But that's not gonna stop me if I truly believe in that cause. Actions have consequences, always. I could lose sleep at night for not following my conscience or I might lose my job, each individual should weigh for themselves what is "worth it" to them. Its called not being a coward.

In Doe vs Reed, SCOTUS ruled that anonymity should not be granted for petitions, where a signature and home address were needed. Scalia said (jesus, I can't believe I'm quoting him):

Quote :

"There are laws against threats and intimidation; and harsh criticism, short of unlawful action, is a price our people have traditionally been willing to pay for self-governance. Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look forward to a society which…campaigns anonymously…and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave."

11/3/2014 5:18:42 PM

There is absolutely nothing cowardly about being a Mexican born naturalized citizen and not wanting Joe Arpaio to know that you donated funds to his opponent. There's nothing cowardly about being an in the closet homosexual in rural texas not wanting their neighbors to know they contributed towards marriage equality. There's nothing wrong with being a cop and not wanting the NYPD to know you gave to a campaign to end the war on drugs. There's nothing wrong with being a white house employee and not wanting the president to know you gave to his opponent last election. It's great that you personally are willing and ready to throw your job and comforts away to stand up for the things you believe in. I mean that sincerely. But it is not your place to assume others are so willing or to force others to do the same.

Scalia was wrong. The Home of the Brave was built in part on anonymous political speech:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalist_Papers

11/3/2014 7:11:28 PM

lol, scalia is exactly the kind of dickbag that would use this information incorrectly / unethically

what kind of bizarro world is this thread turning into

11/3/2014 7:27:40 PM

^^but we already have laws against harassment and intimidation and if you read the Doe vs Reed decision all of the justices make it clear that If a person has reasonable evidence that they will be threatened they can ask a court for more anonymity in the process. I think the NAACP and socialist worker party have both been granted more anonymity in their donation process due to harassment in the past.

You are asking for a preemptive protection for a speculative harm. I'm asking for the what I think is the smallest, simplest bulwark against a known harm.

Would DISCLOSE not be similar, at least in effect, to what we had from the 70s to the 90s????

As for our founding fathers valuing anonymity, secret ballots weren't even allowed until sometime long after they were all dead.

11/4/2014 6:22:04 AM

Yes, we do have laws against harassment and intimidation. And they are violated all the time. I'm sure that will be a large comfort to the Mexican born naturalized citizen as they're stopped for "weaving" for the 10th time in as many weeks. Or the closet homosexual in Texas when some drunk strangers show up at his house one night. That we have such laws will I'm sure be a consolation to the NYPD officer who finds themselves suddenly on third shift all the time, and wouldn't you know it, someone always gets their vacation request in first for the holidays.

We have laws that an employer can not discriminate against you based on various things. We still make it illegal for them to ask you about those things. It's the same basic idea.

As for asking the courts for an exemption to be more anonymous, why should we have to ask the courts for permission for a right we already have? I'm not "asking" for any preemptive protections. That protection already exists. You are asking to curtail a right that every person has on the speculation that it will reduce some speculative harm caused by people who are already rich enough to side step any law like this.

11/4/2014 5:08:54 PM

Quote :

"Yes, we do have laws against harassment and intimidation. And they are violated all the time."

Exactly. You are asking me to believe that there will be a measurable increase in harassment and intimidation because Sheriff Joe, Homophobes, or shitty bosses are gonna go browse political giving lists and then start targeting individuals. That's highly speculative.

Sheriff Joe is gonna pull Hispanics regardless of who they gave money to, BECAUSE they're Hispanic. Homophobes are gonna intimidate gays whether they gave money to an equality organization or not and bosses are gonna shit on their underlings for any number of infinite reasons.

Did our previous campaign finance laws from the mid-70s to 2010, when disclosure rules were much better than now (although they could've been better admittedly), produce a measurable increase in the type of political intimidation you're talking about? NO

Quote :

"We have laws that an employer can not discriminate against you based on various things. We still make it illegal for them to ask you about those things. It's the same basic idea."

OK, but in the case of campaign finance the state has a compelling interest in protecting the integrity of the campaign and election systems ala Buckley v. Valeo in which the supreme court said the state should be interested in:
provid[ing] the electorate with information 'as to where political campaign money comes from and how it is spent by the candidate' in order to aid the voters in evaluating those who seek federal office," in allowing "voters to place each candidate in the political spectrum more precisely than is often possible solely on the basis of party labels and campaign speeches," and because "the sources of a candidate's financial support also alert the voter to the interests to which a candidate is most likely to be responsive and thus facilitate predictions of future performance in office." Further, "disclosure requirements deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity." Finally, "recordkeeping, reporting, and disclosure requirements are an essential means of gathering the data necessary to detect violations of the contribution limitations described above."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

Quote :

"As for asking the courts for an exemption to be more anonymous, why should we have to ask the courts for permission for a right we already have? I'm not "asking" for any preemptive protections. That protection already exists. You are asking to curtail a right that every person has on the speculation that it will reduce some speculative harm caused by people who are already rich enough to side step any law like this."

Again, anonymity is not a right under the 1st amendment. There is no protection to privacy in the public sphere or for public campaigns. This supposed right, in regards to disclosure, didn't even exist until SCOTUS decided Citizens United circa 2010, and even then they left room for disclosure requirements (just like in Buckley, etc.).

Am I really speculating on the harm of our campaign finance system? Are you saying that our current system is just peachy? Is $1 billion spent on mid-terms (or $700 million on the top ten races) ok?, totally normal?, and a good sign of a functioning democracy? Are our politicians responsive to the average electorate? If you think that's the case, then I'm guessing we will have to agree to disagree.

The beautiful thing about the DISCLOSE act is that it would be highly difficult to bypass its requirements just because you are rich, I'm not sure side-stepping it is really an option.




As a slight aside:
I know we have been talking about disclosure in general, which is fine and a good discussion. I think disclosure is good policy no matter how rich or poor you are. However, I do think its important to point out to other readers that the actual DISCLOSE act only requires full disclosure if you give more than $10K to a political spending entity. My guess is that most Hispanics being pulled by sheriffs or people working for a boss that controls their schedule give FAR FAR less than that limit.

11/4/2014 7:44:11 PM

who the fuck is tasked with cleaning up all of these street signs????

11/5/2014 5:19:43 PM

I dont like TSB bc it apparently has all these words and shit. Jesus Fucking Christ who would read all that shit?

11/5/2014 9:59:34 PM

OMG, words are so hard.

11/8/2014 4:15:34 AM

the first amendment protects political speech. people can buy ads, we are going to have to deal with it.

i propose we figure out why people are donating so much money and take that power away from the politicians and give it back to the individual wherever possible

11/8/2014 6:30:01 AM

Quote :

"i propose we figure out why people are donating so much money and take that power away from the politicians and give it back to the individual wherever possible"

The answer lies in the public choice school of economics - look it up in wikipedia. Another of its founders, Gordon Tullock, recently passed away last week. The great Dr. Don Boudreaux explains the irrational nature of tv ads and voting below:

http://triblive.com/opinion/donaldboudreaux/7082172-74/vote-candidates-jobs#axzz3HsLU4gSs

11/8/2014 6:41:41 AM

Remember when Sam Alito mouthed "not true" during Obama's SOTU regarding foreign corporations being able to donate to campaigns?

Seems Alito was probably wrong:

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/03/gop-lawyer-chinese-owned-company-us-presidential-politics/

8/3/2016 3:53:24 PM