[reader50]

In 2010 the US Supreme Court legalized unlimited corporate contributions to campaigns. Today, the Supremes (5-4) removed the contribution caps on wealthy individuals. Since the cap was $46,200 per year, it only applied to wealthy individuals.

This cap was a blanket cap on annual political contributions. There remains a cap on how much one person can contribute to a single candidate per year. But that's it. You can buy a whole political slate if you want, and of course, are able.

Voting used to be one pure area of democracy, where every citizen had an equal voice in their government.

Originally Posted by reader50

All men were created equal -> Everything is negotiable. How much do you need?

Yet another dark day for the Republic.

[osiris]

A very dark day, regardless of your political party.

[OAW]

Absolutely. Regardless of whether one is a DEM or GOP at the end of the day it's still supposed to be about democracy. But the Roberts led SCOTUS seems like it will not be satisfied until a full-blown oligarchy is constitutionally legitimized.

OAW

[besson3c]

Is it the supreme court's fault, or the constitution, the way it currently stands?

It's time to stop treating the constitution as some sort of sacred document that should never be altered in any way, and start amending it like the founders seemed to want for it in the first place.

[BadKosh]

How about ENFORCING EXISTING LAWS AS THEY EXIST IN THE US CONSTITUTION FIRST?
How about punishing lawbreakers instead of the current "move on" attitude?
How about voting in people of character, not lying liberal stooges and have them write easy to understand, loopholeless laws?

[turtle777]

Guys, can we be honest: NONE of the parties are really interested in changing this. They all benefit from big donors and money.

ALL of DC is bought and paid for.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

How about ENFORCING EXISTING LAWS AS THEY EXIST IN THE US CONSTITUTION FIRST?
How about punishing lawbreakers instead of the current "move on" attitude?
How about voting in people of character, not lying liberal stooges and have them write easy to understand, loopholeless laws?

Are you saying that what the supreme court passed was unconstitutional? If so, maybe not the best post to rave about liberal stooges? That isn't to suggest that it is conservative either, it's not clearly either, by design.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Guys, can we be honest: NONE of the parties are really interested in changing this. They all benefit from big donors and money.

ALL of DC is bought and paid for.

-t

Indeed.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Guys, can we be honest: NONE of the parties are really interested in changing this. They all benefit from big donors and money.

ALL of DC is bought and paid for.

-t

Unfortunately I think you've hit the nail right on the head with this one.

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Voting used to be one pure area of democracy, where every citizen had an equal voice in their government.

Actually, that's not correct. It used to be, the more land you owned the more voting power you had, since technically you "owned" more of the actual country than other people.

[OAW]

My view on campaign finance regulation essentially comes down to 2 fundamental principles:

1. If one isn't eligible to vote in an election then one should not be able to influence that election by political spending.

2. There should be a reasonable limit on the amount a given individual from #1 can spend on a given election and a higher limit that can be spent per year on general contributions to a political party.

I believe such an approach is not only FAIR (i.e. it doesn't unduly help or harm either major political party) it also ELIMINATES corporate, union, and PAC influence in elections, as well as restricts the ability of WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS (and everyone else as well) to to unduly influence elections in which they are not an eligible voter. This would level the playing field considerably over the system we have in place today that is a thinly veiled oligarchy masquerading as democracy. IJS.

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Is it the supreme court's fault, or the constitution, the way it currently stands?

It's time to stop treating the constitution as some sort of sacred document that should never be altered in any way, and start amending it like the founders seemed to want for it in the first place.

Nothing is stopping people from doing, or at least trying to do, that.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Voting used to be one pure area of democracy, where every citizen had an equal voice in their government.

Shaddim is correct. Voting originally was the province of white, male, landowners exclusively. Which is why on the one hand oligarchy is as "American as Apple Pie" if one were to view it through the prism of the worldview of the Founding Fathers. Fortunately, our notion of democracy has expanded and matured significantly since then. And that is why the view that "every citizen should have an equal voice in their government" resonates so strongly and we have to remind ourselves that this has not always been the case.

OAW

[subego]

Freedom of speech ≠ equality of speech

[The Final Shortcut]

I've harped on this before. The US political fundraising system is insanely broken.

[subego]

I can agree with that.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Nothing is stopping people from doing, or at least trying to do, that.

I suspect all of the reverence a number of people express towards the constitution scares some politicians from doing this.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Absolutely. Regardless of whether one is a DEM or GOP at the end of the day it's still supposed to be about democracy. But the Roberts led SCOTUS seems like it will not be satisfied until a full-blown oligarchy is constitutionally legitimized.

OAW

The "Roberts-led" SCOTUS made the individual mandate stick. Is the above, an indictment when Roberts simply disagrees with OAW?

[BadKosh]

Current politicians are sleazy jerks with no morals, character or intellect. We don't have smart enough people to modify the US Constitution in a nondestructive way.
I would stop the "Anchor Baby" BS and make it retroactive back to 1986.

[ebuddy]

The only way campaign finance reform will work is if it includes Unions. All the clever ideas to date would pull the only money Republicans achieve while leaving all the Democratic $pets unscathed.

McCain tried to curb "soft-money" with Obama, Obama agreed, and then reneged, and dogged McCain with it. Turtle's right, current funding serves both parties and I'd submit; our sitting President more than his detractors. Putting Imelt at the head of his business advisory panel should've been exhibit A of the concern.

[ebuddy]

For a minute, I thought this thread was going to be about --



a $400k white, fiberglass camel.

[P]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The only way campaign finance reform will work is if it includes Unions. All the clever ideas to date would pull the only money Republicans achieve while leaving all the Democratic $pets unscathed.

McCain tried to curb "soft-money" with Obama, Obama agreed, and then reneged, and dogged McCain with it. Turtle's right, current funding serves both parties and I'd submit; our sitting President more than his detractors. Putting Imelt at the head of his business advisory panel should've been exhibit A of the concern.

What happened here was that the Supreme Court struck down a law passed by Congress. The majority was apparently Roberts-Scalia-Kennedy-Alito-Thomas, none of whom were nominated by Obama, as far as I'm aware. I know you don't like Obama, but blaming him for this is a bit of a stretch.

To be honest, I don't know what any politician can do to fix this now, beyond nominating Justices with a different interpretation of the constitution, or amending the constitution itself. The current court considers donating to political causes a form of protected speech, which means that the 1st Amendment severely restricts what Congress can do about it. I've read some of that reasoning. I consider it tortured at best (in particular how it considers that giving potentially billions to a SuperPAC clearly aligned with, but not formally affiliated with, a candidate does not give the appearance of corruption), but that doesn't matter much - it is what it is. If that is the interpretation, I'm not sure that there is a law that is at the same time narrow enough to pass and powerful enough to be effective.

(I don't consider this to be a left-right issue at all, even if it was the conservative wing of SCOTUS that did this. It would help honest politicians on both sides of the fence if some limits were placed on campaign finance)

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The "Roberts-led" SCOTUS made the individual mandate stick. Is the above, an indictment when Roberts simply disagrees with OAW?

The individual mandate in no way, shape, form, or fashion threatens oligarchy.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The only way campaign finance reform will work is if it includes Unions. All the clever ideas to date would pull the only money Republicans achieve while leaving all the Democratic $pets unscathed.

McCain tried to curb "soft-money" with Obama, Obama agreed, and then reneged, and dogged McCain with it. Turtle's right, current funding serves both parties and I'd submit; our sitting President more than his detractors. Putting Imelt at the head of his business advisory panel should've been exhibit A of the concern.

Hence my proposal above. Do you disagree? If so why?

OAW

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

have them write easy to understand, loopholeless laws?

Hahahahaha

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The only way campaign finance reform will work is if it includes Unions. All the clever ideas to date would pull the only money Republicans achieve while leaving all the Democratic $pets unscathed.

McCain tried to curb "soft-money" with Obama, Obama agreed, and then reneged, and dogged McCain with it. Turtle's right, current funding serves both parties and I'd submit; our sitting President more than his detractors. Putting Imelt at the head of his business advisory panel should've been exhibit A of the concern.

This is one of the reasons I'm not bothered by cries of "OMG the Koch brothers are buying politics with their money". There aren't democrats who are richer than God throwing their money around?

[subego]

I also want to mention the Kochs were pro gay marriage long before Obama had his "change of heart" about the issue. Is there perhaps a reason that doesn't get mentioned more?

[Shaddim]

With the exception of a few outliers, only fundies are anti gay marriage, the country has woken-up to how unfair and evil it is to deny all people the right to be equally miserable.

Right on about the Left, the Kochs are Satan while Soros is the messiah reborn? Hardly. The latter has bought more than his fair share of elections and politicians. Speaking of Unions, they kick corporate ass when it comes to "dirty" political dollars, their lobbies are the ones who own DC:



See the Kochs on the right side, now compare to Act Blue (Soros' pet) on the left.

[P]

I never thought I'd see the day when we'd all agree on something political.

[reader50]

I think contributions and lobbying should be limited to real citizens. If you can vote, you can donate or lobby / hire lobbyists. If you can't vote, you can't participate in politics. This would get rid of the "corporate citizens", union donations, PACs, etc.

It doesn't solve the individual cap problem the thread is about, but it's simple and would address nearly all the other campaign finance abuses. Addressing the cap problem - perhaps candidates could be required to disclose their top-10 donors in every ad or mailer. And be disqualifed from the election if they slip up even once.

[besson3c]

This issue makes me frustrated, but also sad when I force myself to think about what good all of that money that goes to maintaining the status quo in politics by getting people to pull either the red or blue lever could otherwise go towards.

Corporations and politicians are the same thing.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

With the exception of a few outliers, only fundies are anti gay marriage, the country has woken-up to how unfair and evil it is to deny all people the right to be equally miserable.

Right on about the Left, the Kochs are Satan while Soros is the messiah reborn? Hardly. The latter has bought more than his fair share of elections and politicians. Speaking of Unions, they kick corporate ass when it comes to "dirty" political dollars, their lobbies are the ones who own DC:



See the Kochs on the right side, now compare to Act Blue (Soros' pet) on the left.

The relevant issue is where does the financing come from?

They may not inhabit the traditional world of high-dollar campaign fund-raising, but two youthful computer whizzes are quietly and behind the scenes trying to change how campaigns raise money, netting millions of dollars for Democrats in the process.

Operating from an office just off Harvard Square, Matt DeBergalis and Ben Rahn, through the Web site they created, ActBlue.com, have raised $32 million since it was started in 2004. They are gearing up to make good on their promise that it will raise $100 million for Democrats in this election cycle.

In many ways, ActBlue has turned fund-raising on its head by exploiting the power of the Internet and small donors that was pioneered by Howard Dean and bringing it to the next generation of grass-roots supporters and online donors.

Where big-dollar fund-raising is typically done behind closed doors with well-connected bundlers and showy, costly fund-raisers, ActBlue is just the opposite. It is an Internet-based political action committee that lets Democratic candidates use their Web site as a portal to collect donations, making fund-raising cheap, and, for donors, as simple as a click of a mouse.

ActBlue says it has 5,500 fund-raising pages, from the small to the sophisticated. After money is donated through any of those pages, ActBlue sends it to the designated candidate; stacks of checks are sent from ActBlue’s Cambridge office every week. For the most part, the donations are small — the average is $100 — but collectively they add up and — in the eyes of supporters — provide a counterweight to the power of special interests in ever more costly elections.

“It’s a way of getting money from a broader base of support, and in some ways that is the most intriguing prospect of ActBlue,” said Anthony J. Corrado Jr., who teaches campaign finance at Colby College in Waterville, Me. “This is one-stop shopping for individual candidates. You can donate to a candidate and not have to hunt for their Web site or go to a fund-raiser.”

One big difference between ActBlue and other political action committees is that, for Democrats, it is an equal opportunity Web site; any Democratic candidate or cause can take part. This contrasts with liberal political action committees like Emily’s List and MoveOn.org and with labor union PACs, in which the PAC itself picks out the candidates it supports and donations are made in the name of the PAC.

A Fund-Raising Rainmaker Arises Online | NYTimes.com

George Soros is a major funder (as in to the tune of millions of dollars) of the following PACS:

- Center for American Progress
- MoveOn.org
- America Coming Together
- Democracy Alliance
- Priorities USA Action
- Various 527 organizations dedicated to the defeat of GWB in 2004.

Notably ... ActBlue is not one of them. But just in case anyone thinks I'm just making this stuff up let's see what the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-profit, nonpartisan research group that tracks the effects of money and lobbying on elections and public policy has to say about it. They have this little website called OpenSecrets.org that makes all this stuff publicly available:

Graph - What party gets the money and where the money comes from.



Table - What party gets the money and where the money comes from.



Lobbying Activity



Top Individual Contributors



So to summarize ... ActBlue is an online clearinghouse for Democratic political fundraising. A sort of "one stop shop" for political donations to Dem candidates. The average donation is about $100. Donations overwhelmingly come from individuals not PACs. ActBlue does no lobbying whatsoever. And there a no individuals who've ever donated more than $50K to the organization since its inception. Or to put it another way, the threshold has never been crossed to even trigger someone (e.g. George Soros) showing up on the report.

Now contrast that with the Koch brothers who are literally bankrolling various PACS to the tunes of MILLIONS personally and through their corporate holdings. One can make a valid argument that George Soros' activities in the 2004 election cycle were analogous. And I certainly won't contend with that. But to try to compare that to how ActBlue operates is quite frankly absurd.

OAW

[OAW]

It's also interesting to note that Shaddim's chart only shows contributions to the national committees of the major political parties. Which is by no means all encompassing of political spending. That being said, the diversity funding sources on the DNC side in comparison to the RNC is striking. The RNC's top donors consists almost exclusively of corporate interests. (And yes I include the NRA in that because anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty knows that at this stage in the game it is more of a lobbying arm of the gun manufacturing industry as opposed to gun owners.) Whereas the top donors to the DNC comes from organizations funneling individual contributions, labor unions, non-profit organizations, educational institutions, and corporate interests. IJS

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by P 

What happened here was that the Supreme Court struck down a law passed by Congress. The majority was apparently Roberts-Scalia-Kennedy-Alito-Thomas, none of whom were nominated by Obama, as far as I'm aware. I know you don't like Obama, but blaming him for this is a bit of a stretch.

I'm not solely blaming Obama for this. You might be a smidgen defensive of Obama, but I was using this as an affirmation of Turtle's point that both parties exploit their money-troughs. It is popular in conversations like this however, to assume that Republicans have the edge monetarily and you'll hear this when the left passionately decries the evil Koch brothers for example, but nothing could be further from the truth. I merely set Shaddim's spike.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; when you want your Government to do great big things for you or your cause du jour, it's going to turn to great Big Corporation to do it, be it Big Insurance, Big PhRMA, GE and other Energy conglomerates, Big Tech, etc... The answer IMO: you can't bribe a giraffe to swim. Why? Because they can't swim. You can try to coax them to swim with as much money as you want, but it would be meaningless to a giraffe. If you want your elected officials to stop seeking Big Corp money, stop asking your government to seek Big Corp's wares.

Otherwise, pull that money out of our current system and political environment and we're left solely to the devices of the mass media. And we all know how that goes.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The individual mandate in no way, shape, form, or fashion threatens oligarchy.

OAW

You think that small group of Insurance Commissioners meeting behind closed doors with the President were talking about feeding the hungry? A deal has been made between Obama and Oligarchs, my friend. Make no mistake. In Biden's words; a BIG f***ing deal.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Hence my proposal above. Do you disagree? If so why?

OAW

For starters, I think we're looking at the wrong end of the relationship and our focus should be on WHY the government feels it needs Big Corp. Again, you can't bribe a giraffe to swim. Why? Because they can't swim. Secondly, you pull the money out of the system and the only voices we'll have left would be those compelled to help their guy in an awkward moment of a nationally-televised debate.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

For starters, I think we're looking at the wrong end of the relationship and our focus should be on WHY the government feels it needs Big Corp. Again, you can't bribe a giraffe to swim. Why? Because they can't swim.

It's not about Big Corp or Big Unions. It's about MONEY. It costs money to seek elective office. As a challenger as well as an incumbent. It is folly to think this will change. It is also folly to think that a politician's loyalty will lie anywhere other than where his/her votes and/or financing comes. This is a given. So we now have a system where the few have an outsized influence over the many in the political process because of their deeper pockets. If one is fine with that state of affairs that's cool. Just say that. If not, then what should be done to improve the situation given the world we live in? It's easy to say the size of government should be reduced to the point where the stakes of controlling the levers of power within it aren't so high. But in a country of 300+ million people with the largest economy in the world that is quite frankly unrealistic. Especially in the short term. Even if you could snap your fingers and tomorrow we'd all wake up with the type of government structure that would be straight out of your ultimate political wet dream it would still cost MONEY to fund future political campaigns. Somebody's gotta pay for the staff. Somebody's gotta pay for the media ads. Somebody's gotta print the bumper stickers. Somebody's gotta handle all the logistics of a campaign event. Etc. So who should that somebody be?

My point here is that if we were debating what to do about the student debt issue for me to say "Public undergraduate school should be made available to all students just like public high school." would be unhelpful at best. Not because it's a bad idea per se, but because that is too unrealistic given the world we face. Sure it would take care of the student debt issue going forward but it would also create a huge public financing issue in a country that hasn't traditionally embraced that at the post-secondary level. So a more substantive suggestion would be one that is doable given the current political landscape.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Secondly, you pull the money out of the system and the only voices we'll have left would be those compelled to help their guy in an awkward moment of a nationally-televised debate.

We'll just agree to disagree on whether that was the media helping "their guy" or just someone calling out a candidate for claiming that his opponent never said something that he clearly did say. On video at that. But if for the sake of political expediency one wishes to insist otherwise and parse the nuances between "act of terrorism" or "terrorist attack" that is fine. Just forever be silent about another guy who once said "It depends on what you definition of 'is' is."

In any event, my proposal wasn't to pull the money out of the system. My proposal was to place limits on it so that the wealthy few or corporate or union interests don't get to unduly influence the process in comparison to average citizens. What if we had a system where individual voters could contribute up to X amount per candidate (e.g. $3000) for any election they were eligible to vote in? And let me be clear. This means no voter in California could spend money on a state election in Florida for example. No voter in San Francisco could spend money on a city election in San Diego. And those same individual voters could also contribute up to Y amount per year to any political party? Perhaps $5000? Since corporations and unions and lobbying firms aren't eligible to vote that eliminates the issue of them dominating the political landscape in one fell swoop. Unions on the DEM side, corporate interests on the GOP side, and lobbying firms on both. So no "unilateral disarmament" issue. That just leaves the citizens being the sole source of funding for political activity in the elections that affect them. It's basically taking the conservative idea of "lowering the rates and broadening the base" with respect to taxation and applying it to campaign financing.

So my question is ... do you still object? If so why?

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You think that small group of Insurance Commissioners meeting behind closed doors with the President were talking about feeding the hungry? A deal has been made between Obama and Oligarchs, my friend. Make no mistake. In Biden's words; a BIG f***ing deal.

I think what has happened here is that I've been using the term "oligarchy" in the colloquial sense rather than the technical sense. So let me be clear so we can get back on the same page.

oligarchy - a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.

plutocracy - government by the wealthy.

• a country or society governed by the wealthy.

• an elite or ruling class of people whose power derives from their wealth.

So "technically" speaking ... an oligarchy is "rule by the few". The nature of why they are the elite in society is irrelevant. Whereas, "technically" speaking ... a plutocracy is "rule by the wealthy". The nature why they are the elite in society is rooted in their wealth. But in a capitalistic society "colloquially" speaking ... "oligarchy" and "plutocracy" is typically 6 in one hand and half a dozen in the other. A distinction without a difference. Thus, the terms are often used interchangeably when "technically" they are not necessarily the same. An article I found that delves into this phenomenon ....

Of oligarchs and plutocrats - CSMonitor.com

So everywhere I've been saying "oligarchy" in the colloquial sense I've been meaning "plutocracy" in the technical sense. Follow me?

My objection still stands but I'll rephrase it just so there's no misunderstanding as to my meaning ...

Originally Posted by OAW

But the Roberts led SCOTUS seems like it will not be satisfied until a full-blown plutocracy is constitutionally legitimized.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I think what has happened here is that I've been using the term "oligarchy" in the colloquial sense rather than the technical sense. So let me be clear so we can get back on the same page.
So "technically" speaking ... an oligarchy is "rule by the few". The nature of why they are the elite in society is irrelevant. Whereas, "technically" speaking ... a plutocracy is "rule by the wealthy". The nature why they are the elite in society is rooted in their wealth. But in a capitalistic society "colloquially" speaking ... "oligarchy" and "plutocracy" is typically 6 in one hand and half a dozen in the other. A distinction without a difference. Thus, the terms are often used interchangeably when "technically" they are not necessarily the same. An article I found that delves into this phenomenon ....
Of oligarchs and plutocrats - CSMonitor.com
So everywhere I've been saying "oligarchy" in the colloquial sense I've been meaning "plutocracy" in the technical sense. Follow me?

Yes I follow and maintain that if this is a problem; Barack Obama is exhibit A of it regardless of how the complaint is framed. I say, live and let live. If the money is good for the goose, it's good for the gander.