Campain finance - just got f'ed

[CNS]

Justices strike down political donor limits

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/02/politics/scotus-political-donor-limits/index.html

(CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down current limits on the total amount individual donors can make to political campaigns.

At issue is whether those regulations in the Federal Election Campaign Act violate the First Amendment rights of contributors.

The 5-4 ruling could have an immediate impact on November's congressional midterm elections, and add another layer of high-stakes spending in the crowded political arena

Pretty bad deal for most Americans.  This is going to eliminate all interest in serving the majority of the actual ppl.

[bubbles4ksu]

maybe not a terrible deal. there currently are plenty of ways to hide campaign donations. it could be better to know that a certain politician receives 50% of his funding from koch/soros/anotherboogeyman.

[Rage Against the McKee]

maybe not a terrible deal. there currently are plenty of ways to hide campaign donations. it could be better to know that a certain politician receives 50% of his funding from koch/soros/anotherboogeyman.

What percentage of the voting population do you think will ever bother to look something like that up?

[bubbles4ksu]

what really needs to happen is 72 hour reporting of all campaign funds received, including where the money came from. it's my understanding that the current process is months long.

[bubbles4ksu]

maybe not a terrible deal. there currently are plenty of ways to hide campaign donations. it could be better to know that a certain politician receives 50% of his funding from koch/soros/anotherboogeyman.

What percentage of the voting population do you think will ever bother to look something like that up?

right now they can look it up and then read the names of seven PACs and then they have to go look up info on the PACs.

[CNS]

Knowing who the donors are won't matter at all. The politicians will still take the money from the sources offering it unapologetically.  Then they will govern as needed to keep the cash flowing.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Oh, and

campain

[p1k3]

Pretty bad deal for most Americans.  This is going to eliminate all interest in serving the majority of the actual ppl.

Agree, although I feel like this is already the case. Now it can really get out of control

[bubbles4ksu]

1. go to this site http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandCmteTransaction.do
2. pick a politician and go to their page
3. click on Itemized Individual Contributions
4. sort by receipt date
5. realize that they're 90 days behind on this stuff

90 days is substantial portion of time in non-presidential elections. also, that site is crap to navigate.

a few things would help.
1. a non-shitty site
2. immediate reporting
3. a percentage column to show how much that goldman-sachs money is affecting decisions

[CNS]

I would assume that this effects state and municipal politicians too?  I mean, a state can't impose a law that is federally unconstitutional. 

This sucks on all levels, but I have always heard that if you truly want to make a diff in politics, one should start at the local level because that is where one individual voter/donor/volunteer/etc. has the ability to have a larger effect on the outcome.   Many small municipalities would be pretty easy to end up having their politician(s) by one small group of business owners. 

Basically, if this doesn't get overturned and you don't have cash in pocket or some favor to offer, you have no voice.

[Cire]

I would assume that this effects state and municipal politicians too?  I mean, a state can't impose a law that is federally unconstitutional. 

This sucks on all levels, but I have always heard that if you truly want to make a diff in politics, one should start at the local level because that is where one individual voter/donor/volunteer/etc. has the ability to have a larger effect on the outcome.   Many small municipalities would be pretty easy to end up having their politician(s) by one small group of business owners. 

Basically, if this doesn't get overturned and you don't have cash in pocket or some favor to offer, you have no voice.

correct Re:  batshit crazy school boards and state reps.

[star seed 7]

this coupled with "corporations are people" (except when that's bad for the corporation, then they aren't held responsible like people), is very disappointing news

[DQ12]

Democracy is a tricky beast.  So is the First Amendment.

[Headinjun]

1. go to this site http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandCmteTransaction.do
2. pick a politician and go to their page
3. click on Itemized Individual Contributions
4. sort by receipt date
5. realize that they're 90 days behind on this stuff

90 days is substantial portion of time in non-presidential elections. also, that site is crap to navigate.

a few things would help.
1. a non-shitty site
2. immediate reporting
3. a percentage column to show how much that goldman-sachs money is affecting decisions

Good point Bubbles.

I think their goal is to control the world.

[bubbles4ksu]

1. go to this site http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandCmteTransaction.do
2. pick a politician and go to their page
3. click on Itemized Individual Contributions
4. sort by receipt date
5. realize that they're 90 days behind on this stuff

90 days is substantial portion of time in non-presidential elections. also, that site is crap to navigate.

a few things would help.
1. a non-shitty site
2. immediate reporting
3. a percentage column to show how much that goldman-sachs money is affecting decisions

Good point Bubbles.

I think their goal is to control the world.

i think the GS goal is to make a ton of money, i just used them as an example.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Spending money to help advertise for a particular cause would seem to epitomize free speech, right?

Not sure why this is so controversial. The unions have basically been able to funnel as much of their members' dues to political campaigns for decades. I don't recall Dems crying foul over that.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Spending money to help advertise for a particular cause would seem to epitomize free speech, right?

How so? That kind of seems like a stretch to me.

[CNS]

Spending money to help advertise for a particular cause would seem to epitomize free speech, right?

Not sure why this is so controversial. The unions have basically been able to funnel as much of their members' dues to political campaigns for decades. I don't recall Dems crying foul over that.

Sure, spend money.  exercise your voice.  no one is saying you can't.   All that ppl are saying is that your voice shouldn't drown out others due to the size of your wallet. 

This isn't a voice vs no voice issue.  Donate your $5k and let the process work itself out. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

Spending money to help advertise for a particular cause would seem to epitomize free speech, right?

Not sure why this is so controversial. The unions have basically been able to funnel as much of their members' dues to political campaigns for decades. I don't recall Dems crying foul over that.

Sure, spend money.  exercise your voice.  no one is saying you can't.   All that ppl are saying is that your voice shouldn't drown out others due to the size of your wallet. 

This isn't a voice vs no voice issue.  Donate your $5k and let the process work itself out.

I would prefer a cap of $1k or maybe even $500. That way, I wouldn't be subjected to so many ads.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Spending money to help advertise for a particular cause would seem to epitomize free speech, right?

Not sure why this is so controversial. The unions have basically been able to funnel as much of their members' dues to political campaigns for decades. I don't recall Dems crying foul over that.

Sure, spend money.  exercise your voice.  no one is saying you can't.   All that ppl are saying is that your voice shouldn't drown out others due to the size of your wallet. 

This isn't a voice vs no voice issue.  Donate your $5k and let the process work itself out.

I would prefer a cap of $1k or maybe even $500. That way, I wouldn't be subjected to so many ads.

Good points, good points. Should probably apply to unions too, right?

You know what else I hate? All these rich politicians who spend their own personal fortunes running ads to get elected. We totally need some laws to limit how much money you can spend on that too. It's not fair that they've got bigger wallets. I just hate all this inequality!!! If only we had more laws to even things out.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Spending money to help advertise for a particular cause would seem to epitomize free speech, right?

Not sure why this is so controversial. The unions have basically been able to funnel as much of their members' dues to political campaigns for decades. I don't recall Dems crying foul over that.

Sure, spend money.  exercise your voice.  no one is saying you can't.   All that ppl are saying is that your voice shouldn't drown out others due to the size of your wallet. 

This isn't a voice vs no voice issue.  Donate your $5k and let the process work itself out.

I would prefer a cap of $1k or maybe even $500. That way, I wouldn't be subjected to so many ads.

Good points, good points. Should probably apply to unions too, right?

You know what else I hate? All these rich politicians who spend their own personal fortunes running ads to get elected. We totally need some laws to limit how much money you can spend on that too. It's not fair that they've got bigger wallets. I just hate all this inequality!!! If only we had more laws to even things out.

I would be perfectly fine with limiting unions, corporations, and other entities that aren't really people to $0.

[CNS]

If the unions are donating as a single organization, yes, limit that.  If they are a group of like minded individuals all individually donating, eff that, it's not even in the same universe as one individual throwing huge cash.

As for the individual politician, that person is running for a job.  It isn't a free speech issue.

You are going out of your way to shill for something that is going to negatively effect you as much any anyone else here unless you are independently wealthy in a big way.  It's not surprising, but it's ridiculous.  Your team loves it, though, so you do, right? 

Also, Corporations should never have gotten status as a legal individual, but since they do, they should be held to the same contribution laws as any other legal individual. 

Shills like KSU have been touting how screwed up our country is going to be from 8yrs of Obama.  This move has more potential to screw it up than anything Obama has done or not done.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

If the unions are donating as a single organization, yes, limit that.

If? This is fun.

As for the individual politician, that person is running for a job.  It isn't a free speech issue.

Oh, that's the difference! Breaking news everyone, advertisements and other political speech are not "free speech" issues! This is too easy.

Again, if only we had more laws to cut everyone down to same level if influence! That's just the ticket.

[CNS]

Are you actually trying to make fun of me for stating that everyone should have the same rights in our country?

If so, you are disgusting.

[ChiComCat]

Tricky issue.  I don't think a majority of the ads benefit the public anymore.  Most are bullshit using doomsday scenarios based on whatever right-wing/left-wing think tank will print the most ridiculous crap.  I would probably be for limits on campaign finance and some rule where if you donate more than 5% of the operating $$ to a PAC, your name has to be on the ad.  People get freedom of speech but if the free market wants to hold their businesses accountable, they are entitled to.