• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The real impact of Citizens United showing more and more

PhDeac said:
I guess. What I don't get is that if there are reasonable limits to the expression of free speech, why wouldn't money as speech be subject to limits as well?
Click to expand...

That was my point about the founding fathers. Could they have possibly seen into the future, I seriously doubt they wouldn't have limited speech vis a vis money in political campaigns. It's run amok
 
WakeandBake said:
That was my point about the founding fathers. Could they have possibly seen into the future, I seriously doubt they wouldn't have limited speech vis a vis money in political campaigns. It's run amok
Click to expand...

I don't know that the founding fathers had a lot of problems with limiting democracy.
 
TexasDeac10 said:
That article I linked was written by Geoffrey Stone. He's on the board of directors for the American Constitution Society (the liberal counterpart to the Federalist Society).

The idea that money isn't speech just isn't a strong argument.

Edit: JP Stevens is on the exact same page as Stone, by the way. Money isn't always speech when it is used to purchase something, but it's certainly speech when it is used to finance speech itself--e.g., campaign advertising.
Click to expand...

Free speech has nothing to do with paid speech. It's not about advertising.

It's about the ability to discuss political points without being jailed. It's not about commerce.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
I don't know that the founding fathers had a lot of problems with limiting democracy.
Click to expand...

Post Wilberforce England...Samuel Johnson addressed the House of Commons just prior the Revolution and stated "oh to hear the peals for freedom from the owners of slaves."

I'd say they pretty well limited democracy when they decided blacks were not part of the "we" the people.
 
I cited the fact that four Justices stated that limits on donations were legal. Thus, donations can and should be regulated according to four current Justices.

If the AL case or CU are revisited after Hillary replaces Scalia and/or Kennedy, both decisions will be reversed. The new precedents will be that donations can be regulated.

It's a RW concept that donations can't be regulated or limited.
 
Lectro said:
Post Wilberforce England...Samuel Johnson addressed the House of Commons just prior the Revolution and stated "oh to hear the peals for freedom from the owners of slaves."

I'd say they pretty well limited democracy when they decided blacks were not part of the "we" the people.
Click to expand...

Also women.
 
To many people it is. The most recent decision was definitively about limiting donations. Four justices said they could and should be limited.
 
Here's the text of the actual proposed amendment

``Section 1. To advance democratic self-government and political
equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral
process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits
on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to
influence elections.

``Section 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement
and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may
distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other
artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such
entities from spending money to influence elections.

``Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant
Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the
press.''.
 
Language is everything in an amendment. They need to remove the term "regulate" from that so as to not confuse a 21st century definition with the 18th century definition in the 2nd amendment. Section 2 needs to specifically include labor unions so there's no argument over whether they are an artificial entity created by law. Section 3 is nice, but lip service. What constitutes "press"? Did the movie "Hillary", which was central to the CU decision, constitute press?

It's all quite the big shit storm when you start to break it down.
 
Here's a letter from a right-wing group called "ACLU" arguing against the amendment on free speech grounds:

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/6-3-14_--_udall_amendment_letter_final.pdf

To give just a few hypotheticals of what would be possible in a world where the Udall proposal
is the 28th Amendment:
• Congress would be allowed to restrict the publication of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s
forthcoming memoir “Hard Choices” were she to run for office;
• Congress could criminalize a blog on the Huffington Post by Gene Karpinski, president
of the League of Conservation Voters, that accuses Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) of being a
“climate change denier”;12
• Congress could regulate this website by reform group Public Citizen, which urges voters
to contact their members of Congress in support of a constitutional amendment
addressing Citizens United and the recent McCutcheon case, under the theory that it is, in
effect, a sham issue communication in favor of the Democratic Party;13
• A state election agency, run by a corrupt patronage appointee, could use state law to limit
speech by anti-corruption groups supporting reform;
• A local sheriff running for reelection and facing vociferous public criticism for draconian
immigration policies and prisoner abuse could use state campaign finance laws to harass
and prosecute his own detractors;
• A district attorney running for reelection could selectively prosecute political opponents
using state campaign finance restrictions; and
• Congress could pass a law regulating this letter for noting that all 41 sponsors of this
amendment, which the ACLU opposes, are Democrats (or independents who caucus with
Democrats).
Click to expand...

The ACLU also notes that the amendment exempts the press - which would just make all of this money flow to the press. The Koch brothers, for example, could just buy a newspaper and have the newspaper advertise. Or they could do the same by starting a news website called the Kochington Post.
 
"On September 23, Dinesh D’Souza will appear before a federal judge in Manhattan to learn whether he will do jail time for violating campaign-finance law. (He pleaded guilty earlier this year to charges of funneling $20,000 to a friend’s Senate campaign via straw donors.) It will be the latest turn in a remarkable life that has embodied—perhaps more than any other—the passions and commitments of the modern conservative movement."

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...sh-dsouza-jail-time-intellectual-conservatism
 
I am sure that I beat this drum too much, but for crying out loud all you have to do is look around the world at all the other vibrant democracies, most of which have governments that are operating more efficiently and more responsively than ours, and see how they handle the issue of political speech and money in politics. As noted, Canada has limits on donations and spending. Germany sets strict limits on the time frame for campaigning (which indirectly means much less money is needed for campaigning, and thus much less is solicited/donated). Britain sets strict limits on spending by individual candidates, so most money is channeled through the parties; also their elections are shorter and don't happen on set 2, 4, and 6 year increments so the election cycle is again much shorter. Japan has similar time frame limits, and prohibits corporations that receive taxpayer subsidies from contributing. Many countries, especially the newer democracies in Eastern Europe and the Scandinavian countries, use public financing to keep donor influence to a minimum.

No system is perfect and donors will always try to find new ways to buy politicians. But the argument that "money is speech, so money must be unlimited, because founders first amendment SCOTUS blah" is just a way to dodge the real question and shut down debate. It is perfectly possible to regulate political speech and money in politics without causing the downfall of democracy.
 
Deacon923 said:
I am sure that I beat this drum too much, but for crying out loud all you have to do is look around the world at all the other vibrant democracies, most of which have governments that are operating more efficiently and more responsively than ours, and see how they handle the issue of political speech and money in politics. As noted, Canada has limits on donations and spending. Germany sets strict limits on the time frame for campaigning (which indirectly means much less money is needed for campaigning, and thus much less is solicited/donated). Britain sets strict limits on spending by individual candidates, so most money is channeled through the parties; also their elections are shorter and don't happen on set 2, 4, and 6 year increments so the election cycle is again much shorter. Japan has similar time frame limits, and prohibits corporations that receive taxpayer subsidies from contributing. Many countries, especially the newer democracies in Eastern Europe and the Scandinavian countries, use public financing to keep donor influence to a minimum.

No system is perfect and donors will always try to find new ways to buy politicians. But the argument that "money is speech, so money must be unlimited, because founders first amendment SCOTUS blah" is just a way to dodge the real question and shut down debate. It is perfectly possible to regulate political speech and money in politics without causing the downfall of democracy.
Click to expand...

The same with gun control.


Americans seem to want freedom in spite of their own well being, not for their own well being. Americans will fight for things that are horrible for our society in the name of being free to do them.
 
http://www.brennancenter.org/public...outside-spending-senate-races-citizens-united

Key findings include:

Outside spending by a tiny number of mega-rich donors has played an increasingly important role in each federal election since Citizens United.

Outside spending on Senate elections has more than doubled since 2010, increasing to $486 million in 2014. (As with any analysis based on FEC numbers, the totals we report underestimate spending, since they do not include amounts spent on sham issue ads that are not required to be reported.)
Outside groups spent more than candidates in 2014’s closest races.
Across the 10 competitive races that we have candidate spending data for, outside groups accounted for the greatest share of spending, or 47 percent. Candidates lagged behind with 41 percent, and parties accounted for 12 percent.
Candidates were outspent by outside groups and parties together in eight of the 10 races. In four of the contests (Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, and North Carolina), candidates made only a third or less of the total expenditures.
Nonparty groups alone spent more than the candidates in seven of the 10 states.
Super PACs are funded by an exclusive few.
Of the 10 highest-spending super PACs in the most competitive Senate races in 2014, all but two got less than one percent of their individual contributions from small donors of $200 or less. Average contributions from donors of more than $200 were in the five- and six-figure range.
Across all federal elections since Citizens United was decided in 2010, there has been more than $1 billion in super PAC spending. Just 195 individuals and their spouses gave almost 60 percent of that money — more than $600 million.
The wealthy have used single-candidate groups to support candidates far in excess of federal contribution limits.

In the 11 competitive Senate races in 2014, 16 candidate-specific groups each spent more than $1 million in Senate elections, twice as many as in the last election. Five of these groups spent more than $3 million; three of them beat the previous cycle’s record high of $5.9 million.
Single-candidate groups depend heavily on donors who have donated the legal limit to the favored candidate — several get all or almost all of their contributions from these double-dipping donors. Together, the 2014 buddy groups in toss-up races took in $14.2 million from individuals, of which $9.2 million came from people who maxed out to the favored candidate with either $2,600 (the limit for one election) or $5,200 (the limit for giving to both a candidate’s primary and general election campaigns).
The biggest double-dipping donors gave half a million dollars to single-candidate groups — almost 100 times the limit for candidate contributions.
Dark money played a critical role in funding a new Senate.

Dark money in Senate elections has more than doubled since 2010, from $105 million in inflation-adjusted dollars, to $226 million in 2014.
Almost half of the $1 billion in 2014 dollars that outside spenders plowed into Senate elections over the last three cycles, $485 million, was dark money.
In the 11 most competitive races in 2014, dark money comprised 59 percent of nonparty outside spending. In the 10 competitive races that we have candidate spending data for, dark money comprised 28 percent of total spending (candidate, party, and outside group).
The winners in the 11 most competitive races in 2014 together had more than $131 million in dark money supporting them — 71 percent of the nonparty outside spending in their favor.
Click to expand...
 
POLITICO article on "Scam PACs"
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/super-pac-scams-114581.html

The efforts bear some of the hallmarks of a phenomenon that watchdogs say is threatening the integrity of the campaign funding system, and that conservative leaders worry could seriously undermine their interests headed into 2016. Since the tea party burst onto the political landscape in 2009, the conservative movement has been plagued by an explosion of PACs that critics say exist mostly to pad the pockets of the consultants who run them. Combining sophisticated targeting techniques with fundraising appeals that resonate deeply among grass-roots activists, they collect large piles of small checks that, taken together, add up to enough money to potentially sway a Senate race. But the PACs plow most of their cash back into payments to consulting firms for additional fundraising efforts.

A POLITICO analysis of reports filed with the Federal Election Commission covering the 2014 cycle found that 33 PACs that court small donors with tea party-oriented email and direct-mail appeals raised $43 million — 74 percent of which came from small donors. The PACs spent only $3 million on ads and contributions to boost the long-shot candidates often touted in the appeals, compared to $39.5 million on operating expenses, including $6 million to firms owned or managed by the operatives who run the PACs. POLITICO’s list is not all-inclusive, and some conservatives fret that it’s almost impossible to identify all the groups that are out there, let alone to rein them in.
Click to expand...

In the run-up to the 2014 midterm elections, McConnell and Boehner tried to marginalize out-of-favor PACs, and McConnell’s allies last week launched an unofficially endorsed super PAC to go along with one that Boehner’s confidants formed in 2011, partly to stem the flow of cash to competing PACs.

That technique has worked well for Democrats, who have mostly avoided the problem, though they also benefit from the lack of tea party-style insurgency on their side. That could change if the 2016 Democratic presidential primary inflames deep ideological divisions within the party.



But on the right, this industry appears only to be growing, according to conservatives who track it closely.
A couple of days after receiving the anti-Bush email from the Conservative Action Fund, Erickson took to his Red State blog to lament the trend. “It is a terrible blight on the conservative movement and on the tea party in particular that the hucksters have come up to cash in,” he wrote. “From the groups claiming to represent Ben Carson to the groups raising money for Allen West to now a group claiming to raise money to ‘Stop Jeb Bush,’ I think more and more older conservatives are getting scammed by con men living well off other people’s money. I doubt very much that much, if any, of the money is going to support these causes.”
Click to expand...
 
Not sure it's really a post-Citizens United phenomenon: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2002075044_repubs28m.html

Of the money spent by the group this year, nearly 90 percent went to direct-mail vendors and postage expenses, according to records filed with the Internal Revenue Service.

Some of the elderly donors, meanwhile, wound up bouncing checks and emptying their bank accounts.

"I don't have any more money," said Cecilia Barbier, a 90-year-old retired church council worker in New York City. "I'm stopping giving to everybody. That was all my savings that they got....

In Van Buren, Ark., Monda Jo Millsap, 68, said she emptied her savings account by writing checks to College Republicans, then got a bank loan of $5,000 and sent that, too, before totaling her donations at more than $59,000.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top