The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

What was prevented was something like the NRA saying "Senator Whozit has voted to take your gun rights away" within 60 days (maybe 30) of an election.

The NRA could run ads saying "support gun rights" but could not mention Senator Whozit.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

What was prevented was something like the NRA saying "Senator Whozit has voted to take your gun rights away" within 60 days (maybe 30) of an election.

The NRA could run ads saying "support gun rights" but could not mention Senator Whozit.

You keep focusing on orginizations like the NRA, thus missing the point. Corporations are the problem. Faceless, greed driven "persons" with no interest in the common good, and who are often partially foreign owned. This is the danger, not non-profits orginizations. Can the NRA or Sierra Club spend a billion dollars to elect a President or pack the Senate? How many mega-corps could? How about the King of Saudi Arabia being able to buy an American corporation and funnel billions through it to elect members of Congress? Does that thought still make you all warm and fuzzy about the SCOTUS's ruling?

[Ghoulish Delight]

This may not be directly related but I heard this story yesterday and it, to me, speaks well to how allowing greater involvement of corporations in the political process is a threat to individual liberty (quite literally in this case). Our government is becoming more and more about protecting the healthy bottom line of corporate entities and less about protecting its citizens' rights and freedom.

Bail Burden Keeps U.S. Jails Stuffed With Inmates

[Alex]

Part of the risk when it comes to the distorting effect of money is not the money's influence on the politician (it is very much the case that you can rarely know if the money is finding a politician who already has friendly views or if the politician is finding friendly views that get money) but rather the inordinate influence on the messages heard by the voter.

For example, let's say Politician A is not corrupt but he holds political views that MegaCorp finds very satisfactory. Politician B is not corrupt but he holds political views that MegaCorp does not want to see in office but it is quite possible a majority of the consituents voting would approve of.

With its massively disproportionate spending ability, MegaCorp could make it so expensive to communicate through mass channels (TV, radio, print newspapers) that Politician B can not offord to be heard through these channels (or barely heard).

To me this is the stronger argument related to money in politics (and as mentioned before it is not one I entirely stand behind). Not that money corrupts politicians (it can, but I honestly think that for the most part it doesn't to a huge degree) but rather money -- or rather the massively disproportionate access to it -- distorts the debate. And that is what is massively harmful to the system.

[Betty]

Interesting read.

[Betty]

Seems that funding political campaigns is the source of the problem. Why not just give everyone running the same amount of money or time or whatever and not have them beholden to anyone?

[Alex]

The money in question is not money used for funding campaigns. No rules related to that have changed. The question is about money people spend, independently of the campaigning politicians.

To completely remove the impact of disparate access to cash you'd have to

A) Fund all campaigns equally through government grant.
B) Prohibit anybody other than the candidates from talking about the candidates.

Clearly B would be a violation of free speech. The question is whether corporations are entitled to that right of speech (the answer has gone from "yes, most of the time" to "yes").

[sleepyjeff]

Another solution would be to massively increase the number of members of congress.....imho the Founding Fathers did not want so few to represent so many......

[Alex]

While I agree with increasing the number of people in Congress (though that can't really be done in the Senate without a major constitutional overahaul) I don't know that this would be the case.

Currently one advantage to a person running for congress in the face of massive corporate spending is that the constituency is very large. If you can rally financial support from a couple thousand people you can go a long way towards negating the advantage of money. However, if you only have 40,000 people in your jurisdiction you're screwed.

Plus, part of the advantage of money here is in the fact that access to mass communication is essentially a zero sum game. In the Bay Area, there's only one set of TV stations, newspapers, and radio stations. If MegaCorp can dominate those channels in the face of demand from the current volume of politicians, tripling the number of politicians scrambling for that access will only make domination easier.

In other words, significantly increasing the number of office holders may decrease the value of a single "bought" congressman but it also would make it cheaper to "buy" a congressman.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Alex

In other words, significantly increasing the number of office holders may decrease the value of a single "bought" congressman but it also would make it cheaper to "buy" a congressman.

Fair enough, but the see-saw you describe isn't centered...IE, at some point, if enough members were to be added, the going rate would be lower than what most congresspersons would be willing to sacrifice their ideals for.