5 ms·

It is definitely a free speech issue, however, I’d argue that the compelling state interests in preventing corruption and ensuring fairness and access in electi

It is definitely a free speech issue, however, I’d argue that the compelling state interests in preventing corruption and ensuring fairness and access in elections, is a great enough one to merit modest limitations. Indeed so did the Supreme Court until only recently, after the upholding in Buckley. My comment is more about the overall nature of the issue, but I do want to point out first that today’s ruling over aggregate monetary limits, is frankly a small issue in the overall challenges faced in reform. I understand your point, but I think it belies the reality of what takes place in most campaigns from my professional experience here in DC, though yes it is anecdotal of course. Yes, a small group of individuals can seek and gain funding, and they do, but in order to have a serious outcome on a race, you need to be able to shift vast sums of money and fast, often in the last 2 months. The Tea-Party influence on the 2010 midterm elections is a great example, the money that supported those candidates, did not come from the tea-party grassroots, but from a band of very rich donors, with very vested interests in legislative outcomes. And I don’t mean to single out the GOP here, the DNC has it’s own fair share of lobbied well-connected interests. Then of course there are the industries and organizations that simply fund the most likely to win in many races, ensuring candidate support for their industry when the time comes for considering legislation. If I was to start a Super PAC for lower class family concerns, say universal Pre-K, how much of their disposable income do you think they could afford to donate to a political cause? It’d be no where near the vast checks that can be written by opposition groups. And even if successful, I will still likely get outplayed in the long game with legislative lobbying since I don’t have the continued funds to support an ongoing effort. Now what would be a solution that doesn’t infringe on individual rights to free-speech, I’m not sure. Perhaps we should go back to completely publicly financed elections, though that obviously benefits the current two-party dichotomy over independent challengers, and would likely require serious constitutional amendments to be considered. I admit that more thinking would be required here, but I don’t think its a stretch to say the current system is severely broken, and in fairness to all here, was broken well before this relatively modest change. Finally, of course votes aren’t being bought in the election - but a campaign costs a lot of money. http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/congress-election-costs/ http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/congress-election-cos... The average US House race will cost 1.6M to win and the Senate 10.4M to win, and that increase far outpaces the rate of inflation. That money coming in is critical to reaching voters, paying for GOTV, and ensuring victory, beyond just the money spent on ads and outside group advertising. Then of course, all of that money these candidates raise, it’s not free money from well meaning corporations, they will expect to be repaid when the time comes, and they are.

strlen 12y ago
> It is definitely a free speech issue, however, I’d argue that the compelling state interests in preventing corruption and ensuring fairness and access in elections, is a great enough one to merit modest limitations. Indeed so did the Supreme Court until only recently, after the upholding in Buckley. My comment is more about the overall nature of the issue, but I do want to point out first that today’s ruling over aggregate monetary limits, is frankly a small issue in the overall challenges faced in reform.& Thank you. My opinion is the opposite of yours: I think this and Citizens United are the right decisions and free speech should be only be limited in a few restricted circumstances like immediate incitement to violence or terroristic threats. Yet, it's important to be honest about the trade off here and not misrepresent the decisions (e.g., saying that CU determined that "money is speech", etc...) > Now what would be a solution that doesn’t infringe on individual rights to free-speech, I’m not sure. Perhaps we should go back to completely publicly financed elections, though that obviously benefits the current two-party dichotomy over independent challengers, and would likely require serious constitutional amendments to be considered. I admit that more thinking would be required here, but I don’t think its a stretch to say the current system is severely broken, and in fairness to all here, was broken well before this relatively modest change. Ideal solution for me would allow donations to political organizations, including those that endorse candidates or lobby for bills (I don't like rent-seeking by Comcast, but I very much like the ACLU, EFF, and others). At the same time, the candidates themselves would rely (as you suggested) on public financing. I think this would take a constitutional amendment (as would overturning CU, but unlike an amendment to overturn CU it wouldn't set the precedents of amending the constitution to curtail rights when they are inconvenient), which should also mandate non-partisan drawing of electoral districts (California went that route and with great results).

strlen 12y ago

> It is definitely a free speech issue, however, I’d argue that the compelling state interests in preventing corruption and ensuring fairness and access in elections, is a great enough one to merit modest limitations. Indeed so did the Supreme Court until only recently, after the upholding in Buckley. My comment is more about the overall nature of the issue, but I do want to point out first that today’s ruling over aggregate monetary limits, is frankly a small issue in the overall challenges faced in reform.& Thank you. My opinion is the opposite of yours: I think this and Citizens United are the right decisions and free speech should be only be limited in a few restricted circumstances like immediate incitement to violence or terroristic threats. Yet, it's important to be honest about the trade off here and not misrepresent the decisions (e.g., saying that CU determined that "money is speech", etc...) > Now what would be a solution that doesn’t infringe on individual rights to free-speech, I’m not sure. Perhaps we should go back to completely publicly financed elections, though that obviously benefits the current two-party dichotomy over independent challengers, and would likely require serious constitutional amendments to be considered. I admit that more thinking would be required here, but I don’t think its a stretch to say the current system is severely broken, and in fairness to all here, was broken well before this relatively modest change. Ideal solution for me would allow donations to political organizations, including those that endorse candidates or lobby for bills (I don't like rent-seeking by Comcast, but I very much like the ACLU, EFF, and others). At the same time, the candidates themselves would rely (as you suggested) on public financing. I think this would take a constitutional amendment (as would overturning CU, but unlike an amendment to overturn CU it wouldn't set the precedents of amending the constitution to curtail rights when they are inconvenient), which should also mandate non-partisan drawing of electoral districts (California went that route and with great results).