One of the biggest problems in America today is that voters are treated like children by politicians on both sides. That's why Chris Christie is so popular. Even if you don't agree with his policies, he assumes you're smart enough that you don't need to be coddled.
That or he doesn't want to alienate his audience members in case he gets hungry later and decides to eat them.
Because we treat politics like sports teams. Some people can't name three policies of their political party off the top of their head. Their daddy was a conservative, so they will be too! I wouldn't be surprised if a significant portion of each party's votes were from clueless bandwagoners.
Your solution is partially unconstitutional under Citizens United, and as far as disclosure, this legislation has passed the house repeatedly but Senate Republicans have filibustered repeatedly. You're quite the little renegade! even from yourself.
That compromise is fraught with problems. 1. That's a serious abridgement of free speech if the only way you can speak about a political campaign is throrough the official party organs. 2. Only exacerbates the problem of making politicians beholden to their benefactors, exposing candidates to possible corruption and, at minimum, the appearance of impropriety. 3. However, I do like full disclosure. Where we got this idea that free speech requires anonymous speech, I don't know, but I think it sucks. I don't like Obama getting money from a small number of billionaire benefactors any more than I like Romney doing it. It makes them and any politician too beholden to the interests of a very small number of people. When Obama raised all that money in 2008, he got a lot of it from small donations from many people. A hundred million dollars from a million people does not have the corruptive power of a hundred million dollars from one guy (with a couple of favors to ask), or a hundred million dollars from a thousand companies who employ a million people (whose interests are at cross-purposes with those of their employees half the time).
What if the Communist Chinese government decided that it was in their best interest to spend $5 billion influencing US politics? As anonymous donors you would never know.
How would a party of average people ever expect to out raise a party of moneyed people? The rich by definition have disposable income and investment money. The average people could all combine their Lotto money to get a law passed that saves them $20 a month. The rich can spend disposable investment money to change a law that could save them a million dollars. That they then spend to make more favorable laws. Inequality is a snowball rolling downhill.
...a fact that essentially explains every major political decision since, and including, Reagan's presidency.
For decades Republicans had a monetary advantage. But Obama changed that in 2008. That doesn't mean Democrats are going to panic about a switch in monetary tides unless what brings about that change is something as horrible as the Citizens United decision. As has been pointed out the outrage began in 2010 long before Romney was the nominee or had out raised anyone. So the idea that it was just about that doesn't make sense.
To what extent do you have a problem with Citizens United because you disagree with how groups are donating? If they were donating to a liberal group, would you have the same outrage? Just curious...
I'm pretty sure most liberals (having generally been proponents of campaign finance laws and disclosure) have been opposed to Citizens United since the day of the ruling, long before any actual interest groups formed based on it: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=194668
Fair enough. I know many conservatives who were disappointed in the ruling. We, as a nation, would be better off without all the large organizational money in politics. For instance, without all the large creditor donations for years, we would not have ended up with the insanity that is the 2005 bankruptcy amendments.
Morning Ref As Major said I was horrified with the ruling because it completely takes regular citizens out of the equation when it comes to funding political parties. What good is my measly $20 donation against millions of corporate money? I don't want 40 or 50 of the richest people and corporations basically electing our politicians completely shutting out the rest of the country in the decision. The second point that's been stated as well, there is no way of knowing where this money is coming from. We could have the Chinese government funnel millions of dollars to a candidate to influence the election of candidates that support their agenda.
The Chinese government example you used is exactly the reason I was disappointed the by decision in the case. Some commentators believe that the Court decided as they did in part because to limit corporations from contributing would also limit the ability of labor unions to contribute. The baby got thrown out with the bath water.
This issue isn't really that partisan I don't think. IIRC - Public opinion polls showed something like 65-80% of the public against the core of CU, that state licensed business entities organized for the purposes of limited liability and entering into contracts should be recognized as people with the same first amendment political speech rights as you and I under CU. The whole idea is repugnant to a substantial number of Republicans (many of the more black helicoptery Paulistas I assume) as well.
The problem with treating these entities as people with the freedom of speech is that how do you handle the other Constitutional rights? It is simply an odd result and will lead to other odd results. And yes, treating a creation of the state as a living, breathing natural person is somewhat repugnant.
The reason for those polls is because the public doesn't realize that the general definition of "corporation" and the legal definition are very, very different. Tell them that "corporation" includes labor unions, newspapers, television stations, universities, and so on, and I'm sure the poll results would change.
