More campaign finance limits tossed

[StrangeSox]

relevant:

 

An important new book by economist Thomas Piketty points to a pessimistic conclusion . . . Drawing on hundreds of years of economic data (some of which has only recently become available to researchers) Piketty reaches a simple but disturbing conclusion: in the long run, the return on capital tends to be greater than the growth rate of the economies in which that capital is located.

 

What this means is that in a modern market economy the increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of the already-rich is as natural as water flowing downhill, and can only be ameliorated by powerful political intervention, in the form of wealth redistribution via taxes, and to a lesser extent laws that systematically protect labor from capital. (Piketty argues that, because of historical circumstances which are unlikely to be repeated, this sort of intervention happened in the western world in general, and in America particular, between the first World War and the early 1970s).

 

Readers can already guess the dire conclusion that flows from combining Piketty’s theory with the plausible assumption that unregulated wealth leads to plutocracy: If the only way to avoid plutocracy would be to employ political processes that the plutocrats themselves will eventually buy lock, stock and barrel, then the only way to avoid being ruled by the Lords of Capital is to become one of them. This, in effect, is the contemporary GOP’s economic creed in a nutshell.

[StrangeSox]

Which, again, has been the case from the start, from local elections to national elections.

It has not always been universally true. For instance, Montana passed laws in the early 20th century in direct response to corrupt political financing (basically one or two wealthy mine owners were able to control the entire state).

[Jenksismyhero]

When hasn't America been a plutocracy?

[Balta1701]

When hasn't America been a plutocracy?

So we should stop striving to be better.

 

I'll remember this the next time you complain about unions.

[Texsox]

Other than "hey the other side might spend more money than mine," what's the argument in favor of those limits?

 

About 100,000 Americans contribute 90% of the money spent in elections. I worry about their influence.

[cabiness42]

About 100,000 Americans contribute 90% of the money spent in elections. I worry about their influence.

 

Yeah, this is a huge problem. You have 50,000 (give or take a few) ultra-rich people on each side of the spectrum pushing each party farther and farther away from the center.

 

Since it's not constitutional to eliminate the influence of the money, the only other solution is to find people with money willing to spend it on moderate candidates in both parties.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Yeah, this is a huge problem. You have 50,000 (give or take a few) ultra-rich people on each side of the spectrum pushing each party farther and farther away from the center.

 

Since it's not constitutional to eliminate the influence of the money, the only other solution is to find people with money willing to spend it on moderate candidates in both parties.

But remember, the people that have the money to spend are doing so for one reason; to make more money.

[StrangeSox]

But remember, the people that have the money to spend are doing so for one reason; to make more money.

 

Or to push their personal social ideology

[Texsox]

Or to push their personal social ideology

 

Or to push their personal social ideology agenda.

[StrangeSox]

Just another way of saying the same thing or am I missing something?

[Cknolls]

So you admit that the graphic you posted was BS is all I'm saying?

 

 

It is the NY Times...

[Balta1701]

Or to push their personal social ideology

With the amount of money he has...Sheldon Adelson would likely still have turned a huge profit on the 2012 election if Mitt Rmoney had been elected despite spending nearly $100 million that we know about.

[StrangeSox]

His prescription may not have been all that good, but Marx pretty much nailed the diagnosis.

[StrangeSox]

They've out-dumbed the "corruption or appearance of corruption" line from Citizens United with this gem:

 

Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner “influence over or access to” elected officials or political parties.

 

It's not corruption unless you are literally and explicitly buying votes and access, apparently.

[Jake]

We live in a time where it has never been more technologically or intellectually feasible for people's voices to become relevant in politics without being rich, but we of course don't see a problem with allowing political speech to become a market just like everything else.

 

The question continues to be: how many different parts of your life should be determined solely by your personal wealth?

 

Education is getting further and further from something that is experienced in a common way. Affecting politics? Nope. Hmm...waiting in line to see a Supreme Court case? Nope, lobbyists are paying people to stand in line for days on end.

[Jake]

They've out-dumbed the "corruption or appearance of corruption" line from Citizens United with this gem:

 

 

 

It's not corruption unless you are literally and explicitly buying votes and access, apparently.

 

There are two things:

 

1. It's true. They don't donate to change your mind. They donate because you already agreed with them. It doesn't meet the standard for corruption. All it does is make political positions inaccessible for people who hold less "profitable" political leanings.

 

2. When politicians change their minds, they can't change their minds. The money will stop if you change your mind. The main exception is if suddenly the money is behind some other position. It's one of the reasons I don't want term limits, because a well-entrenched politician might be the only person who can act in a way that pisses off the deep pocketed influences. Mitch McConnell, for instance, has dared cooperate a little bit because he thought he had a little bit of wiggle room against the primary people. Of course, we more often see people acting in a way that might not raise money in places where the elections aren't competitive.

[StrangeSox]

There are two things:

 

1. It's true. They don't donate to change your mind. They donate because you already agreed with them. It doesn't meet the standard for corruption. All it does is make political positions inaccessible for people who hold less "profitable" political leanings.

 

They may largely agree with the candidate already, but what about the specific example that Balta brought up with Adelson, Romney and a bill to outlaw online gambling.

[Jake]

They may largely agree with the candidate already, but what about the specific example that Balta brought up with Adelson, Romney and a bill to outlaw online gambling.

 

It's a good point - these guys have lots of things they don't really give a f*** about, so they don't have to face cognitive dissonance when they stand to benefit from something like that.

 

I'd also probably mention that a lot of these guys don't know a thing about certain policy issues and end up being easily convinced of anything when lobbyists visit them. The money follows.

[southsider2k5]

They've out-dumbed the "corruption or appearance of corruption" line from Citizens United with this gem:

 

 

 

It's not corruption unless you are literally and explicitly buying votes and access, apparently.

 

Very similar to It isn't electoral fraud unless you are caught, prosecuted, and thrown in jail.

[StrangeSox]

Not really at all but ok

[EvilMonkey]

So the people that shelled out $32,500 to be at a fundraiser for Obama tonight, that is a bad thing? Or the $10,000 each 55 people paid to meet with him at a wealthy donor's house afterwards? just want to make sure.

[StrangeSox]

Yes

[cabiness42]

There are two things:

 

1. It's true. They don't donate to change your mind. They donate because you already agreed with them. It doesn't meet the standard for corruption. All it does is make political positions inaccessible for people who hold less "profitable" political leanings.

 

2. When politicians change their minds, they can't change their minds. The money will stop if you change your mind. The main exception is if suddenly the money is behind some other position. It's one of the reasons I don't want term limits, because a well-entrenched politician might be the only person who can act in a way that pisses off the deep pocketed influences. Mitch McConnell, for instance, has dared cooperate a little bit because he thought he had a little bit of wiggle room against the primary people. Of course, we more often see people acting in a way that might not raise money in places where the elections aren't competitive.

 

#2 is very true, but now even Mitch is facing a very strong right-wing primary challenge because he has done his job and make compromises in order to get bills passed.

 

Even my Congressmen, who is already pretty far right, is facing a even farther right primary challenger whose entire platform is that my Congressman is a coward for ultimately voting on October 17 to end the government shutdown even though he had been voting against resolving the shutdown right up until that point.

[Texsox]

Just another way of saying the same thing or am I missing something?

 

It goes beyond just social. But, yeah, I agree with you.

[Texsox]

So the people that shelled out $32,500 to be at a fundraiser for Obama tonight, that is a bad thing? Or the $10,000 each 55 people paid to meet with him at a wealthy donor's house afterwards? just want to make sure.

 

Yes it is. Especially because a sitting president is a party's best fundraiser.