McCutcheon v. FEC

[GannonFan]

Money follows the good ideas and the good qualifications. Just because the winner ends up a lot of time being the person with the most money doesn't mean they had the most money to start. It just means that people like to back a winner. It's like a chicken and egg thing. Take Obama for instance - he built his brand up to the point that prior to running for President, he became such an attractive candidate that money then rolled in. He didn't win because he had the most money, he won because he made himself so electable, especially compared to his opponents, that the money was smart and shifted towards the winning side.

The ideas and the qualifications are what matters most - the money part is just for people without the ideas and the qualifications to have something to whine about during their concession speech.

How utopic.

Well, it works well in contrast to your myopic view of things. I know how hard it must be to understand these things when you are constantly looking backwards for direction.

IMO, campaign finance is well down the list of things to worry about. I care more about the transparency of the campaign donations first of all - I don't care that the Koch brothers or Soros spend gobs of millions of dollars. The fact that I know they are and often who they are supporting is good for me. And I care more about the gerrymandering and the lack of realistic choice, by both parties. When 90% of Congressional races are uncompetitive, and when even many Senatorial campaigns in many states are uncompetitive, I worry about that. Worrying about people spending money to voice their opinions, opinions that many voters simply tune out or ignore anyway? Nah, way down the list.

[kalm]

How utopic.

Well, it works well in contrast to your myopic view of things. I know how hard it must be to understand these things when you are constantly looking backwards for direction.

IMO, campaign finance is well down the list of things to worry about. I care more about the transparency of the campaign donations first of all - I don't care that the Koch brothers or Soros spend gobs of millions of dollars. The fact that I know they are and often who they are supporting is good for me. And I care more about the gerrymandering and the lack of realistic choice, by both parties. When 90% of Congressional races are uncompetitive, and when even many Senatorial campaigns in many states are uncompetitive, I worry about that. Worrying about people spending money to voice their opinions, opinions that many voters simply tune out or ignore anyway? Nah, way down the list.

Congressional races are uncompetitive because of money. Many players fund both sides. Why? They don't care about who wins, they simply want access and leverage.

And the part about money following the best ideas....

Deregulation of the financial industry, Obamacare, Medicare Part D...By that metric Louie Gohmert, Barbara Boxer, and Sarah Palin must all be geniuses considering all the money that backed them.

[GannonFan]

Well, it works well in contrast to your myopic view of things. I know how hard it must be to understand these things when you are constantly looking backwards for direction.

IMO, campaign finance is well down the list of things to worry about. I care more about the transparency of the campaign donations first of all - I don't care that the Koch brothers or Soros spend gobs of millions of dollars. The fact that I know they are and often who they are supporting is good for me. And I care more about the gerrymandering and the lack of realistic choice, by both parties. When 90% of Congressional races are uncompetitive, and when even many Senatorial campaigns in many states are uncompetitive, I worry about that. Worrying about people spending money to voice their opinions, opinions that many voters simply tune out or ignore anyway? Nah, way down the list.

Congressional races are uncompetitive because of money. Many players fund both sides. Why? They don't care about who wins, they simply want access and leverage.

And the part about money following the best ideas....

Deregulation of the financial industry, Obamacare, Medicare Part D...By that metric Louie Gohmert, Barbara Boxer, and Sarah Palin must all be geniuses considering all the money that backed them.

Huh, congressional races are uncompetitive because of money? You can't seriously believe what you just typed, can you? You're completely ignoring, then, the massive amount of gerrymandering that has gone on in this country since the term was coined, and even more so, in the past 50 years when both parties have taken it to a new level. I was only half kidding with the myopic poke but apparently that hits much closer to home than I intended it to.

As for best ideas, I mispoke and used the wrong word - people with the "best" ideas don't necessarily win elections and have money follow them. However, people with the ideas that voters like, they are the ones that win elections and have money follow them. Voters like what they like, which isn't necessarily the best ideas from the smartest people. That's what explains the Palin's and Boxer's of the world.

[kalm]

Another analysis…

"ndependent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption," Kennedy wrote in 2010. "That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy."

Now the McCutcheon decision has transported that limited definition of corruption from the realm of independent political spending into the world of campaign contribution limits. And that could have sweeping consequences for campaign finance.

"Congress may target only a specific type of corruption -- 'quid pro quo' corruption," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the controlling McCutcheon opinion.


He elaborated, "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 such 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."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/0 ... 86235.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seriously, you're just completely naive about the political process or have fallen head over heels in love with your own conk influenced utopic ideas to agree with these dumb fucks.

[kalm]

Congressional races are uncompetitive because of money. Many players fund both sides. Why? They don't care about who wins, they simply want access and leverage.

And the part about money following the best ideas....

Deregulation of the financial industry, Obamacare, Medicare Part D...By that metric Louie Gohmert, Barbara Boxer, and Sarah Palin must all be geniuses considering all the money that backed them.

Huh, congressional races are uncompetitive because of money? You can't seriously believe what you just typed, can you? You're completely ignoring, then, the massive amount of gerrymandering that has gone on in this country since the term was coined, and even more so, in the past 50 years when both parties have taken it to a new level. I was only half kidding with the myopic poke but apparently that hits much closer to home than I intended it to.

As for best ideas, I mispoke and used the wrong word - people with the "best" ideas don't necessarily win elections and have money follow them. However, people with the ideas that voters like, they are the ones that win elections and have money follow them. Voters like what they like, which isn't necessarily the best ideas from the smartest people. That's what explains the Palin's and Boxer's of the world.

I will concede that gerrymandering is a part of the puzzle but to deny the influence of money is just plain stupid.

That's a smart correction with the latter paragraph. That being said, voters are stupid, and money still wins the battles. It's an indisputable fact. Sorry but you're simply wrong here.

[UNI88]

Huh, congressional races are uncompetitive because of money? You can't seriously believe what you just typed, can you? You're completely ignoring, then, the massive amount of gerrymandering that has gone on in this country since the term was coined, and even more so, in the past 50 years when both parties have taken it to a new level. I was only half kidding with the myopic poke but apparently that hits much closer to home than I intended it to.

As for best ideas, I mispoke and used the wrong word - people with the "best" ideas don't necessarily win elections and have money follow them. However, people with the ideas that voters like, they are the ones that win elections and have money follow them. Voters like what they like, which isn't necessarily the best ideas from the smartest people. That's what explains the Palin's and Boxer's of the world.

I will concede that gerrymandering is a part of the puzzle but to deny the influence of money is just plain stupid.

That's a smart correction with the latter paragraph. That being said, voters are stupid, and money still wins the battles. It's an indisputable fact. Sorry but you're simply wrong here.

Money is a factor but IMO gerrymandering has a greater impact on election results and majorities. Politicians gerrymander the districts to put the right number of like-minded people in a district so that their party has a comfortable but not excessive majority in the majority of districts while concentrating the other party's core voters in a small number of districts. End result:
1) The majority party maintains the majority,
2) Districts are clearly Donk or Conk so more radical candidates have greater influence and a better chance of getting elected.
3) You end up with very partisan legislatures where elected officials are much less willing to work together and compromise.

[BlueHen86]

I will concede that gerrymandering is a part of the puzzle but to deny the influence of money is just plain stupid.

That's a smart correction with the latter paragraph. That being said, voters are stupid, and money still wins the battles. It's an indisputable fact. Sorry but you're simply wrong here.

Money is a factor but IMO gerrymandering has a greater impact on election results and majorities. Politicians gerrymander the districts to put the right number of like-minded people in a district so that their party has a comfortable but not excessive majority in the majority of districts while concentrating the other party's core voters in a small number of districts. End result:
1) The majority party maintains the majority,
2) Districts are clearly Donk or Conk so more radical candidates have greater influence and a better chance of getting elected.
3) You end up with very partisan legislatures where elected officials are much less willing to work together and compromise.

I think you are spot on here. Voter fraud and campaign contribution amounts are nothing compared to the effects of gerrymandering.

[CID1990]

Money is a factor but IMO gerrymandering has a greater impact on election results and majorities. Politicians gerrymander the districts to put the right number of like-minded people in a district so that their party has a comfortable but not excessive majority in the majority of districts while concentrating the other party's core voters in a small number of districts. End result:
1) The majority party maintains the majority,
2) Districts are clearly Donk or Conk so more radical candidates have greater influence and a better chance of getting elected.
3) You end up with very partisan legislatures where elected officials are much less willing to work together and compromise.

I think you are spot on here. Voter fraud and campaign contribution amounts are nothing compared to the effects of gerrymandering.

Case in point -

North Carolina 12

The VAST majority of gerrymandered districts in the US solely benefit Democrats. They can spin it all they want but the proof's in the pudding (who they elect)

NC 12 is a fvcking joke and yet the liberals in NC are boo hooing and crying racism because the majority GOP wants to fix it

[HI54UNI]

Rather than blaming money did you ever think maybe the problem is us? We're the ones that keep electing these idiots.

There really should be a basic civics test requirement before anyone can vote. If you can't name the 3 branches of government, pres/VP/Speaker/Chief Justice you probably shouldn't be voting.

[GannonFan]

Stop it guys, kalm has declared this conversation over and anyone who disagrees with him is stupid. Apparently we're all too stupid to realize that. Stop bringing up all these good points, the argument is over.

[kalm]

I think you are spot on here. Voter fraud and campaign contribution amounts are nothing compared to the effects of gerrymandering.

Case in point -

North Carolina 12

The VAST majority of gerrymandered districts in the US solely benefit Democrats. They can spin it all they want but the proof's in the pudding (who they elect)

NC 12 is a fvcking joke and yet the liberals in NC are boo hooing and crying racism because the majority GOP wants to fix it

So I tried to bone up a little on gerrymandering and found this article from the Atlantic. It sounds like a battle both sides fight very hard at, but at least in the case of NC, your side might be winning.

Tom Hofeller certainly did his part to maximize the returns on the GOP’s 2010 electoral bounty. Hired by North Carolina’s top GOP legislators just after the midterms to advise in the drawing of their state’s new maps, the political cartographer spent many hours on the phone with the state legislature’s redistricting chairmen. (Hofeller is careful to avoid leaving an e-mail trail. As his PowerPoint presentation cautions, “A journey to legal HELL starts with but a single misstatement! … Remember recent e-mail disasters!!!”) While talking, Hofeller would expertly manipulate his computer’s Maptitude software, a lightning-fast graphics system that processes neighborhood population data, including racial composition, so that a user can draw and redraw hypothetical district lines.

By July 2011, Hofeller had helped produce what a Democratic operative ruefully terms “exceptionally smart” maps—ones that, assuming they survive a lingering court challenge, may very well install a 10–3 GOP stronghold in place of the present 7–6 Democratic congressional majority.

Hofeller already knew North Carolina, the focal point of several landmark redistricting cases in which he’d testified, well. The Tar Heel State has a history of election discrimination and is therefore one of the jurisdictions covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires that electoral maps be approved by either a federal court or the Justice Department. (Like all other states, North Carolina is also covered by Section 2, which forbids discriminatory practices more broadly.) Hofeller and the other Republican mapmakers therefore took particular care not to “retrogress” the racial makeup of the districts represented by the African-American Democrats G. K. Butter­field and Mel Watt—since doing so would have meant running afoul of the Voting Rights Act.

Instead, he reserved his chief mischief for the remaining districts. Hofeller and his cohort hoarded several of Raleigh’s white precincts and moved them into the 2nd District, which had been held by Democrats for 108 of the previous 110 years, until a former intensive-care nurse named Renee Ellmers rode the Tea Party wave to an upset victory in 2010. The new drawings would give the neophyte Ellmers a safe Republican district to last at least at decade. Recognizing that North Carolina’s many Democratic voters had to be put somewhere, the map­makers shoveled as many as possible into the Democratic districts of Watt and of David Price, a former Duke professor who represented the liberal bastion of Chapel Hill. Most of those Democrats, however, were stripped from the districts of the moderate Democratic incumbents Mike McIntyre, Larry Kissell, and Brad Miller. In the Democrat Heath Shuler’s 11th District, the mapmakers simply gouged out the progressive core, Asheville, and affixed it to the 10th, the state’s most Republican district over the previous 60 years. The new maps have made quite an impact. Shuler and Miller have announced that they will not seek another term. McIntyre (whose house has now been drawn out of his own district) and Kissell are widely viewed as among the most imperiled Democrats facing reelection in November.

Progressive groups immediately filed suit challenging the North Carolina maps, contending that the state deliberately diluted minority voting power. Hofeller happens to be an old hand at redistricting litigation, and the maps will probably survive into the next decade. (Meanwhile, in a dazzling show of circular logic, Phil Berger, the top Republican state senator, recently refused to allow consideration of a redistricting-reform bill that he had supported back when his party was in the minority, citing the fact that North Carolina is “engaged in litigation on that issue.”)

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... of/309084/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

Stop it guys, kalm has declared this conversation over and anyone who disagrees with him is stupid. Apparently we're all too stupid to realize that. Stop bringing up all these good points, the argument is over.

No, I'm enjoying the conversation…even your snarky remarks.

[kalm]

Money is a factor but IMO gerrymandering has a greater impact on election results and majorities. Politicians gerrymander the districts to put the right number of like-minded people in a district so that their party has a comfortable but not excessive majority in the majority of districts while concentrating the other party's core voters in a small number of districts. End result:
1) The majority party maintains the majority,
2) Districts are clearly Donk or Conk so more radical candidates have greater influence and a better chance of getting elected.
3) You end up with very partisan legislatures where elected officials are much less willing to work together and compromise.

I think you are spot on here. Voter fraud and campaign contribution amounts are nothing compared to the effects of gerrymandering.

I suppose it's a fair argument, but campaign contributions don't just decide elections 90% of the time, they also influence legislative voting. Again, you wouldn't see all the Republican front runners attend the Adelson primary last week in Vegas, you wouldn't see the $100's of millions spent on campaigns, the pandering by Dems to unions, if campaign contributions didn't matter. There is a definite ROI for political contributions.

[Ivytalk]

I think you are spot on here. Voter fraud and campaign contribution amounts are nothing compared to the effects of gerrymandering.

I suppose it's a fair argument, but campaign contributions don't just decide elections 90% of the time, they also influence legislative voting. Again, you wouldn't see all the Republican front runners attend the Adelson primary last week in Vegas, you wouldn't see the $100's of millions spent on campaigns,
the pandering by Dems to unions, if campaign contributions didn't matter. There is a definite ROI for political contributions.

And your point is?

What is your ideal world of political discourse? Some sort of ancient Athenian marketplace where every little guy has equal access and equal input, and nobody spends a dime? Wake up, Socrates. Most people don't care about participating, so why throw regulatory obstacles in the path of those who do?

[kalm]

I suppose it's a fair argument, but campaign contributions don't just decide elections 90% of the time, they also influence legislative voting. Again, you wouldn't see all the Republican front runners attend the Adelson primary last week in Vegas, you wouldn't see the $100's of millions spent on campaigns,
the pandering by Dems to unions, if campaign contributions didn't matter. There is a definite ROI for political contributions.

And your point is?

What is your ideal world of political discourse? Some sort of ancient Athenian marketplace where every little guy has equal access and equal input, and nobody spends a dime? Wake up, Socrates. Most people don't care about participating, so why throw regulatory obstacles in the path of those who do?

No Mr. Smarmy Pants, I think we should go back to the Gayanashagowa.

Or, here's another idea that while not limiting spending would at least shed more sunlight.

Contribution caps were intended to keep wealthy individuals -- like Clement Stone -- from dropping millions into campaign treasuries. They have not succeeded. The millions casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg have pumped into this year's elections through super PACs proves the point. And they are only the most obvious examples.

The existing $2,500 cap on individual donations pushes money into independent entities such as super PACs, 527s, and 501(c)4s -- legal avenues for individuals and organizations to pipeline unlimited money into presidential and congressional elections. If we did away with the cap, we'd also do away with the need for these entities (after all, they only exist to legally circumvent the cap).

The current system, with its limits on donations to candidates and complete lack of limits on donations to super PACs, diminishes candidates and breaks the chain of responsibility between voters and elected officials.

Under the current system, candidates have no responsibility for what super PACs do or say. They can deny -- in fact, legally, they must deny -- any involvement with them, even though these entities are, in essence, speaking for them through ads that are virtually indistinguishable from their own campaigns' ads (only the hard-to-read disclaimer at the end tells them apart).

If we eliminated contribution caps, political actors like Adelson and Katzenberg would give their money directly to Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, not the super PACs, and the candidates would each be publicly on the hook for accepting and spending this largesse.

The super rich are already spending without limitation, so let's recognize that reality and make the candidates responsible for taking and spending the money. We get to vote for and against candidates. Their names are on the ballot. We don't get to vote for or against super PACs -- groups with ambiguous names like "Restore Our Future" and "Priorities USA Action."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... it/260426/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My point is that if you believe in representative democracy, government by the people, and market competition, you should have huge issues with the current circumstances. Evidently, a few of you don't and prefer a more feudal system…royalist sycophants...

[Pwns]

Rather than blaming money did you ever think maybe the problem is us? We're the ones that keep electing these idiots.

There really should be a basic civics test requirement before anyone can vote. If you can't name the 3 branches of government, pres/VP/Speaker/Chief Justice you probably shouldn't be voting.

Nonsense. Don't you listen to all of the liberals that say the more people we have voting the healthier democracy is? Also, it is not realistic to expect minorities to be informed on candidates and your post suggests racist voter suppression.

It's almost like you think having democratic power implies some kind of responsibility. What is this some kind of Spider Man comic?

[CID1990]

Case in point -

North Carolina 12

The VAST majority of gerrymandered districts in the US solely benefit Democrats. They can spin it all they want but the proof's in the pudding (who they elect)

NC 12 is a fvcking joke and yet the liberals in NC are boo hooing and crying racism because the majority GOP wants to fix it

So I tried to bone up a little on gerrymandering and found this article from the Atlantic. It sounds like a battle both sides fight very hard at, but at least in the case of NC, your side might be winning.

Tom Hofeller certainly did his part to maximize the returns on the GOP’s 2010 electoral bounty. Hired by North Carolina’s top GOP legislators just after the midterms to advise in the drawing of their state’s new maps, the political cartographer spent many hours on the phone with the state legislature’s redistricting chairmen. (Hofeller is careful to avoid leaving an e-mail trail. As his PowerPoint presentation cautions, “A journey to legal HELL starts with but a single misstatement! … Remember recent e-mail disasters!!!”) While talking, Hofeller would expertly manipulate his computer’s Maptitude software, a lightning-fast graphics system that processes neighborhood population data, including racial composition, so that a user can draw and redraw hypothetical district lines.

By July 2011, Hofeller had helped produce what a Democratic operative ruefully terms “exceptionally smart” maps—ones that, assuming they survive a lingering court challenge, may very well install a 10–3 GOP stronghold in place of the present 7–6 Democratic congressional majority.

Hofeller already knew North Carolina, the focal point of several landmark redistricting cases in which he’d testified, well. The Tar Heel State has a history of election discrimination and is therefore one of the jurisdictions covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires that electoral maps be approved by either a federal court or the Justice Department. (Like all other states, North Carolina is also covered by Section 2, which forbids discriminatory practices more broadly.) Hofeller and the other Republican mapmakers therefore took particular care not to “retrogress” the racial makeup of the districts represented by the African-American Democrats G. K. Butter­field and Mel Watt—since doing so would have meant running afoul of the Voting Rights Act.

Instead, he reserved his chief mischief for the remaining districts. Hofeller and his cohort hoarded several of Raleigh’s white precincts and moved them into the 2nd District, which had been held by Democrats for 108 of the previous 110 years, until a former intensive-care nurse named Renee Ellmers rode the Tea Party wave to an upset victory in 2010. The new drawings would give the neophyte Ellmers a safe Republican district to last at least at decade. Recognizing that North Carolina’s many Democratic voters had to be put somewhere, the map­makers shoveled as many as possible into the Democratic districts of Watt and of David Price, a former Duke professor who represented the liberal bastion of Chapel Hill. Most of those Democrats, however, were stripped from the districts of the moderate Democratic incumbents Mike McIntyre, Larry Kissell, and Brad Miller. In the Democrat Heath Shuler’s 11th District, the mapmakers simply gouged out the progressive core, Asheville, and affixed it to the 10th, the state’s most Republican district over the previous 60 years. The new maps have made quite an impact. Shuler and Miller have announced that they will not seek another term. McIntyre (whose house has now been drawn out of his own district) and Kissell are widely viewed as among the most imperiled Democrats facing reelection in November.

Progressive groups immediately filed suit challenging the North Carolina maps, contending that the state deliberately diluted minority voting power. Hofeller happens to be an old hand at redistricting litigation, and the maps will probably survive into the next decade. (Meanwhile, in a dazzling show of circular logic, Phil Berger, the top Republican state senator, recently refused to allow consideration of a redistricting-reform bill that he had supported back when his party was in the minority, citing the fact that North Carolina is “engaged in litigation on that issue.”)

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... of/309084/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My side might be winning? You mean the side that is against drawing district lines based on race?

NC 12 has been around a loooing time, klam. Almost as ling as I have. You make it sound like some close fought tug of war but it isnt- electoral districts have been drawn specifically to put minorities in office, and no amount of money thrown at an election in NC 12 has ever had a prayer of getting a conservative into office there.

[kalm]

So I tried to bone up a little on gerrymandering and found this article from the Atlantic. It sounds like a battle both sides fight very hard at, but at least in the case of NC, your side might be winning.



http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... of/309084/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My side might be winning? You mean the side that is against drawing district lines based on race?

NC 12 has been around a loooing time, klam. Almost as ling as I have. You make it sound like some close fought tug of war but it isnt- electoral districts have been drawn specifically to put minorities in office, and no amount of money thrown at an election in NC 12 has ever had a prayer of getting a conservative into office there.

Take a breath and read the article Sidney. Both sides draw maps to favor their party. Republicans are currently having some success with it in NC.

[Ivytalk]

And your point is?

What is your ideal world of political discourse? Some sort of ancient Athenian marketplace where every little guy has equal access and equal input, and nobody spends a dime? Wake up, Socrates.
Most people don't care about participating, so why throw regulatory obstacles in the path of those who do?

No Mr. Smarmy Pants, I think we should go back to the Gayanashagowa.

Or, here's another idea that while not limiting spending would at least shed more sunlight.

Contribution caps were intended to keep wealthy individuals -- like Clement Stone -- from dropping millions into campaign treasuries. They have not succeeded. The millions casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg have pumped into this year's elections
through super PACs proves the point. And they are only the most obvious examples.

The existing $2,500 cap on individual donations pushes money into independent entities such as super PACs, 527s, and 501(c)4s -- legal avenues for individuals and organizations to pipeline unlimited money into presidential and congressional elections. If we did away with the cap, we'd also do away with the need for these entities (after all, they only exist to legally circumvent the cap).

The current system, with its limits on donations to candidates and complete lack of limits on donations to super PACs, diminishes candidates and breaks the chain of responsibility between voters
and elected officials.

Under the current system, candidates have no responsibility for what super PACs do or say. They can deny -- in fact, legally, they must deny -- any involvement with them, even though these entities are, in essence, speaking for them through ads that are virtually indistinguishable from their own campaigns' ads (only the hard-to-read disclaimer at the end tells them apart).

If we eliminated contribution caps, political actors like Adelson and Katzenberg would give their money directly to Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, not the super PACs, and the candidates would each be publicly on the hook for accepting and spending this largesse.

The super rich are already spending without limitation, so let's recognize that reality and make the candidates responsible for taking and spending the money. We get to vote for and against candidates. Their names are on the ballot. We don't get to vote for or against super PACs -- groups with ambiguous names like "Restore Our Future" and "Priorities USA Action."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... it/260426/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My point is that if you believe in representative democracy, government by the people, and market competition, you should have huge issues with the current circumstances. Evidently, a few of you
don't and prefer a more feudal system…royalist sycophants...

Actually, that Atlantic piece is close to my viewpoint: no limits on spending, but full disclosure of individual, corporate and union donors. And no hiding behind anonymous superpacs: the voters should be able to determine who is pulling those strings.

[GannonFan]

No Mr. Smarmy Pants, I think we should go back to the Gayanashagowa.

Or, here's another idea that while not limiting spending would at least shed more sunlight.



http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... it/260426/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My point is that if you believe in representative democracy, government by the people, and market competition, you should have huge issues with the current circumstances. Evidently, a few of you
don't and prefer a more feudal system…royalist sycophants...

Actually, that Atlantic piece is close to my viewpoint: no limits on spending, but full disclosure of individual, corporate and union donors. And no hiding behind anonymous superpacs: the voters should be able to determine who is pulling those strings.

I agree - let people spend what they want and let's know who's spending it. It's like a Sunshine Law but for political campaigning. The free speech advocates would have no issue with that setup and everyone would know when a rich cat like Koch or Soros spends money. I have no problem with that system. No limits on spending and full disclosure - I like.

[CID1990]

My side might be winning? You mean the side that is against drawing district lines based on race?

NC 12 has been around a loooing time, klam. Almost as ling as I have. You make it sound like some close fought tug of war but it isnt- electoral districts have been drawn specifically to put minorities in office, and no amount of money thrown at an election in NC 12 has ever had a prayer of getting a conservative into office there.

Take a breath and read the article Sidney. Both sides draw maps to favor their party. Republicans are currently having some success with it in NC.

As well they should!

Half of the NC congressional districts look like a roadkill dog on an interstate.

That "current success" you speak of is nothing more than a push back to sanity.

[kalm]

Actually, that Atlantic piece is close to my viewpoint: no limits on spending, but full disclosure of individual, corporate and union donors. And no hiding behind anonymous superpacs: the voters should be able to determine who is pulling those strings.

I agree - let people spend what they want and let's know who's spending it. It's like a Sunshine Law but for political campaigning. The free speech advocates would have no issue with that setup and everyone would know when a rich cat like Koch or Soros spends money. I have no problem with that system. No limits on spending and full disclosure - I like.

Definitely better than what we currently have. Now, if the establishment media would do its job.

David Gregory: "Tell me Madam secretary, why do you think Stoyer and Soros donated all this money to your campaign..."

[kalm]

An interesting take from Larry Lessig on how originalism doesn't jive with the conservative's notion of narrowly defining corruption. Activist conk judges...

If Frank Luntz was a liberal he'd suggest his constituents quit talking about campaign finance and use the word corruption instead. It's a more accurate description.

But where is the originalism when it comes to the meaning of the word “corruption?” If the originalists on the Court believe the Framers would have permitted laws regulating the freedom of speech if those laws targeted “corruption,” why would an originalist use an understanding of the term from a 1976 per curiam opinion (Buckley v. Valeo) rather than an understanding of the Framers—corruption as in “improper dependence”—made manifest by the Framers again and again?

Because “improper dependence” is precisely the problem that limits on aggregate contributions are meant to attack. Already we have a system in which Congress is dependent upon the tiniest fraction of the 1% to fund its campaigns. I’ve estimated the number of relevant funders is no more than 150,000 (about the number of Americans named “Lester.”) If aggregate contribution limits are struck, that number will fall dramatically. More will be raised from a smaller number of contributors—maybe as few as 40,000 (about the number of Americans named “Sheldon”). So abolishing aggregate limits will move us from Lesterland to Sheldon City, increasing a dependence on the funders, while conflicting with Madison’s promise of a branch of government “dependent on the people alone.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ption.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[YoUDeeMan]

What should really be investigated is how much money corporations give the media outlets.

I'm not talking about election ads...I'm talking about the crappy talk shows and so called "news" shows. NPR is decidedly Liberal...and their coverage of the last two elections was shameful in so many ways. Taxpayers are paying to hear a Democratic slant to everything.

[kalm]

What should really be investigated is how much money corporations give the media outlets.

I'm not talking about election ads...I'm talking about the crappy talk shows and so called "news" shows. NPR is decidedly Liberal...and their coverage of the last two elections was shameful in so many ways. Taxpayers are paying to hear a Democratic slant to everything.

Agreed... except NPR really isn't that liberal anymore. It just doesn't jive with you conk sensibilities.