Out-of-state Political Donations are going too far

[Gastaph Hediatrix]

Daily Caller: Ocasio-Cortez’s Known Donors From Her Own District Are Nearly Non-Existent, FEC Records Show
Marketplace: When it comes to out-of-state donations, Democrats take the lead in the 2018 midterms
Macon Telegraph: One candidate for Georgia governor gets most money from out of state




I think that the United States really needs to get a handle on out-of-state donations to political campaigns for state and federal offices. I'd prefer a constitutional amendment barring political donations across state lines (excepting the presidency, since that's the only nationally elected office). However, I think an argument could be made for standard legislation on the same lines, based on the authority of the commerce clause without abusing the constitutional intent of that clause.

Cross-district donations within a state would be a matter for the state in question, of course, since they're the ones who set the boundaries of their districts in the first place.

Thoughts?

 

[Emperor Tippy]

That the better response is to admit reality and stop trying to police money in politics. There is no realistic means of structuring the laws in a manner that would actually remove money from politics and absent that, you may as well acknowledge the fact and get on with life.

Even if you could actually block direct donations to candidates, the First Amendment blocks hard any attempts to limit private advocacy.

Political speech is the most protected. Hell, even the restrictions on directly endorsing candidates wouldn't stand if anyone bothered to really challenge them. I mean making it illegal for me, for example, go advocate voting for Trump? Even if my advocacy is done via buying TV advertisements; that is still a direct violation of the First Amendment.

If you don't like people funding Democrat candidates from out of state then go fund Republicans who challenge them.

But actual restrictions on expressing political support or taking part in the political process? No, screw that.

 

[FriedCFour]

Its kind of a self correcting problem, because if only 10 people in AOCs district will even support them financially, its gonna mean that they could be primaried out by anyone with even a modest amount of support in the actual district.

 

[Deleted member 1]

That the better response is to admit reality and stop trying to police money in politics. There is no realistic means of structuring the laws in a manner that would actually remove money from politics and absent that, you may as well acknowledge the fact and get on with life.

Even if you could actually block direct donations to candidates, the First Amendment blocks hard any attempts to limit private advocacy.

Political speech is the most protected. Hell, even the restrictions on directly endorsing candidates wouldn't stand if anyone bothered to really challenge them. I mean making it illegal for me, for example, go advocate voting for Trump? Even if my advocacy is done via buying TV advertisements; that is still a direct violation of the First Amendment.

If you don't like people funding Democrat candidates from out of state then go fund Republicans who challenge them.

But actual restrictions on expressing political support or taking part in the political process? No, screw that.

States have every reason to insist and expect that political money in that state come from citizens of that State. It's a fundamental part of federalism to insure that the voices of state residents are the voices actually heard in political debates in that state -- and what interest other than large-scale "engineered consent" through mass media, one of the most wicked psychosocial processes of modern times, does any person have in the affairs of a state they do not live in? A legitimate, sincere interest? Of course, corporations are persons under law and so a business incorporated in a state should also be able to donate in that state regardless of where its owners reside, but the general principle remains.

 

[Psyckosama]

Citizens United for Me but not for Thee.

 

[JagerIV]

Its sorta something I think would be good in the abstract, but I'm not sure its actually practically viable, and may be a cure worse than the disease.

I think the limits of what counts would be so arbitrary in how you would have to define them, that it would be basically another gerrymandering battlefield: write the limits where my out of state support can still get me money, but your out of state support cannot support you as easily.

For example, money from a major corporation counts as banned out of state money, but money from the Teamsters who only have a tiny chapter in the area counts.

 

[7 Gold Eye Heals the Wise]

Citizens United for Me but not for Thee.

How so?