Jump to content

Supreme Court Weighs Easing Limits On Campaign Contributions


Texsox

Recommended Posts

http://www.npr.org/2013/10/08/230519762/sc...ey-and-politics

 

I have really mixed feelings on this.

 

While I believe reducing the money in politics is a good thing, I find it hard to justify limiting the total number of candidates a person may donate to. The problem becomes when you have to have the support of the wealthiest 500 donors or your campaign ends before it gets started. That seems like it will limit speech, not increase it. I was listening to an NPR report with Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon who brought the suit and I had to agree with his assertion that challengers, not incumbents have the roughest time raising funds. I am skeptical about his claim that this could help expand ideas in the arena with more candidates funded. I think it is equally plausible that the incumbents will just receive even more money, locking out new ideas and candidates.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 03:26 PM)
term limits will concentrate the power with the people who donate the money and the candidates they put in place.

 

How's that any different than the current system? At least if there were term limits the buddy-buddy, old gentleman's club crap would stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 04:34 PM)
How's that any different than the current system? At least if there were term limits the buddy-buddy, old gentleman's club crap would stop.

When California did that, it wound up hardening the two sides and increasing polarization even more because the people who can occasionally make deals to keep the government running are people secure enough in their seats from years of service that they won't be thrown out if they make a deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 03:34 PM)
How's that any different than the current system? At least if there were term limits the buddy-buddy, old gentleman's club crap would stop.

 

What will stay constant? An incumbent has an opportunity to build up visibility and voters and donors will know him. If we have to elect someone new, who will you get to know? The candidates that the donors want you to know. So every term or two a select group of large donors will get together and pick who gets to run, the party and the donors will have all the power.

 

Plus we already have term limits. Elections are held all the time. Vote the guy out and put in someone new. I'm philosophically opposed to taking away the voter's right to elect the candidate they want. If the voters believe that Jane Sixtermer is the best candidate for them why should they not be allowed to select her?

 

The incentives cut both ways. Doing the best for your district trying to get reelected or grab all you can you only get one or two terms. Having a lot of lame duck officials concerns me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Reddy @ Oct 11, 2013 -> 01:12 AM)
this is one thing on which we agree. Term limits will fix many of these issues

 

If you won't have to answer to the voters next election time, who will you answer to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 11, 2013 -> 08:18 AM)
The person who is going to give you a job when your term is up.

Given the rate of elected office->lobbyist we have now, I don't see how term limits would change that.

 

Term limits take away choice from the voters. They ensure that there will always be a fresh stream of inexperienced people in elected offices. And, IIRC, there's little evidence that they really do much to improve governance. It gives more power to the political machines to produce a constant stream of candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way to fix this and stop the SCOTUS from douching it up is a constitutional amendment. There's several things I wish we'd address in our elections but we like to think America is the best at everything by default and we never need to bother fixing anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 11, 2013 -> 07:28 AM)
Given the rate of elected office->lobbyist we have now, I don't see how term limits would change that.

 

Term limits take away choice from the voters. They ensure that there will always be a fresh stream of inexperienced people in elected offices. And, IIRC, there's little evidence that they really do much to improve governance. It gives more power to the political machines to produce a constant stream of candidates.

This is absolutely true. All that will be done is that the behind the scenes party leaders gain even more power(as if they don't have enough). The best solution is to just simply create more transparency in donations. As people are educated about who donates and for what reasons then they can vote with more clarity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 8, 2013 -> 12:12 PM)
There is bipartisan support for increasing the flow of bribe money. See, the Democrats and Republicans can work together.

To be fair, one party has at least proposed things like the "disclose" act that, although weak, would at least have required some disclosure as opposed to the anonymous bribes we have right now. That bill, of course, was filibustered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 8, 2013 -> 01:06 PM)
To be fair, one party has at least proposed things like the "disclose" act that, although weak, would at least have required some disclosure as opposed to the anonymous bribes we have right now. That bill, of course, was filibustered.

 

:lolhitting

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/06/obama-to-break/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 8, 2013 -> 02:48 PM)

I tried to add every caveat possible in there. Laugh all you want, here's the vote. It would have at least required disclosure of who is contributing to these super-pacs at some level. The vote was 51 Dems in favor, 44 Republicans against.

 

One party really wants these bribes to be anonymous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 8, 2013 -> 02:04 PM)
I tried to add every caveat possible in there. Laugh all you want, here's the vote. It would have at least required disclosure of who is contributing to these super-pacs at some level. The vote was 51 Dems in favor, 44 Republicans against.

 

One party really wants these bribes to be anonymous.

 

The loop holes in that bill were incredible. It would have not done anything to fix the bribe situation. The Democrats don't want the bribe situation to end. Poor naive Balta, he actually thinks the Democrats don't take bribes. *sigh*

 

Just like the Republican faithful that think the GOP doesn't take bribes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...