Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Apologies if this is a repeat thread, but what do you guys think of the state of campaign finance laws? Big money donors have recently had quite a bit of success at both the state and federal levels in deregulating it, allowing for unlimited contributions. Is this a good thing? A bad thing? Discuss!

This election shows off just how useless superpacs can be. How many TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars were donated to Bush? I hear his donors are piiiiiiissed, feel like they've wasted their money. Look at what Bernie has raised, but where exactly has it gotten him? It's all in how you spend the money and who you're taking it from, so as long as it's transparent it doesn't really bother me.

I don't get the impression this is a very controversial issue. Campaign finance reform one of the only things you see staunch liberals and conservatives agreeing on. Practically the only people against campaign finance reform are the ones profiting off the deregulation.

"Okay Frank Reagan, I'll give you this money to help your race, but ehh, I want a return on my investment in the future, capiché? My corporation would really love it if we could get those pesky anti-trust laws out of the way and, if you win, you would be the perfect man to help me with that. Just remember me when you're sitting on the senate discussing new bills to add to Congress and we won't have a problem. What kind of problem? Well, let's just say if my return on the investment isn't satisfied, I may have to invest in a different product."

"Okay Frank Reagan, I’ll give you this money to help your race, but ehh, I want a return on my investment in the future, capiché?"

And you would never get to know about it were campaign funding not an open process. Which billionaires donate to who? Apparently you guys aren't interested in knowing. It's not like billionaires don't already offer gifts and other getarounds that can be delivered on the DL, like all of the "humanitarian donations" pouring into the Clinton Foundation. "Reforming" campaign contributions means nothing more than hiding them from the public.

You misunderstand me, I know that campaign funding is an open process, and all it takes is research to figure out who donated to whom and what PAC is advocating for. I don't want campaign finance by corporations AT ALL. That is Campaign Finance Reform. Reform doesn't mean "hiding the bribes from the public", that would be a worse-than-useless bill that nobody is actually advocating for, nor would that be how reform would actually work. It would be illegal to bribe. Corporations' executives in charge of bribing caught bribing would be jailed and the campaigner forced out. A synthetic entity should not get the privilege to donate to a campaign; it is not a human.

& I explained to you that even if you ban corporate campaign donations directly, corporate billionaires will still fund politicians, except now they wont be obligated to disclose it. That's what your campaign reform means. Hillary's charity isn't a campaign. Obama's golf fundraisers aren't a campaign. The money still pours in, the only difference is that you no longer have the right to know about it, you banned your ability to know about it because you thought that would fix things.

Yet another example of the critical thinking you all lack.
Corporate donors funding campaigns → ban corporate donors → problem solved!!
On what other issue has that logic ever worked out?

Be sure to tell that to the next sharecropper or child laborer you see in America, I'm sure they'll tell you all about how regulation doesn't work.

& I explained to you that even if you ban corporate campaign donations directly, corporate billionaires will still fund politicians, except now they wont be obligated to disclose it. That’s what your campaign reform means. The money still pours in, the only difference is that you no longer have the right to know about it, you banned your ability to know about it because you thought that would fix things.

How exactly would they still be able to fund politicians when it would be very easy to create an administrative division to track the money politicians use in their campaigns and notice a contradiction in the amount they say they raised with the large amount they actually used? If they are still getting bribed, yet aren't spending the money on the campaigns due to the fear of being caught taking bribes (and the corporations not wishing to be jailed), bribes aren't being used in campaigns to confer an unrealistic advantage to the campaigner. Again, making sure the corporations do not have a megaphone over the rest of the people via large amounts of money.

{ How exactly would they still be able to fund politicians when it would be very easy to create an administrative division to track the money politicians use in their campaigns and notice a contradiction in the amount they say they raised with the large amount they actually used? }

Were you guys born yesterday??? It's their own money raised privately, they can use it however they want to. The Supreme Court ruled it's against the 1st Amendment to limit a candidate's self-funding. Obama can golf with celebrities for $4.4 mil (and that's only travel expenses) on the taxpayer's dime while simultaneously raising a cool $2.6 mil for his own use~ Like I said in my first post that was apparently beyond all of your comprehension, transparency is the main issue. They're going to get the money no matter what, so I want to know about it. If you want to reform campaign donations why not legislate a prominent public disclosure link on candidate campaign websites with a breakdown of exactly who donated what sum of money for the week? Reform all political donations to be disclosed in this way. Expose the donors, don't do them the favor of protecting their identities.

Use your brains a little before you respond, this isn't general.

Were you guys born yesterday??? It’s their own money raised privately, they can use it however they want to. The Supreme Court ruled it’s against the 1st Amendment to limit a candidate’s self-funding.

See, that's the problem here. There's donating money to a politician because you want him to run based on his platform you like because you believe it can benefit the people, and then there's bribing a politician in order to make him vote specifically for or against something that benefits them and their friends. It is the "money is speech" verdict that is the problem. There is the merit of showing your speech by donating to a politician as a means of showing that you want his/her platform, yet this inherently allows for "speech that is more equal than others". A Super PAC has more voice than a 30 dollar donation from that dude across the street. Last time I checked, we have been progressively reforming the Constitution to make it so no one's voice is stronger than another. It should include reforming the whole "corporations as people using money to voice their opinion".

If you want to reform campaign donations why not legislate a prominent public disclosure link on candidate campaign websites with a breakdown of exactly who donated what sum of money for the week? Reform all political donations to be disclosed in this way. Expose the donors, don’t do them the favor of protecting their identities.

The problem is still the fact that they got the money in the first place by people who want returns on their investments. They expect results from dropping so much cash. It's why it works, and why politicians suddenly look to Lobbyism to figure out how to act on a decision in the senate.

You jest about this not being in General Discussion, yeeet you're the one throwing around insults, just like what Serious Debate is not reserved for.

Why do you continually insist that lobbying is done soley by Corporations? And why is that particular lobbying so egregious as compared to others?

Do other interest groups not want a return on their investment? I.e a politician changing legislation in their favor?

Oh please, I haven't insulted anyone, this is the tone I use in SD where critical thinking is expected by default, I shouldn't have to remind you there are more consequences to your actions than what appears right in front of your face. Evaluate your argument before you post and I wouldn't have to be so annoyed by the obvious lack of thought behind it.

{ The problem is still the fact that they got the money in the first place by people who want returns on their investments. }

bruh so do you. Do you support political candidates who wont improve your quality of life? Who will do the opposite of what want to see happen?? Your one vote is worth exactly the same as everyone else, politicians can't get elected with even a hundred billionaire donors on their side, even a thousand who donate five billion dollars each.

& regardless of whether or not you ban corporate donations directly, you haven't addressed the other side of the coin at all. Politicians can host private fundraisers, generate millions from big corporate donors, and spend every penny on their campaign without you getting to know who exactly the money came from. That happens 24/7/365, yet you only seem to be concerned with their ability to donate directly to a campaign where they're held to certain standards of disclosure. I'm hunting diligently for the logic in your proposal and finding none.

Oh please, I haven’t insulted anyone

Okay, but…

Evaluate your argument before you post and I wouldn’t have to be so annoyed by the obvious lack of thought behind it.

Were you guys born yesterday???

Use your brains a little before you respond

Yet another example of the critical thinking you all lack.

Even if they are stupid, it doesn't make these less of an insult. I'd argue you're clearly breaking the Serious Debate Guidelines because:

A good discussion requires a certain level of maturity and respect towards each other. We want our discussions to appear open and free to any opinion. Disagreements and criticism in a discussion is of course fine, unnecessary mean behavior and insults are not, and therefore will result in consequences for offending users. If you want to address a specific individual about personal matters, contact the user privately instead of starting a public discussion.

These comments aren't productive. They do not contribute to the debate, and already we're seeing deviation from it over it. Argue like a philosopher – attack the idea, not the person.

Okay, now lets hope that debate is over and get back on topic. I for one am not entirely decided on the issue. If we assume a "perfect universe", where money is earned according to how much a person contributes to society, then I'd argue then people should be allowed to donate all the money they want to political campaigns. The problem is, that's not what happens, and other laws mess prevent the "perfect universe" from being possible. So, do we make a law to patch up the side effects of that law? Or do we demand that law be removed, with potential unseen side effects? Because right now, as far as I can tell, most people are very happy with the way it's set up.

Also, there's a lot of assuming here about the reason corporations and super-pacs donate to campaigns. It's often assumed they donate for the purpose of manipulating the candidate, but this might not be the reason. I find it more reasonable to assume that the candidate already agrees with the corporations views in the first place. Whether or not the candidate truly agrees or is pandering for money is his own moral issue. The corporations are not responsible if a politician lies to them for money.

From a human perspective, it's better to try solving this issue and perhaps trigger behind-the-scenes funding, than let it openly continue. A message needs to at the very least be sent that the American people are not okay with this. At least with a bill against corporations financing politicians we have SOMETHING in place. Is it perfect? Probably not, for the paranoid whom believe this behind-the-scenes financing would drastically increase. But to accept nothing in place of this plan is ridiculous and resigns to a problem nobody but the corrupt should side with.

Those aren't insults. "You're a fucking prick and your ideas are all shit" is an insult (and very similar to how a certain mod here speaks regardless of which forum he's in); "you lack critical thinking" and "your arguments lack thought" are criticisms that should be taken to heart and learned from.

"You all have no idea what you're talking about" isn't an insult either when it's obvious you don't.

{ Also, there’s a lot of assuming here about the reason corporations and super-pacs donate to campaigns. }

Corporations and PACs can't donate freely to campaigns. No matter who you are, you can individually donate a maximum of $2.7k to a campaign directly. PACs can only forward $5,000 max per election (primary and general are two separate elections) to campagins. Super PACs can raise whatever they want but can't donate to campaigns at all and they can't contact or coordinate with the candidate they support, they can only run ads and stump and such.

Who wants to now explain to me which part of that you all apparently have a problem with?

So what's the difference between a corporation making a collective donation of 1 million dollars, and a million employees of a corporation making 1.00 donations to a campaign? How exactly does one make sure corporations can't donate anything anyway? Do you give up your individual ability to participate in the democratic process once you get a job at a corporation? What even counts as a donation?

Does renting out an expensive venue for a one on one talk with a candidate count as a donation? Does covering someones bill for a restaurant count as a donation? Does a ceo giving 5 bucks to a candidate's campaign count as corporate donations? Does a teller at a bank or a field worker at Monsanto or a clerk at Safeway not have the right to give money or else they should go to jail for bribery due to their money coming from corporations in the form of a paycheck?

This is why I don't talk to people myself about campaign finance. The reality is you will never get corporate money out of politics unless you disenfranchise a ton of citizens from the rights guaranteed to them by the constitution. When corporations couldn't donate under their name, they made smaller donations under their individual names. I'd rather have it all out and accept that corporate money makes the system go round.

It's not just laws. It's how do you objectively, dictate what a person's contribution to society is. We have vague notions, but when people don't understand particular fields and their impact, or potential impact, how do you know what they are contributing. Furthermore, how do we assess the value of their contribution.

So, you're perfect universe isn't fulfilled by the laws, but by utterly subjective notions. What do you consider is value? How much do you know about a person's impact to society based on their job?

If I was to give you person who is a surgeon and compare it with a ceo of a company and ask you to evaluate their value and contribution, I bet you and many many other people would assess that the surgeon has the highest value to give to society.

However, what if that CEO was responsible for bringing in tons of revenue for the company that allowed it to expand, hire more people, create more jobs, and produce a product that is cheaper and more available to poorer people.

See the problem? There is no perfect world, because the conditions for it to be perfect are utterly subjective. So predicating anything on this notion is just stupid.

And again, another person who only focuses on corporate donations. What, do Unions do not contribute to these? Do special interest groups, which can be anything from the ACLU, to the KKK, also not have a contributing factor? Or are these not guilty of some sort of social ill of making money? That somehow they are above their own "profit"?

Unlimited donations to politicians is legalized bribery. Citizens United has pushed us toward oligarchy.

Let's go over Citizens United.

{ The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office. }

{ An independent expenditure, in elections in the United States, is a political campaign communication that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate that is not made in cooperation, consultation or concert with or at the request or suggestion of a candidate, candidate’s authorized committee or political party. If a candidate, his/her agent, his/her authorized committee, his/her party, or an "agent" for one of these groups becomes "materially involved", the expenditure is not independent. }

That's all it is. Plz stop buying into the baseless liberal panic.

Freakenstein said:

A synthetic entity should not get the privilege to donate to a campaign; it is not a human.

Good thing they can't, then. Per the FEC

The law also prohibits contributions from corporations and labor unions. This prohibition applies to any incorporated organization, profit or nonprofit. For example, the owner of an incorporated "mom and pop" grocery store is not permitted to use a business account to make contributions. Instead, the owner would have to use a personal account. A corporate employee may make contributions through a nonrepayable corporate drawing account, which allows the individual to draw personal funds against salary, profits or other compensation.

Individual donations from the billionaires and evil corrupt CEOs are also limited.

Ofus said:

Unlimited donations to politicians is legalized bribery. Citizens United has pushed us toward oligarchy.

I believe you're a little confused over what Citizen's United v FEC was actually about. The case was over whether it was legal to prohibit "unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations" from airing electioneering ads within 30 days of an election. SCOTUS ruled that such a prohibition violated the first amendment's freedom of speech. The Federal Election Campaign Act, which regulates contributions, was not challenged in the case.