Campaign finance rules are now a joke

[Sheldon]

Right. Rather than change the system so moneyed agendas no longer call the tune, we should just re-write the Constitution of the United States and lose the bicameral legislature.

I'm sensing some sarcasm.

The first amendment would have to be amended I think. Lobbyists are protected by the "petition the government for a redress of grievances" clause.

True. But redressing grievances does not include paying for a campaign, does it?

Nope, it doesn't. Campaign financing is fucked, but I don't know enough about it to have an idea on fixing it. I don't think there's much of a substantive difference between funding campaign ads versus lobbying. Big-money interests will find a way to influence policy however they can. Direct lobbying is probably a more effective influence, and a larger part of the problem, than the ability to fund ads. Not that the CU decision was a glorious beacon of Constitutional republicanism.

 

[Charles_Main]

The problem is the it cost so much to run for the Senate, that the corporate lobbyists can buy influence there.

We should abolish the Senate. It is the biggest problem facing America.

Holy crap slow down batman. Lets not toss the baby out with the bath water just yet.

For god sakes the Senate is like one of the last examples of the separation of power between the states and the Fed left.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Since when is it news that the campaign finance laws are a sick joke?

 

[Missourian]

Why are Congressional Republicans against this?

Because they'll have to reveal who the doners are to these storefront organizations.

Funny. I seem to remember Republicans getting on Obama's case about a lack of transparency in his administration. Or maybe I'm just imagining things.

And that's what this thread is all about...when the Dems get more money the Repubs are upset...right now the Republicans are getting more money so the Democrats are pissed off...

BUT if it was the Democrats that were reaping the benefits...they would be DEFENDING the status quo and the Republicans would be bitchin' and moanin' like it was 2008...when...you guessed it...the roles were reversed.

 

[MaggieMae]

The problem is the it cost so much to run for the Senate, that the corporate lobbyists can buy influence there.

We should abolish the Senate. It is the biggest problem facing America.

There is actually more lobbying done in the House than the Senate. The Senate is a check on the House, whose members directly represent the citizens of their home districts. It is then up to the Senate to consolidate House bills into a single bill that incorporates the general intent, hopefully to benefit the whole body politic.

 

[MaggieMae]

The problem is the it cost so much to run for the Senate, that the corporate lobbyists can buy influence there.

We should abolish the Senate. It is the biggest problem facing America.

Right. Rather than change the system so moneyed agendas no longer call the tune, we should just re-write the Constitution of the United States and lose the bicameral legislature.

I'm sensing some sarcasm.

The first amendment would have to be amended I think. Lobbyists are protected by the "petition the government for a redress of grievances" clause.

Yup. I wonder if the founders had any idea what a conundrum those simple words would create in a couple hundred years.

 

[MaggieMae]

Because they'll have to reveal who the doners are to these storefront organizations.

Funny. I seem to remember Republicans getting on Obama's case about a lack of transparency in his administration. Or maybe I'm just imagining things.

And that's what this thread is all about...when the Dems get more money the Repubs are upset...right now the Republicans are getting more money so the Democrats are pissed off...

BUT if it was the Democrats that were reaping the benefits...they would be DEFENDING the status quo and the Republicans would be bitchin' and moanin' like it was 2008...when...you guessed it...the roles were reversed.

That's essentially true. For the life of me, I can't understand how the USSC didn't see that this would be the result of their broad action. They managed to rewrite the entire intent of campaign contribution rules with one fell swoop, when the high court's only challenge was to decide on the one issue before it.

 

[Sheldon]

Because they'll have to reveal who the doners are to these storefront organizations.

Funny. I seem to remember Republicans getting on Obama's case about a lack of transparency in his administration. Or maybe I'm just imagining things.

And that's what this thread is all about...when the Dems get more money the Repubs are upset...right now the Republicans are getting more money so the Democrats are pissed off...

BUT if it was the Democrats that were reaping the benefits...they would be DEFENDING the status quo and the Republicans would be bitchin' and moanin' like it was 2008...when...you guessed it...the roles were reversed.

I don't disagree. In a perfect world both parties would support this disclosure bill regardless of who benefited the most from it in the short-term. In reality immediate gain unfortunately trumps principle in our capitol.

Right. Rather than change the system so moneyed agendas no longer call the tune, we should just re-write the Constitution of the United States and lose the bicameral legislature.

I'm sensing some sarcasm.

The first amendment would have to be amended I think. Lobbyists are protected by the "petition the government for a redress of grievances" clause.

Yup. I wonder if the founders had any idea what a conundrum those simple words would create in a couple hundred years.

I think that's true for pretty much every amendment. Except for maybe the Third.

 

[Chris]

A plutocracy is a pejorative reference to a disproportionate influence the wealthy have on political process in contemporary society: for example Kevin Phillips, author and political strategist to U.S. President Richard Nixon, argues that the United States is a plutocracy in which there is a "fusion of money and government."[3]

The influence the wealthy minority of the population has over the political arena includes campaign contributions, as well as bribing to achieve corporate objectives (exclusively profit related), refusing to support the government financially by refusing to pay taxes, threatening to move profitable industries elsewhere, and essentially any form of manipulation of the government. It can also be exerted by the owners and ad buyers of media properties which can shape public perception of political issues (see also: fourth estate).

Plutocracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia