Supreme Court Strikes Down Overall Political Donation Cap

Who did you vote for dog catcher? Well, pick any down the ticket election like school board or whatever.

I don't vote in those elections unless I'm informed. Otherwise, why elect a D or an R because of the party regardless of qualification?

Term limits are great, I'm for them. It's not the same issue as using money to buy ads to inform voters. You'd want to inform voters of the two unknown candidates for senate, wouldn't you?

The problem with letting those corrupt guys make the rules for how they get elected is that they'll botch it or abuse that power. How would a Libertarian or Green Party candidate qualify for equal money? They wouldn't - the corrupt guys in charge of the rules wouldn't allow it.

 

Seriously, do you know either or both candidates in all the lesser races on the ballot?

I consider myself to be reasonably well informed - better than many - yet I don't.

The point being that it probably won't be good to have the top races on the ticket of two unknowns as well. The advertising and press coverage should inform people.

 

John Stewart had a pretty good take on it, http://thedailyshow.cc.com/full-episodes/zpxgap/april-3--2014---pele

Even insulted his own family over it, lol.

 

Yup, and without campaign finance reform, it's going to continue to be the Democratic party. I look at this series of Roberts court decisions on campaign finance as being bad for democracy, but probably a winner for the Ds.

There have only been two Republican presidents in my lifetime who didn't ascend from the Vice Presidency: Reagan and GWB. Both of those guys formed broad coalitions with some downright left-leaning policy portfolios, especially Reagan. Not all of their policies, mind you, but a not insignificant portion of them.

Where are those moderate national Republicans now? Flushed out of the party by the big money donors who want pure conseratives. It's the Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal flamethrowers from here on out. Maybe those guys can win a Governorship in the South, maybe they can hold onto a Senate seat against a weak opponent in a favorable area, but that's about it. The Republican party will never be a national party again until the big money dries up.

2010 was an awful year for Democrats because of fatigue from the 2008 election and the public, drawn out legislative process surrounding Obamacare. The Republicans were able to gerrymander themselves into some very favorable congressional districts. But that's a brief respite from an overall trend. Those districts are only going to hold for so long, maybe five, ten years. Demographics are always changing.

And when the House falls, we'll be down to a true one party system, with well-funded right-leaning Republicans continuing to chase viable moderates out of the party.

I think the influx of money is awful for all the issues that fly just under the radar that they don't receive national attention . . . all those public health issues where politicians of both parties can be bought and sold. And the amount of graft these decisions portend is upsetting. But from a purely political, non public good perspective, I'm hard pressed to figure out how the decisions don't help the vast majority of elected Democrats.

 

The tea party guys are the more moderate of republicans. They're the ones pushing immigration reform and budgets to save the big social entitlement programs.

Romney and Bush were religious right, no?

 

Not if it's a rich guy's money.

 

Some people prefer the smell of horseshit to to the smell of bullshit, but I'm not sure that's a universal preference.

barfo

 

Which are you bringing to the discussion?

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...the_lid_on_campaign_contributions_122189.html

The Supreme Court decision killing limits on total donations to political candidates means billionaires will be running amok. Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson can lay out astronomical sums to help Republicans. Oilmen Charles and David Koch can see him and raise him. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg can burn through his fortune like a blowtorch.

Oh, wait. They already did all that. Under this ruling, tycoons will have one more relatively modest way of supporting the candidates and causes they like. But trust me: You won't be able to see a difference.

Adelson went through some $100 million in 2012, including $20 million given to a super PAC supporting Mitt Romney. The Koch brothers' creation, Americans for Prosperity, used $33 million trying to defeat Barack Obama. Bloomberg gave $10 million to a super PAC supporting likeminded candidates.

...

Not that curbing money is such a great idea. If it could be strictly controlled, the main beneficiaries would be incumbents, who are generally better known than challengers and have more ways to get free publicity.

Outlawing soft-drink ads would not deprive Coke and Pepsi of market share.

It's hard to see why anyone thinks the regulation struck down by the Supreme Court really mattered. Federal law says you can give a candidate for Congress no more than $2,600 for each primary and $2,600 for each general election. As if that limit were not enough, it also says you can't give more than $48,600 to all candidates in a given year, even if none of the donations exceeds the individual maximum. So Adelson may give $5,200 each to nine candidates, but not 10.

But the court ruled the limit unconstitutional. As a result, he can fatten the coffers of additional candidates by $5,200 each. Considering that the average amount spent to win a House seat in 2012 was $1.6 million, his check is likely to buy him very little influence.

It may buy him none, since he's proof that in politics, money isn't everything. His 2012 darlings, Newt Gingrich and Romney, got beat. The Kochs impoverished their heirs for the pleasure of seeing a second Obama inauguration. Bloomberg's Independence USA super PAC supported four winning candidates but three losing ones.

All the efforts at banishing money from politics have been a bust. Since 1986, the average cost of a winning House campaign, adjusted for inflation, has doubled. The price of a Senate victory has risen by 60 percent.

Independent expenditures on all congressional races rose from a total of $67,000 in 1996 to $125 million in 2012.

Most of this money is spent conveying information and opinion about the centerpiece of democracy: election contests. In the absence of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, it might be possible to stifle all these efforts to communicate.

 

Technically, it's Jon Stewart.

barfo