Money in US politics

[Ignorant]

This is something people feel strongly about on both sides of the political spectrum. What's interesting about it is that almost everyone agrees that money in politics is a problem, yet we're somehow divided on it anyway and, partly as a result of that, nothing is being done about it. The division is probably not ideological, but comes from disagreements about what the problem actually is, and what can be done about it. These, then, are the central questions for this thread:

1) Why is money in politics a problem in the US?
2) What can be done about it?

The following is my take.


Why is money in politics a problem in the US?

The way I see it, there's two main reasons for this. The first is that the demand for money is high in US politics. Politicians need a lot of money. This is due mostly to primaries, which cause America's parties to be weak. With primaries, the party is not in control of who leads it and populists like Trump or Sanders can come out of nowhere and take over the party essentially without its consent. A consequence of weak parties is that politicians who want to win elections need a lot of money. Name recognition is not free unless you're already famous, and during a primary each candidate is individually responsible for getting themselves and their message out there. They all need to do a lot of individual fundraising. And they don't even like it, by the way. Politicians, by and large, don't like that they need to raise money. Ask any politician what their least favorite part of the job is, they will probably mention fundraising. They dislike asking for money, and dislike what they have to do to get it. Attempts to regulate campaign finance, then, have historically been bipartisan. Which brings me to the second reason there's a problem.

The second reason there is a lot of money in politics is the state of campaign finance law. To understand why this is, some background. The modern era of campaign finance sort of started with FECA and SCOTUS' response to it. FECA is a 1971-1974 law which limited campaign contributions and expenditures and created the FEC to enforce it (to illustrate that this is a bipartisan issue: it passed the senate 88-2 and the house 372-23). In Buckley vs Valeo, SCOTUS first weighed in on campaign finance, as far as I know. In it, the court held that FECA's limits on expenditures are unconstitutional because they violate the right to free speech. A law passed by congress with overwhelming majorities, suggesting a strong mandate by the people, was struck down by an unelected judiciary. This was the first sign of trouble.

There was one more major attempt by lawmakers to regulate campaign finance but this, too, was struck down by the court. In another landmark ruling, Citizens united vs FEC, the court held that money = speech, and that corporate expenditures to promote a certain candidate can't be limited because they're protected by the first amendment. Needless to say, this ruling has proven controversial. I for one am not a fan of the "money = speech" mantra, in my view it's more reasonable to say money is a megaphone. It doesn't enable you to speak, rather it enables you to turn up the volume on your speech. Using that reasoning I think the court could have ruled differently (something the 4 dissenter justices agreed with), and therefore should have. After all, this ruling had disastrous consequences for politics, greatly increasing the influence of lobbyists. Here's a direct quote from the ruling that aged particularly poorly:
 

this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. 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.

"Guys it's fine. When we enable corporations to spend tons of money to support politicians, it won't cause corruption. It just won't, it's fine. Trust us. Oh and it won't even look like corruption either btw. Everyone will consider this to be totally above board and nobody will lose trust in our glorious institutions. It's fine."

Absolute. Fucking. Donkeys.

Citizens United enabled super PACs as well as the 501(c )(4) construction, a loophole by which corporations (and individuals) can donate essentially anonymously, getting around transparency laws. From that point (2010), US campaign finance has been a wild west, "anything goes" environment where lobbyists can spend without limits. This, combined with the high demand for money which I addressed earlier, is why there's a problem.

What can be done about it?

Since the two main culprits are primaries and SCOTUS, there's a few things that can be done:

1) Remove SCOTUS as a third, unelected branch of government. This requires a constitutional amendment and is a radical change, but it's not as crazy as it sounds. A supreme court that checks the government's laws against the constitution is not necessary in constitutional democracies; plenty exist without it. The US supreme court took this role upon itself, but whether or not that is ultimately good for the country is up for debate. The issue of money in politics is a great example of the disconnect between SCOTUS and the rest of the country. Almost everyone is for stricter campaign finance laws, even politicians. Only SCOTUS stands in the way, because it doesn't answer to voters.

2) A constitutional amendment clarifying that money does not equal speech, and that corporate expenditures are not protected under the first amendment (or something along those lines).

3) The abolishment of primaries. I think if parties stopped holding primaries, this would greatly reduce the influence of lobbyists because there would be much less demand for money in politics. The problem with this is that, if a party chooses not to hold a primary, it will probably be accused of being undemocratic. I would actually argue the opposite: a democracy is more representative without primaries, not less. But that is a topic for another thread, if there is interest.

You might say: None of these are realistic. And that's very true, and probably the reason why nothing is actually being done about this problem. Politicians know that constitutional amendments are a non-starter these days, and abolishing primaries is politically very costly. Our only hope, realistically, is...

4) SCOTUS changes its mind, decides that Buckley and Citizens United were bad rulings and reverses them. Some of you may not want to hear this, but the first step in getting there is by adding more liberal justices. After all, Citizens United was a 5-4 decision with only democrat appointees dissenting. That's not a coincidence. Further, nowadays only democrats seem to want to do anything about campaign finance. Had Hillary Clinton been elected in 2016, these corruption-enabling rulings would likely have been reversed already. In other words: Elect a democrat.


Any takers?

[UltraBudgie]

thoughts? well, i think that the money is a fake face on a deeper problem. the thing is, actual citizen democratic rule does not exist in the united states, and hasn't for some time. we instead have a system that pretends to be something that derives power from the people, but instead, it's fake, the vast majority of options are two sides of the same coin that serve the existing covert power structure -- call it corporatism or plutocracy or whatever -- the options that don't really don't have much chance at all of being elected, if they somehow are, the inertia of the system steamrolls any effort they make outside the "mainstream", and if they're a nail that sticks up too much, they get hammered -- the politics of personal destruction.

that this system runs on money is merely the tool by which this is implemented, it's a far friendlier and more believable face that outright force or fascism. but rest assured, if any effort to eliminate money-rules from the system actually works (fat chance!), then the mask will be off and some disaster will strike that requires harsher and more direct rule. so just keep playing pretend in you're little bubble of believable relevance. you aren't gonna like what comes after america.

[Ignorant]

Correct me if I'm misrepresenting you. You think if we removed money from politics, that wouldn't affect the underlying power structure, which is corporatist/plutocratic? But it would anger the people in power, who would then fabricate some crisis in order to enact fascist rule?

How does this work, exactly? Who are these plutocrats who, when money is removed from politics, would retain power? How would they do this, considering money is the instrument of their power? How would they fabricate a crisis? And how would they enact blatantly unconstitutional policy?

[xuenchen]

So who's Army enforces and how many millions must die? 

[UltraBudgie]

Correct me if I'm misrepresenting you. You think if we removed money from politics, that wouldn't affect the underlying power structure, which is corporatist/plutocratic? But it would anger the people in power, who would then fabricate some crisis in order to enact fascist rule?

How does this work, exactly? Who are these plutocrats who, when money is removed from politics, would retain power? How would they do this, considering money is the instrument of their power? How would they fabricate a crisis? And how would they enact blatantly unconstitutional policy?

yes i said 'call it corporatism or plutocracy or whatever' because by quite deliberate design our political terminology is not representative of actuality, corporate directorships and the plutocratic ruling class act somewhat as middle management; you see about a century ago the billionaires stepped back and let the millionaires be the front-face of their rule, retreating to the shadows. in today's terms that would be the billionaires fronting for the trillionaires, who officially 'don't exist'. and it's true in a way, that class don't 'have money', they instead make the money, having had a much as they want to evoke for generations. the generational elite. money is an epiphenomena of their power. you'll never know their names.

fascism is another ill-wrought label. the united states is by almost any emperical measure fascist already. that's not what i mean. the phrase is 'regime change', which they own much expertise in. you see at that level of power, when you have generations ago gotten a lock on control of wealth, what matters is risk mitigation -- ensuring the perpetuation of the system, whether its manifestation in practice is pseudo-democracy, controlled dictatorship, corporate governmental fascism, capitalistic or socialistic, etc., it doesn't matter, really. democracy is particularly stable, as it provides a framework for the populace to manage its own subjugation, within given boundaries. but if it needs to change, it can. i'm sure you can find examples of regime change and the various groups that enact such in recent history if you look.

propaganda and information control are particularly effective at enacting such, and manipulating the stability of governance. much of what america is 'great' at, post-wwii, makes sense only when viewed in this perspective. do you think it coincidence, or natural, that half the population in america is only a few pushes away from going for the throats of the other half at any given time, over whatever issue? the military is particularly indoctrinated, as you may have observed if you have veteran friends. it's not called indoctrination of course (except internally in the military, where it totally is). look for example at an adjacent thread here, where it was opined that it would have been great if those who were ideologically opposed to the writer had died during covid, but too bad that was fake. it would take very little to turn that manufactured oppobrium 'hot', if necessary. there already is no longer any effective 'common truth', a situation very useful to those who 'do not exist'.

[Ignorant]

Is this conspiracy theory based on evidence, and is it falsifiable? Or is it more like a belief in God, where you have a deeply rooted intuition that this is true? This would certainly be understandable. Us humans have a tendency to look for what I call "God replacements". For some, it's simulation theory. For others, conspiracy theories. We prefer order to chaos, and sweeping theories that can explain everything have a lot of appeal to us. I don't mean to come across like I'm trying to psycho-analyze you here, it's just something I've noticed.

To answer your question:

do you think it coincidence, or natural, that half the population in america is only a few pushes away from going for the throats of the other half at any given time, over whatever issue?

Yes I think it's natural. Specifically it's the natural consequence of how we consume media, which is itself a consequence of technological advances in media. These advances were not intended to divide us, rather to get our attention. We are in an attention economy, and competition for our attention is fierce. Political polarization, among other things, is a side effect of this. Now that we have the pick of the litter in how to get our instant dopamine, the way to get and keep our attention is to make us feel good about ourselves in as little time as possible (content is getting shorter and shorter, have you noticed?). The algorithms in our social media, as well as content creators, have become very good at doing so. They have to be, or they get outcompeted. They grab and keep our attention by offering us content that quickly validates us and confirms our existing beliefs, and does it in a way that provokes a strong emotional reaction. Often, it blames others for our problems. After all, we don't want to self-reflect. That's painful and consumes our energy. We don't want to spend energy. We're doing enough of that during our day job. We want to feel validated, right now.

So ultimately it's not modern (social) media's fault. Modern media is, after all, exactly what we want it to be. Social media platforms were developed by people who wanted to make money by grabbing our attention, nothing more, nothing less. It's our own fault that our attention is so easily grabbed by validating, radicalizing content. But entertaining that thought would be self-reflection, and that's painful. It's more comfortable to blame others for our problems.

[UltraBudgie]

Is this conspiracy theory based on evidence, and is it falsifiable? Or is it more like a belief in God, where you have some deeply rooted intuition that this is true?

yeah, not trying to do any of that. i suppose you might simply consider looking at this world a lot and asking 'how does this make sense'? construct models, and that's all there is, really, of how things might actually be working, and see if future events make more or less sense when viewed in the framework of those models. if you want to believe it's god, or aliens, or reptilians, or the hidden hand of random chance, go for it, knock yourself out. hopefully your model is useful for making sense of why the usa acts the way it does to russia, china, etc., why domestic and military spending are allocated the way they are, why politics is so polarized, etc. the 'hidden hand' model micromanaging everything is rather silly in some ways, honi soit qui mal y pense, but it does somewhat make william of occam happy by not multiplying entities beyond the minimally necessary, alternate to ignoring such forces entirely.

To answer your question:

Yes I think it's natural. Specifically it's the natural consequence of how we consume media, which is itself a consequence of technological advances in media. These advances were not intended to divide us, rather to get our attention. We are in an attention economy, and competition for our attention is fierce. Political polarization, among other things, is a side effect of this. Now that we have the pick of the litter in how to get our instant dopamine, the way to get and keep our attention is to make us feel good about ourselves in as little time as possible (content is getting shorter and shorter, have you noticed?). The algorithms in our social media, as well as content creators, have become very good at doing so. They have to be, or they get outcompeted. They grab and keep our attention by offering us content that quickly validates us and confirms our existing beliefs, and does it in a way that provokes a strong emotional reaction. Often, it blames others for our problems. After all, we don't want to self-reflect. That's painful and consumes our energy. We don't want to spend energy. We're doing enough of that during our day job. We want to feel validated, right now.

these are good points thank you and i'm in no way implying that the system we have is not by and large self-regulating and motioned by its own forces. there is an art to ruling by allowing the self-evocation of the desires of the populace. but you can see where money is selectively applied to, ahem, 'nudge' it in desired directions. in the optimal case, believable free-market democracy, money is the gentle tool to provide such guidance. blunter measures are available, rest assured.

Modern media is, after all, exactly what we want it to be.

i get what you're saying but this is funny.

[andy06shake]

Money in politics is a problem in the U.S. because it gives disproportionate influence to wealthy individuals, corporations, and special interest groups.

Campaigns are expensive, and candidates often rely on large donations to stay competitive.

And the dependence can lead to policies that favour donors over the general public.

Then there are the Lobbyists who use financial leverage to shape legislation in their favour.

As a result, issues like healthcare, climate change, and tax policy reflects the interests of big donors rather than the needs of the masses.

Money in politics undermines democratic principles, erodes public trust, and makes it harder for average Americans to participate meaningfully in the political process.

And guess what, its only going to get worse, if in doubt, look at the way the current POTUS uses his presidency to channel money to his own businesses.

[Ignorant]

i get what you're saying but this is funny. [Image: https://denyignorance.com/images/ogsmilies/lol.gif]

Heh, I would say tragic.

yeah, not trying to do any of that. i suppose you might simply consider looking at this world a lot and asking 'how does this make sense'? construct models, and that's all there is, really, of how things might actually be working, and see if future events make more or less sense when viewed in the framework of those models. if you want to believe it's god, or aliens, or reptilians, or the hidden hand of random chance, go for it, knock yourself out. hopefully your model is useful for making sense of why the usa acts the way it does to russia, china, etc., why domestic and military spending are allocated the way they are, why politics is so polarized, etc. the 'hidden hand' model micromanaging everything is rather silly in some ways, honi soit qui mal y pense, but it does somewhat make william of occam happy by not multiplying entities beyond the minimally necessary, alternate to ignoring such forces entirely.

Sure, okay. I do look at the world a lot, and to me the hidden hand model, as you call it, seems so unlikely as to be practically impossible. For me it does nothing to explain world events because they are explainable in simpler ways. This adds enormous complexity. The amount of effort and resources it would take to control the world is absolutely staggering. Even dominating the US alone, which represents less than 5% of the global population, would require an enormous, coordinated effort that would be impossible to hide, and a gigantic amount of resources. Then, the next challenge: Europe, representing 10% of the global population, a continent full of democracies where buying politicians is hard if not impossible given the current legal restrictions. Then, China. You want to buy the CCP? Good luck.

You say it satisfies Occam's razor by not multiplying entities beyond the minimally necessary. I have to disagree. It quite plainly adds an entity (a secret world government) of enormous proportions that is not necessary to explain world events. Honestly, if I was trying to teach someone about Occam's razor, I might even bring this up as an example of a theory that clearly rejects it.

but you can see where money is selectively applied to, ahem, 'nudge' it in desired directions.

Do you have examples of this? I might be interested in exploring them.

[UltraBudgie]

ha, examples? well since this thread op is premised on the corrupting nature of money in politics i'm sure examples can be found. and who needs to 'buy' politicians outright? the system is structured such that it is virtually impossible for a politician to gain any influence without becoming beholden to special interests, and the framework that makes special interests 'special' is by no means an open and democratic playing field. and there's always kompromat! but anyway. i think you see my perspective, if not in detail in outline, so i'll leave it there. i will somewhat wistfully note that i appreciate the viewpoint that it all happens organically, from an inevitable complexity arising solely from intrinsic human nature, with no larger forces grooming and maintaining the context. it's comforting, ya know? like it's all available to be understood, at whatever level of detail. it's not as comforting to have a model (even if it works more accurately than the rest) in which it is not possible for one to be a privileged observer. hard pill to swallow, that 'everything is under control', but we'll never know exactly how or exactly who or exactly what, except from the 'inside looking out' (or vice-versa, depending on one's exact epistemology).

cheers.