Money in US politics

[SomeStupidName]

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?

This is you purposing gutting our entire system. I know you only want to remove SCOTUS aka checks and balances, and Primaries aka voice of the people to choose representation. You want to fix system by adding more liberal justices which is just plain English for you want to stack the deck with people who will not disagree with a party line because orange man bad, and now you are saying but the republicans do too, except it's been consistent that they don't make their decision based on party line but on the actual law. These are not realistic changes they are blatant calls to seize power and force agendas upon the plebs...

[Oldcarpy2]

I have always been wary of the amount it costs to be elected POTUS.

Here in the UK we do have limits on campaign spending:

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/p...ding-limit

The main parties get equal five minutes slots on TV for Party Political Broadcasts.

I never watch them much.

[SomeStupidName]

I have always been wary of the amount it costs to be elected POTUS.

Here in the UK we do have limits on campaign spending:

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/p...ding-limit

The main parties get equal five minutes slots on TV for Party Political Broadcasts.

I never watch them much.

I know we have TV quotas as far as equal airtime for any candidates, however I have seen both sides abuse this the documentary spin covers a good example of that. I personally feel in today's world of media access you could get quite a following for very little initial investment, streamers are an example of this which can lead to filling large coffers of money but more so and I think more importantly is the direct access to the voteing populace and the right person could really offer an experience that would be or could be made to feel like a more in the hands of the people approach, This is a double edge sword like most things in life but I see the potential there.

[Ignorant]

This is you purposing gutting our entire system. I know you only want to remove SCOTUS aka checks and balances, and Primaries aka voice of the people to choose representation. You want to fix system by adding more liberal justices which is just plain English for you want to stack the deck with people who will not disagree with a party line because orange man bad, and now you are saying but the republicans do too, except it's been consistent that they don't make their decision based on party line but on the actual law. These are not realistic changes they are blatant calls to seize power and force agendas upon the plebs...

I'm not "proposing" any of this. I'm just giving the four possible options on how to change campaign finance law. My preferred option, and the only realistic one, is the last one, where democratic presidents get voted in who slowly add (I should have said "replace", I don't mean the court needs to be expanded) liberal justices to the court and eventually liberals have a majority and can undo this money = speech mantra. No systemic change there.

Let me ask you something: Do you think money in politics is an issue? If so, how would you address it?

[SomeStupidName]

I'm not "proposing" any of this. I'm just giving the four possible options on how to change campaign finance law. My preferred option, and the only realistic one, is the last one, where democratic presidents get voted in who slowly add (I should have said "replace", I don't mean the court needs to be expanded) liberal justices to the court and eventually liberals have a majority and can undo this money = speech mantra. No systemic change there.

Let me ask you something: Do you think money in politics is an issue? If so, how would you address it?

The democrats are the most open about their pay for play policies, where did you get your rose colored glasses from Hillary herself? Don't pretend for a second liberal justices would put an end to it, they would expand it 100x and they wouldn't even site relevant law to support there decision to do it. I think the system works I may not like it sometimes but it so far it has seemed to be pretty resilient and self-balancing. Money will always be an issue until someone builds a box the size of a microwave that everyone can have in there home that rearranges matter into food, medicine and cloths aka pipe dream. I don't think money alone can win a presidency I mean the democrats gave Kamala 2 billion dollars she spent every penny and got nothing for it, That's way more than what was spent on the other side it was less than 800 million unless you add outside groups money then they spent 1 billion which is still half as much. If money held such an an OP stance over how the system works I don't think Trump would be president right now, I think there are other factors that play a greater role than money. Do you have any data that maybe contradicts my stance?

[Ignorant]

The democrats are the most open about their pay for play policies, where did you get your rose colored glasses from Hillary herself? Don't pretend for a second liberal justices would put an end to it, they would expand it 100x and they wouldn't even site relevant law to support there decision to do it.

I mentioned in the OP why I think adding liberal justices is our best chance to undo this decision. Again, Citizens United was a 5-4 decision with only democrat appointees dissenting. If the court was 100% democrat appointees, we can safely assume they would not have ruled the way they did. Also, only the democratic party ever talks about reversing CU. It's therefore more likely that they would appoint justicies who would be open to it.

Four justices who were on the court back then are still on the court now. Here's how they voted in the CU case:
Roberts (R appointee) voted Yes
Thomas (R appointee) voted Yes
Alito (R appointee) voted Yes
Sotomayor (D appointee) voted No

Replace the former three with democrat appointees and there might be a chance it gets reversed.
 

I think the system works I may not like it sometimes but it so far it has seemed to be pretty resilient and self-balancing. Money will always be an issue until someone builds a box the size of a microwave that everyone can have in there home that rearranges matter into food, medicine and cloths aka pipe dream. I don't think money alone can win a presidency I mean the democrats gave Kamala 2 billion dollars she spent every penny and got nothing for it, That's way more than what was spent on the other side it was less than 800 million unless you add outside groups money then they spent 1 billion which is still half as much. If money held such an an OP stance over how the system works I don't think Trump would be president right now, I think there are other factors that play a greater role than money. Do you have any data that maybe contradicts my stance?

The problem isn't that money wins elections on its own and I never claimed that it does. It's that politicians need money to win elections and that this demand opens the door to lobbyists. Would you agree that the less influence lobbyists have on lawmakers, the better?
 

Money will always be an issue until someone builds a box the size of a microwave that everyone can have in there home that rearranges matter into food, medicine and cloths aka pipe dream

Money in politics is barely an issue in democracies with stronger parties and/or stricter campaign finance laws than the US. And it would be much less of an issue in the US if SCOTUS hadn't adopted the money = speech mantra.

[SomeStupidName]

I mentioned in the OP why I think adding liberal justices is our best chance to undo this decision. Again, Citizens United was a 5-4 decision with only democrat appointees dissenting. If the court was 100% democrat appointees, we can safely assume they would not have ruled the way they did. Also, only the democratic party ever talks about reversing CU. It's therefore more likely that they would appoint justicies who would be open to it.

Four justices who were on the court back then are still on the court now. Here's how they voted in the CU case:
Roberts (R appointee) voted Yes
Thomas (R appointee) voted Yes
Alito (R appointee) voted Yes
Sotomayor (D appointee) voted No

Replace the former three with democrat appointees and there might be a chance it gets reversed.
 

The problem isn't that money wins elections on its own and I never claimed that. It's that politicians need money to win elections and that this demand opens the door to lobbyists. Would you agree that the less influence lobbyists have on lawmakers, the better?
 

Money in politics is barely an issue in democracies with stronger parties and/or stricter campaign finance laws than the US. And it would be much less of an issue in the US if SCOTUS hadn't adopted the money = speech mantra.

Nope, I don't mind. I think liberal justices are a bad plan and i'm opposed to it. I think you want it because you see it as what cost the last election and it's not. The party message and direction it was heading is what cost them the election. Super pacs are covered by free speech and should be used to inform voters, you may have a problem with message so don't listen.

[Ignorant]

Nope, I don't mind.

Meaning you don't mind that lobbyists have a lot of influence on lawmakers? Okay. I think you're one of the few, even among Trump supporters.
 

I think liberal justices are a bad plan and i'm opposed to it. I think you want it because you see it as what cost the last election

I want more liberal justices for many reasons, but in this context it's because I want the money=speech mantra to be reversed. And I don't think it's what cost the last election at all. Not even a little bit. Please stop putting words in my mouth. You do this incessantly.

[SomeStupidName]

Meaning you don't mind that lobbyists have a lot of influence on lawmakers? Okay. I think you're one of the few, even among Trump supporters.
 

I want more liberal justices for many reasons, but in this context it's because I want the money=speech mantra to be reversed. And I don't think it's what cost the last election at all. Not even a little bit. Please stop putting words in my mouth. You do this incessantly.

This isn't money equals speech you just think it is. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is about allowing allowing more speech "campaign expenditures, or money spent to influence voters, was a type of “speech” and that the only permissible justification for most limits on money in politics was to prevent outright bribery, or as the Court’s opinion called it, “quid pro quo corruption.”" bribery is still illegal you don't need more laws when you already have one that covers it.

[Ignorant]

This isn't money equals speech you just think it is. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is about allowing allowing more speech "campaign expenditures, or money spent to influence voters, was a type of “speech” and that the only permissible justification for most limits on money in politics was to prevent outright bribery, or as the Court’s opinion called it, “quid pro quo corruption.”" bribery is still illegal you don't need more laws when you already have one that covers it.

I would be open to discussing this point by diving into the SCOTUS opinion and its consequences, but not with you, for you have shown that you're unable to engage with my arguments in good faith. Sorry to leave it this way.