Campaign finance reform

[fishsupreme]

A federal appeals court in Washington has just struck down part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act that passed last year.

They struck down the "soft money" ban that was the key provision of the bill, and also (quoting MSNBC here):

The judges also ruled unconstitutional new restrictions on election-time political ads by special interest groups and others. The court let stand another part of the law, which had increased the amount of money that an individual could give to a candidate’s campaign from $1,000 to $2,000 per election. BCRA also doubled the amount that donors could give to state and local party committees to $10,000 a year.

Yes, after this little judicial edit, John McCain's little "get the money out of politics" act now does nothing except raise campaign contribution limits.

Since I find all campaign contribution or spending limits of any kind whatsoever (except for mandatory reporting of campaign contributions) to be a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, I think this is all terribly amusing.

Comments

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

Since I find all campaign contribution or spending limits of any kind whatsoever (except for mandatory reporting of campaign contributions) to be a flagrant violation of the First Amendment

What you say is probably true, but does that make the system any less corrupt? When I buy a microsoft product for non-political purposes, should I really have to fear that the profit from that purchase is going to end up in the hands of my political opponent (for example)?

[chef-incognito.livejournal.com]

When I hire an employee should I be concerned that he is going to donate part of his wages to causes I don't agree with? When I invest in a company should I be concerned that my investment is going to fund projects that I may not agree with? When I purchase imported goods should I be concerned with the fact that taxes by the foreign government will fund programs I wouldn't support? When I buy drugs should I be concerned that the revenue may support terrorism? In each of these cases in a free society you are welcome to come to your own conclusions and base your purchase decisions on any criteria you choose.

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

I understand your points. I don't really have an argument against it (or fishsupreme's below.

There just seems like there's a problem with the proceeds of millions or billions of transactions, happening all around the world, being focused through the corporation, and through the hands of a very few top decisionmakers, into influencing "free" elections.

It's a frustrating issue.

[fishsupreme]

Well... yes. When you buy a product, you agree to an exchange of your money for the product in question. Once you've given your money to a person, corporation, or other entity, it's theirs -- you don't get to decide what it's used for anymore. If this isn't okay with you, you need to either 1.) negotiate terms in which you buy the product under the proviso that your money is used only in certain ways (this may well work with individuals, or work with corporations provided you're a large corporation yourself, but isn't likely to work in the case of, say, you buying from Microsoft), or 2.) not buy the product.

I don't think it's corrupt for corporations, unions, or whatever to make political donations. They have the right to attempt to promote candidates they like. However, I wouldn't object to candidates being required to provide a list of donors from whom they've accepted donations -- i.e., if you want to take that huge campaign contribution from the Chinese Communist Party, go right ahead, but the Washington Post is going to know about it. There is some value in democracy being transparent.

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't object to candidates being required to provide a list of donors from whom they've accepted donations

Is this not already the case (at least as far as corporate donations are concerned)?

I have no problem at all with individuals making donations, or at least I know that it is undoubtedly, constitutionally right. I can't help but think though, that collectives getting involved in funding campaigns is a problem.

I have a way to go before I understand the process well enough to effectively articulate my reasoning. The reason I commented in your thread here is because you almost invariably speak with great clarity and logic. On this though, I can't help but think that there is a greater ideal than simple transparency.

[pyran.livejournal.com]

I have no problem at all with individuals making donations, or at least I know that it is undoubtedly, constitutionally right. I can't help but think though, that collectives getting involved in funding campaigns is a problem.

Why? What's the difference? A collective is just a group of like-minded individuals. And let's face it: these days politicians will nearly always ignore an individual (assuming that they ever did not). In the end, it's the collective that has a voice, not the individual.

Whether this is good or bad is a matter of opinion. I happen to think that it's good, since I also think that true democracy would be a disastrous mess.

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

A collective is just a group of like-minded individuals.

Not necessarily. Resources come before the boards of directors from all political persuasions, then these resources are distributed per the wishes of these few people at the top. It starts to look like central control.

I happen to think that it's good, since I also think that true democracy would be a disastrous mess.

I'm not looking to knock down representative democracy, but in the end, the power to decide representation should be in the people and not in the legal construct that is the corporation.

[oliviao.livejournal.com]

It would be interesting to know who takes donations from communists or religious groups. Do we have a right to know that?
What if donating to a candidate who's unpopular with your employer causes you to lose your job? Or a donation to a candidate who supports gay rights results in ostracism from your community?

[chef-incognito.livejournal.com]

An open question for discussion... what concerns you the most about unlimited corporate(or individual) donations to a political party or campaign.
1) That large donations can have a large influence on the election results?
2) That large donations buy influence after the election?
3) That large donations can have some other effect? Please specify.

Second question:
Is there a difference between allowing large corporate donations and allowing large individual donations? Does this differ from having a cause based non-profit make the large donation?