Campaign Finance Reform

[loosecannon]

I thought we already had campaign finance deform.

How does continued failure exist as evidence that the goobers in the District of Criminals should have even more power?

So you like corporations being able to spend unlimited amounts of $, anonymously? Here I thought we all wanted more transparency, more for the people governance. Guess I was wrong. Any conservatives support reforming the way campaigns are funded? Or do they like politicians who cater to special intrest? This should be a bi-partisan issue.

Nice brigade of strawmen.

We were already told that the last campaign deform bill was going to solve all the problems of "dirty money" in campaigns, and probably get rid of unsightly panty lines to boot....Yet here we are a couple of years later, with all the same tired old complaints.

And somehow or another, campaign finance Nirvana is just one more reform away...again.

The last campaign reform bill was struck down by the USSC. McCain Feingold:

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81, enacted March 27, 2002, H.R. 2356) is United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were Senators Russell Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.

As noted in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a United States Supreme Court ruling on the BCRA, the Act was designed to address two issues:

* The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion;
* The proliferation of issue advocacy ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union general treasury funds. (Note: The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission does not change this provision of BCRA. It also fails to overturn the ban on political donations by foreign corporations and the prohibition on any involvement by foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending by U.S. subsidiaries.)

Although the legislation is known as "McCain-Feingold", the Senate version is not the bill that became law. Instead, the companion legislation, H.R. 2356—introduced by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT), is the version that became law. Shays-Meehan was originally introduced as H.R. 380.....

In June 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., that BCRA's limitations on corporate and labor union funding of broadcast ads mentioning a candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election are unconstitutional as applied to ads susceptible of a reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate. Some election law experts believe the new exception will render BCRA's "electioneering communication" provisions meaningless, while others believe the new exception is quite narrow. The Federal Election Commission's interpretation and application of the new exception during the 2008 election cycle will determine the true scope and impact of the Court's decision.

In June 2008, the section of the act known as the "millionaire's amendment" was overturned by the Supreme Court in Davis v. Federal Election Commission [7]. This provision had attempted to "equalize" campaigns by providing that the legal limit on contributions would increase for a candidate who was substantially outspent by an opposing candidate using personal wealth. During 2008 one of the cosponsors of the legislation, Senator John McCain of Arizona, touted this piece of legislation and others that he sponsored in his bid for the presidency.[2] Senator McCain consistently voiced concern over campaign practices and their funding. "'Questions of honor are raised as much by appearances as by reality in politics, and because they incite public distrust, they need to be addressed no less directly than we would address evidence of expressly illegal corruption,' McCain wrote in his 2002 memoir Worth the Fighting For. 'By the time I became a leading advocate of campaign finance reform, I had come to appreciate that the public's suspicions were not always mistaken. Money does buy access in Washington, and access increases influence that often results in benefiting the few at the expense of the many.'" [3]

In March 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, regarding whether or not a heavily political documentary (about Hillary Clinton) could be considered a political ad.[4] In January 2010, the Supreme Court struck sections of McCain-Feingold down which limited activity of corporations, saying, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” Specifically, Citizens struck down campaign financing laws related to corporations and unions; law previously banned the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of “electioneering communications” paid for by corporations in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general election. The ruling did not, as commonly thought, change the amount of money corporations and unions can contribute to campaigns. The minority said the court was making a mistake treating the voices of corporations as similar to those of people.[5] President Barack Obama expressed his concern over the Supreme Court's decision during his State of the Union speech, delivered January 27, saying, "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems." [6] President Obama also called the decision, "“a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” [7]

 

[Oddball]

The last campaign reform bill was struck down by the USSC. McCain Feingold:

The hell it was....Punting to USSC is why the Shrub signed that travesty....And they upheld the law....Only a few parts were stricken out of it by the more recent decision.

Where have you been getting your news?

 

[loosecannon]

Democracy = less free speech?

actually democracy = no free speech rights whatsoever for corporations. They aren't people. Once you assert that they are you designate yourself an enemy of the republic.

 

[loosecannon]

The last campaign reform bill was struck down by the USSC. McCain Feingold:

The hell it was....Punting to USSC is why the Shrub signed that travesty....And they upheld the law.

Where have you been getting your news?

UHHH, I just posted an authoritative source citing three examples wherein the SC struck down segments of the MF bill.

 

[Oddball]

Democracy = less free speech?

actually democracy = no free speech rights whatsoever for corporations. They aren't people. Once you assert that they are you designate yourself an enemy of the republic.

Corporations were deemed 14th Amendment "persons", in the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company case, of 1886.

Best brush up on your history and Googling skills, Bubba.

 

[loosecannon]

Democracy = less free speech?

actually democracy = no free speech rights whatsoever for corporations. They aren't people. Once you assert that they are you designate yourself an enemy of the republic.

Corporations were deemed 14th Amendment "persons", in the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company case, of 1886.

Best brush up on your history and Googling skills, Bubba.

Oh I am intimately aware of that gross travesty of justice, Gomer.

The court clerk wrote the ruling and added the offensive text independent of the court's actual ruling, but later rulings upheld the premise.

That still makes it an injustice and a rape of our constitution rather than consensual sex.

 

[loosecannon]

Democracy = less free speech?

actually democracy = no free speech rights whatsoever for corporations. They aren't people. Once you assert that they are you designate yourself an enemy of the republic.

Corporations were deemed 14th Amendment "persons", in the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company case, of 1886.

Best brush up on your history and Googling skills, Bubba.

You just designated yourself an enemy of the republic.

GITMO! Enjoy, Bakbar!

 

[shintao]

I thought we already had campaign finance deform.

How does continued failure exist as evidence that the goobers in the District of Criminals should have even more power?

So you like corporations being able to spend unlimited amounts of $, anonymously? Here I thought we all wanted more transparency, more for the people governance. Guess I was wrong. Any conservatives support reforming the way campaigns are funded? Or do they like politicians who cater to special intrest? This should be a bi-partisan issue.

Nice brigade of strawmen.

We were already told that the last campaign deform bill was going to solve all the problems of "dirty money" in campaigns, and probably get rid of unsightly panty lines to boot....Yet here we are a couple of years later, with all the same tired old complaints.

And somehow or another, campaign finance Nirvana is just one more reform away...again.

How about we give each candidate 24 hours of free television, 12 hours of radio, 4 pages in any newspaper of their choice, and access to 72 hours of ongoing National debate. ending two days before the election date. No campaign funding allowed from any sources, even your own bank accounts.

 

[Oddball]

"Give"?

At whose expense?

 

[Oddball]

actually democracy = no free speech rights whatsoever for corporations. They aren't people. Once you assert that they are you designate yourself an enemy of the republic.

Corporations were deemed 14th Amendment "persons", in the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company case, of 1886.

Best brush up on your history and Googling skills, Bubba.

You just designated yourself an enemy of the republic.

GITMO! Enjoy, Bakbar!

Check your premise, Gomer.

Since when does knowing the facts and history of USSC rulings mean that someone necessarily agrees with them?

 

[liebuster]

Corporations have limits on donations to candidates.

..but they don't have limits on how much $ they can put behind a group with a deceitful name such as "Americans for prosperity" to run attack ads, or pro-candidate ads. Corporations aren't people - get em outta politics. They're ruining our democracy.

Funny how you picked out the very org. that Obama picked out.

I was curious if you have ever heard of Moveon.org or Center for American Progress or any of the other leftist orgs that have been running neg ads on all conservatives in my state? Should they be allowed but not Americans for Prosperity?

I also find it interesting that the left has been using these orgs to further their agenda for decades but when a conservative group pops up you suddenly have a problem with this type of behavior

By the way, we are a Republic.

 

[Avatar4321]

If you really want to get Special interests out of our elections restore the Senate to the States.

 

[The Rabbi]

Corporations have limits on donations to candidates.

..but they don't have limits on how much $ they can put behind a group with a deceitful name such as "Americans for prosperity" to run attack ads, or pro-candidate ads. Corporations aren't people - get em outta politics. They're ruining our democracy.

Funny how you picked out the very org. that Obama picked out.

I was curious if you have ever heard of Moveon.org or Center for American Progress or any of the other leftist orgs that have been running neg ads on all conservatives in my state? Should they be allowed but not Americans for Prosperity?

I also find it interesting that the left has been using these orgs to further their agenda for decades but when a conservative group pops up you suddenly have a problem with this type of behavior

By the way, we are a Republic.

No one has mentioned unions. Are unions persons? Do they have free speech rights?
The argument over corporations is silly. Corporations are nothing more than groups of individuals. Of course they have free speech rights.
As to the OP, we need MORE money in elections, not less. Since the start of "campaign finance reform" we have had many more incumbents re-elected mainly because fund raising is much harder for an outsider. It is nothing more than a device to guarantee re-election. Get rid of it. Get rid of every restriction on campaign finance other than a requirement to disclose where the money came from.

 

[Cal]

I'll stand up against unions, corporations.. Anyone who throws money into a campaign without disclosure. This partisan bullshit of 'look they do it too' is just that-bullshit. The chamber and other RW groups are outspending LW groups by huge margins. And moveon and other groups do disclose- Moveon.org Contributors | OpenSecrets. And again, the center for progress doesn't run ads. Find a different parallel and I'll be happy to denounce them.
Since corporations have rights, shouldn't they also be allowed to run for office?

Gotta run for now (on my iTouch), bbl lates.

 

[Revere]

I'll stand up against unions, corporations.. Anyone who throws money into a campaign without disclosure. This partisan bullshit of 'look they do it too' is just that-bullshit. The chamber and other RW groups are outspending LW groups by huge margins. And moveon and other groups do disclose- Moveon.org Contributors | OpenSecrets. And again, the center for progress doesn't run ads. Find a different parallel and I'll be happy to denounce them.
Since corporations have rights, shouldn't they also be allowed to run for office?

Gotta run for now (on my iTouch), bbl lates.

Bullshit.

Unions will never give that up, dreamer.

So we fight fire with fire.

 

[shintao]

Corporations have limits on donations to candidates.

..but they don't have limits on how much $ they can put behind a group with a deceitful name such as "Americans for prosperity" to run attack ads, or pro-candidate ads. Corporations aren't people - get em outta politics. They're ruining our democracy.

I think what they are doing is legal, so I have no problem with it. Didn't the Supreme Court just give the corporations that power? If citizens vote for presidents that install Supreme Court judges who are corporate whores, who is to blame? That is Democracy at its finest hour.

Frankly YL, Americans just don't give a damn,...to borrow a Gone With The Wind cliché.

 

[shintao]

The chamber and other RW groups are outspending LW groups by huge margins.

LOL! That means people with money support the rightwing, and the RW will give us that trip to hell we asked for. If people don't vote, I assume they don't care. Running all the ads in the world won't change that fact. Corporate foreigners don't care what happens to Americans, and apparently Americans don't care either. LOL! It's ok, relax, let it happen, whatever "it" is.

 

[marryroy02]

The only real solution is public financing of elections, if you accept public financing and can raise a wide range of gifts of $ 5 will receive matching funds allows you to ignore the special interests. It seems expensive to pay for campaigns, but over the nature of the companies get freebies by corrupt politicians, it is cheap.

 

[The Rabbi]

The only real solution is public financing of elections, if you accept public financing and can raise a wide range of gifts of $ 5 will receive matching funds allows you to ignore the special interests. It seems expensive to pay for campaigns, but over the nature of the companies get freebies by corrupt politicians, it is cheap.

That's almoist as stupid as Islamic finance.
If you allow only public financing then you hand an enormous advantage to the incumbent, who already enjoys one.
But why restrict speech, which is intimately tied up with campaign contributions? Merely out of some irrational fear of big scary corporations?