Federal Court Strikes Down Most of Campaign Finance Reform Law

Macbeth,

Step away from any tall & heavy objects less they fall on you.

We concur......


I can feel the tremors now...watch out.

DD

 

**** Amendment to my last statement, given new and startling information above.*****

Of course I am drunk right now......and rarely know what I'm talking about when sober...so anyone agreeing with me just might be completely out to lunch on this issue, as with many others...*hic*...

 

In my opinion, the Democrats would be hurt more by the legislation than Republicans, because the Big Union money would be taken out of play. Heath.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but let's have some facts.

In 1996 the corporations contributed 11 times more money then the unions.

In so called soft contributions the ration was 23 to 1 in favor of the corporations.
unions vs corp political contibutions

 

So the mighty heath-ster was not quite being factual in his beliefs?!?! A Shocker!!! What's next, WMDs in Iraq?

 

I buy that, and it makes it a tough issue, "complicated" as you say. btw: how does "a citizen cannot use so many watts of power to make his radio frequency knock out an adjacent one" fit into that.

The FCC prevents one voice from overwhelming another one. It is unnecessary to do so. You don't need so much power that you knock out another voice. If you want more range, find another market. In a very simplistic sense (borrowing from your simplistic sense), campaign finance reform is somewhat like that. The volume of speaking in each market could be limited to avoid one voice from dominating the radio waves...that must be done...and is done. So, can the govt extend that to capping time in each market (which = dollars).

It's a close one.

And then when you add in the political favors if you help me raise my voice, you can see that it isn't as simple as saying..."a citizen should be able to use any and all resources to exercise his right to freedom of speech. Like MadMax says, how much do we have to treat corporations like citizens...and it is largely the corporate voice we are talking about here.

 

Thanks for the link Glinch, but the information is very misleading, because much of that corporate money was donated to Democrats.

Can you find a link detailing total contributions to both parties from Corporations and Unions?

 

That is a very interesting argument. Like I said, for me, this is a very complicated issue, and your point is good food for thought.

When we say this is a corporate issue, we need to remember that many corporations favor Democrats, and many Corporations donate to both parties.

Here is a question for you and Glynch to think about- If the McCain/Feingold Bill favors Republicans, then why are the Unions fighting tooth and nail against the legislation?

 

Here is a question for you and Glynch to think about- If the McCain/Feingold Bill favors Republicans, then why are the Unions fighting tooth and nail against the legislation?

Because they lose their ability to influence. The unions want their voice heard. That's why the list of organizations fighting this includes those of virtually every political persuasion - they are the ones hurt by the legislation.

That's not really an indication as to whether it hurts Democrats or Republicans more, though. Personally, I think it the law hurt Democrats more, because individual donation limits rose. Since the Democrats have a larger low-income base, they aren't going to see much of a rise in individual donations; the wealthier parts of society tend to favor Republicans and could donate more. I would think the Republicans were going to end up with relatively more money from individuals out of this bill. There would, of course, be less overall money in the system if you took out all the soft-money.

 

Here's my solution:

First, it's clear that money buys power which puts people with access to money in the ears of politicions. (I want to be clear here in that it's not just <i>rich</i> people who have this advantage. Old people and union workers, for example, do as well via organizations like AARP and Unions.)

I also believe that people should be able to spend their money any way they see fit. After all it is <i>their</i> money!

So how do you make the election process more far? You allow any person or organisation or corporation donate as much money as they want to to any candidate they want to and the candidate can spend that money however they like on the campaign. However, the candidate can NOT know who donated the money. You would have to donate through some sort of third-party organization (run by me, of course! For a ten-percent fee!) who would then deposit the money into said candidates account.

Of course, nothing is stopping you donating some money and then calling the candidate on the phone and saying "Hey! I just donated $10,000 dollars to you!" but then again, nothing is stopping you from <i>not</i> donating <i>any</i> money and still claiming to have.

That way people can still waste, I mean donate, money to any candidate they wish which protects free speach but the candidates will no longer be obligated to repay the donations with favors as they will not know who donated the money.

The net result of all this would hopefully be that people stop donating money to get favors and simply out of party ideology (which really means that far less money would be donated - and that's a good thing!).

What do you think?

 

They would have to donate in certain increments then. Otherwise Bob ****, CEO of whatever can just call his local rent-a-senator and say, "Hey we just donated 2.357 million to your campaign fund at 4:31 pm July 12th." That system is too easy to get around.

I'd rather just cap the spending for everyone. We can't fund social programs but the country, as a whole, can waste 1.6 billion dollars on a presidential election. Maybe then we could get candidates to run who actually have real plans for this country and they wouldn't get drowned out and outspent by big money corporate lackey politicians.

 

So then your premise about this hurting Democrats is still wrong.

 

Yes, I should have included the Unions.

Both corporations and Unions can argue that they represent the voice of many...and in a democratic way. Really? We say. Moreso than the candidates themselves using their budgets from actual individuals donations. Should we really treat these lobbiest as individuals (or even representatives) with inalienable Rights to lobby during elections in an uncapped way...when they are clearly mentioning names of candidates...and thus promoting or bashing them.

First we must answer that, before we apply any Constitutional argument. Can someone tell us whether MadMax's point about this was actually argued?