A Solid Way to Limit Money in Politics???

[The Whispering Monk]

I've been thinking about ways to keep local races local and state races at the state level, as well as a way to limit the money laundering that goes on in political fund raising.

1. Only individuals may make political donates to a maximum of $5,000 per race (note that I did not say per candidate). This means no corporate donations, no Union donations, NOTHING aside from individual donates.
2. PACs are no longer allowed. You may not spend your money to advertise in support of any candidate. Political advertising MUST be purchased by the candidate. Not even political parties will be allowed to purchase advertising, send mailers or anything of that nature in support of a candidate.
3. You may donate to any candidate you are allowed to vote for. If you cannot cast a vote for that candidate, you may not make a contribution to them. For example, I live in Texas, so I cannot send money for a State Candidate running for office outside of Texas.
4. You may volunteer your TIME anywhere you like. There is no limit on how much of that you want to donate. There is no limit on what candidate you can volunteer your time for.

What do you all think of this?

 

[Bacle]

I've been thinking about ways to keep local races local and state races at the state level, as well as a way to limit the money laundering that goes on in political fund raising.

1. Only individuals may make political donates to a maximum of $5,000 per race (note that I did not say per candidate). This means no corporate donations, no Union donations, NOTHING aside from individual donates.
2. PACs are no longer allowed. You may not spend your money to advertise in support of any candidate. Political advertising MUST be purchased by the candidate. Not even political parties will be allowed to purchase advertising, send mailers or anything of that nature in support of a candidate.
3. You may donate to any candidate you are allowed to vote for. If you cannot cast a vote for that candidate, you may not make a contribution to them. For example, I live in Texas, so I cannot send money for a State Candidate running for office outside of Texas.
4. You may volunteer your TIME anywhere you like. There is no limit on how much of that you want to donate. There is no limit on what candidate you can volunteer your time for.

What do you all think of this?

A lot of it runs straight into the 1st Amendment and attempting to put limits on 'political speech' won't pass muster with SCOTUS.

Citizens United is here to stay, whether you like it or not.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

What in there specifically limits free speech?

 

[Bacle]

What in there specifically limits free speech?

Limiting donations to in-state only, and not allowing PACs.

Interferes with exercise of political speech, which SCOTUS ruled political donations count as.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

@Bacle
We already limit political donations in size. That's completely legal for some reason.

But you can get around this if you get boat loads of money and form a PAC. So...how is that equal before the law? Pretty much been my main problem with PACs/Corporate donations/Union donors.

 

[Bacle]

@Bacle
We already limit political donations in size. That's completely legal for some reason.

But you can get around this if you get boat loads of money and form a PAC. So...how is that equal before the law? Pretty much been my main problem with PACs/Corporate donations/Union donors.

We limit personal donations to keep the mega-rich from straight up buying candidates outright, but PACs are different because they act as a vehicle for more than one person to donate to/support a candidate.

It's the same sort of logic to why we have corpo personhood.

A better thing to do would be to do what Robin Williams recommended and force politicians to where NASCAR-like suits with their donors names/logos on them so people can see who all is owned by whom.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

I'm of the belief that we erred when we granted 'personhood' to corporate entities. And PACs don't have to have lots of people donate to them, they just needs lots of money. PACs are often how the wealthy get by the individual limits on donations.

 

[Typhonis]

If they haven't already done so....treat Politicians like charities. To maintain their status they must list every contribution they receive and how it is spent.

 

[S'task]

I've been thinking about ways to keep local races local and state races at the state level, as well as a way to limit the money laundering that goes on in political fund raising.

1. Only individuals may make political donates to a maximum of $5,000 per race (note that I did not say per candidate). This means no corporate donations, no Union donations, NOTHING aside from individual donates.

Per current legal understanding, this would violate the 1st Amendment.

2. PACs are no longer allowed. You may not spend your money to advertise in support of any candidate. Political advertising MUST be purchased by the candidate. Not even political parties will be allowed to purchase advertising, send mailers or anything of that nature in support of a candidate.

This violates the 1st Amendment in numerous ways. It violates Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and Freedom to Petition.

The most blatant is that by prohibiting advertising to only candidates you're basically violating the free speech of everyone who supports that candidate. It doesn't actually cost a lot of money to print and send a bunch of fliers in support of a political candidate and to inhibit people from publishing fliers in support of candidates and political positions is well within the original meaning and understanding of the 1st Amendment and the idea of Freedom of the Press. It was very common in the early Republic for supporters of political positions or candidates to print small broadleafs expressing support for them. This is where documents like "Common Sense", "The Federalist Papers", and many other documents originated from.

3. You may donate to any candidate you are allowed to vote for. If you cannot cast a vote for that candidate, you may not make a contribution to them. For example, I live in Texas, so I cannot send money for a State Candidate running for office outside of Texas.

Sending money in support of someone is considered an exercise in political speech and prohibiting it falls afoul of the first amendment.

4. You may volunteer your TIME anywhere you like. There is no limit on how much of that you want to donate. There is no limit on what candidate you can volunteer your time for.

What do you all think of this?

I think you violate not just the modern understanding of the 1st Amendment, but the historical understanding going back to its adoption too.

Secondly, there is almost no correlation between money spent and success of candidates, especially over the last two decades. The idea that so much money in politics is what is corrupting politicians is a bit of a bugbear that doesn't really track well with election history. Now, if you're concerned with members of Congress properly representing their electorate and instead focusing on the interests of big doners, that may be a more fair concern, but the thing is, there's a natural counterbalance to that becoming to much of an issue: primary elections and general elections. If a Representative fails to represent... they can be replaced in a race where, again, money rarely is actually correlated with success anymore.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Per current legal understanding, this would violate the 1st Amendment.

Oh yeah, I know that. What's your opinion of this, outside of legal standing at present, from a moral point of view?

This violates the 1st Amendment in numerous ways. It violates Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and Freedom to Petition.

And I'm not completely sold on this portion myself, but I wanted to have a way to ensure that each election didn't become national. That the elected officials are actually beholden to their constituents and NOT their far-away donors.

And how would this remove Freedom to Petition? That applies to individuals petitioning the government...not people running for office looking for donations.

As for the Press, nothing I've stated infringes on the Press.

The most blatant is that by prohibiting advertising to only candidates you're basically violating the free speech of everyone who supports that candidate.

I get that it's not currently going to be supported by the present legal standings at all. From a logical standpoint, if you can donate to that candidate, you are able to express your opinion. This would just prevent anyone from doing MORE than that...with absolutely no wiggle room. (That's the idea, though I'm sure there would be some sort of loopholes in reality)

As an alternative, what if you were allowed to use your donation to instead print up flyers or advertise in some other way? Not give directly to the candidate, but publish in favor of said candidate.

Sending money in support of someone is considered an exercise in political speech and prohibiting it falls afoul of the first amendment.

I'm not taking away anyone's ability to support a candidate they can legally choose.

The idea that so much money in politics is what is corrupting politicians

It is absolutely corrupting the game b/c there is so much money involved. Look at all the games played in Congress to funnel money to organizations that will just give that money back to campaigns. This is a step to try and remove that option completely.

Now, if you're concerned with members of Congress properly representing their electorate and instead focusing on the interests of big doners, that may be a more fair concern

This is one of my major concerns. We've 'nationalized' way too much, and we need to be better at encouraging local focus and movement AWAY from Federal answers to all our problems.

 

[Cherico]

If they haven't already done so....treat Politicians like charities. To maintain their status they must list every contribution they receive and how it is spent.

The democrats have doxed people and harrassed them for giving donations, and what canada did recently was basically a nuclear option. Unfortantly because of that you kind of have to make individual contrabutions some what secret because of those bully boy tactics.

 

[Battlegrinder]

I'm of the belief that we erred when we granted 'personhood' to corporate entities. And PACs don't have to have lots of people donate to them, they just needs lots of money. PACs are often how the wealthy get by the individual limits on donations.

Corporate Personhood exists primarily for purposes of taxation, liability, and contract law, and has been in existence for ages, it's not a recent thing despite progressive misinformation you've heard about Citizens United.

As for the Press, nothing I've stated infringes on the Press.

Freedom of the press doesn't mean "No one can tell CNN what to do". It refers to the universal right all of citizens to create and publish whatever material they want. "You can publish anything you want other than anything about a political candidate" is a massive infringement.

It is absolutely corrupting the game b/c there is so much money involved. Look at all the games played in Congress to funnel money to organizations that will just give that money back to campaigns. This is a step to try and remove that option completely.

There's really not. The US political system has problems, but "too much money being spent on it" isn't one of them.

This is one of my major concerns. We've 'nationalized' way too much, and we need to be better at encouraging local focus and movement AWAY from Federal answers to all our problems.

I think that's a fair concern, but on the other hand while politicians are locally elected and accountable to thier local voters, they do still make decisions that affect the entire nation, there's going to be some degree of nationalization going on regardless.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Corporate Personhood exists primarily for purposes of taxation, liability, and contract law, and has been in existence for ages, it's not a recent thing despite progressive misinformation you've heard about Citizens United.

I mispoke then. I think the organizations should lose their 'voting' power as they are NOT citizens. So no political contributions.

It refers to the universal right all of citizens to create and publish whatever material they want.

I addressed this with the concession to allowing anyone to publish anything on behalf of their candidate up to the limits of individual campaign contributions.

The US political system has problems, but "too much money being spent on it" isn't one of them.

It's not that too much money is being spent, it's that tax money is being laundered into political campaign donations. That's my problem.

I think that's a fair concern, but on the other hand while politicians are locally elected and accountable to thier local voters, they do still make decisions that affect the entire nation, there's going to be some degree of nationalization going on regardless.

The trend is entirely too much in favor of nationalizing small town elections. It's completely out of balance. Thankfully, all that money doesn't get you more votes in the local school board elections...unless you're committed to election fraud of course.

 

[Battlegrinder]

I mispoke then. I think the organizations should lose their 'voting' power as they are NOT citizens. So no political contributions.

They're an organization composed of citizens, supporting a politician that they believe will act in thier best interest. Why shouldn't that be allowed?

Since you've pointed to local politics, look at a local example. Say a mayoral candidate is running on a platform of rezoning part of the town to allow a developer to build more houses there. Should the local construction companies that stand to benefit from that change not be allowed to support that candidate?

And if you say yes they should, what's the difference in principle between that and the sane thing on a national scale?

I addressed this with the concession to allowing anyone to publish anything on behalf of their candidate up to the limits of individual campaign contributions.

"You can publish whatever you want, but you can only spend X amount to do so" is still an infringement.

It's not that too much money is being spent, it's that tax money is being laundered into political campaign donations. That's my problem

While I'm sure that happens, the overall amount of money being spent in total is still low enough that I'm not sure it happens on a large enough scale to be a "problem".

 

[The Whispering Monk]

They're an organization composed of citizens, supporting a politician that they believe will act in thier best interest. Why shouldn't that be allowed?

Those citizens already have the capability to donate. Why should they be allowed to donate more than others just b/c they are in control of a business?

Should the local construction companies that stand to benefit from that change not be allowed to support that candidate?

No. See the above statement.

"You can publish whatever you want, but you can only spend X amount to do so" is still an infringement.

We already have this infringement built into the caps on individual donations. So...no real change here.

While I'm sure that happens, the overall amount of money being spent in total is still low enough that I'm not sure it happens on a large enough scale to be a "problem".

Millions and millions of dollars...especially once the Gov started all the 'stimulus' crap under Obama and all the way through Covid.

 

[Battlegrinder]

Those citizens already have the capability to donate. Why should they be allowed to donate more than others just b/c they are in control of a business?

Because it's their money. Why should people be allowed to donate more than others, just because they have the income to donate more?

We already have this infringement built into the caps on individual donations. So...no real change here.

A limit on how much you can donate to a cause and a limit to what you can do with your own money are very different things.

Millions and millions of dollars...especially once the Gov started all the 'stimulus' crap under Obama and all the way through Covid.

The US federal budget is like 4 trillion dollars. I think a few mispent millions is the least of our problems.

 

[ShieldWife]

All of these would be ridiculously ineffective in keeping money out of politics. One of the big problems is that it assumes that every major institution is completely politically neutral in everything it does - except donate money to candidates or campaigns. This, of course, is absurd.

Think about how nearly every big corporation in USA is left leaning. So when left wing news broadcasts villainize Trump or shill for Biden, that doesn’t count. When Hollywood movies or shows push a woke agenda, that doesn’t count. When universities push their agenda on students, that doesn’t count. When big tech uses algorithms to push some stories or suppress others or even just censors dissenting views, that doesn’t count. The left gets to do all of that, propaganda that it would take billions of dollars to buy if you even could, but Republicans go to jail for giving $6000 to a campaign or creating a political group that doesn’t jump through the right hoops.

The problem with any kind of regulation on money in politics is that the real movers and shakers can easily circumvent or exploit those regulations, only small time people are hurt by them. That is why the establishment/left likes campaign finance reform. That is why George Soros and all his organizations and hundreds of million $ donations are fine and yet Dinesh D’Souza goes to prison for donating a few thousand dollars.

Any regulations on money or speech would just be exploited by the powerful to suppress dissent. Better that we have free speech and the ability to freely donate.

 

[49ersfootball]

I do NOT see it happening anytime soon!