In defense of unlimited donations to candidates

[JakeStarkey]

I wonder how many liberal/progressives think that ending the Vietnam War is a bad thing. Imagine if George Soros could have given a billion dollars to Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich? Ask yourself who benefits most from campaign finance restrictions, incumbents, or the public.

That is an excellent conservative progressive right wing position, and you got a conservative SCOTUS to support unlimited campaign funding.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No what you're doing is refusing totake a position so you can take shots at everyone else. Namely Obama. Again, do you support it or not? Do you stand for something or stand against everything? It's an open question ...

I do both, and neither, and all the possibilities in between, just ask Jake.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wonder how many liberal/progressives think that ending the Vietnam War is a bad thing. Imagine if George Soros could have given a billion dollars to Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich? Ask yourself who benefits most from campaign finance restrictions, incumbents, or the public.

That is an excellent conservative progressive right wing position, and you got a conservative SCOTUS to support unlimited campaign funding.

Progressives support limiting donations because it is their moral position that donations and money are evil.

 

[ladyliberal]

The problem with unlimited political donations isn't (just) that it advantages conservatives over liberals. It's that it advantages the rich over the poor. Allowing donations of this kind on either side gives more power to the dollar and less to the human being in deciding who will hold political office. While I am relieved that powerful financial interests don't give exclusively to Republicans, I still support tighter restrictions on political spending.

The author's choice of example is also quite weak. His best use of liberal donations is apparently one that set off an intraparty squabble that led to the election of President Nixon.

There are plenty of rich liberals.

There were other factors that led to Nixon winning that year. The new left was just starting out, and had serious problems with the establishment of the Democratic Party. If they had not eventually won that fight Democrats would still be advocating segregation.

I certainly am not claiming that there aren't rich liberals. My point is that rich liberals have something in common with rich conservatives: they're rich. They don't do a very good job of representing the middle class or the poor. Some political systems are founded on the belief that a rich class of people is best suited to govern (eg, monarchies). However, I prefer democracy. Restricting the ways in which the rich may use their money to influence elections ensures that people rather than dollars have more political power.

I didn't mean to imply that Nixon only won because of the donation Cohen referenced. 1968 was slated to be a Republican year regardless of campaign finance. I don't think there was a plausible scenario in 1968 that would have led to either major party seriously advocating racial segregation in 2012. The legislation and court decisions were simply changing society too quickly by then.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The problem with unlimited political donations isn't (just) that it advantages conservatives over liberals. It's that it advantages the rich over the poor. Allowing donations of this kind on either side gives more power to the dollar and less to the human being in deciding who will hold political office. While I am relieved that powerful financial interests don't give exclusively to Republicans, I still support tighter restrictions on political spending.

The author's choice of example is also quite weak. His best use of liberal donations is apparently one that set off an intraparty squabble that led to the election of President Nixon.

There are plenty of rich liberals.

There were other factors that led to Nixon winning that year. The new left was just starting out, and had serious problems with the establishment of the Democratic Party. If they had not eventually won that fight Democrats would still be advocating segregation.

I certainly am not claiming that there aren't rich liberals. My point is that rich liberals have something in common with rich conservatives: they're rich. They don't do a very good job of representing the middle class or the poor. Some political systems are founded on the belief that a rich class of people is best suited to govern (eg, monarchies). However, I prefer democracy. Restricting the ways in which the rich may use their money to influence elections ensures that people rather than dollars have more political power.

I didn't mean to imply that Nixon only won because of the donation Cohen referenced. 1968 was slated to be a Republican year regardless of campaign finance. I don't think there was a plausible scenario in 1968 that would have led to either major party seriously advocating racial segregation in 2012. The legislation and court decisions were simply changing society too quickly by then.

Did you know that, even if McCain Fiengold was still the law, rich people would be able to pay for, and air, any advertisement they wanted as long as they did it themselves? One reason you, and all liberals, should support the CU decision is it allows middle class people to get together and do the same thing rich people can.

Limiting direct campaign donations, but not spending, is what is skewing the current system. Romney is bringing up a valid point that candidates should be able to vet ads that appear in their name. Ron Paul just filed a law suit against a group that is airing an ad that they are claiming was made by him. The example used in the OP was just one example of the good that comes from not limiting donations, it gives people who think that there needs to be change more power to make a difference.

At this point in time, with Republicans experiencing a resurgence of conservative activists, disrupting the party by allowing them to support the candidates they want instead of the ones that are put forth by the establishment could probably produce similar results to what occurred happened to the Democrats in the 1960s, more Democrats getting elected.

By the way, it is a fallacy that money always benefits conservatives, the (D)s easily outspent the (R)s in 2010, it just didn't make a lot of difference. I will also point out that the single most expensive gubernatorial campaign in CA history resulted in the guy with no money being elected.

 

[ladyliberal]

Did you know that, even if McCain Fiengold was still the law, rich people would be able to pay for, and air, any advertisement they wanted as long as they did it themselves? One reason you, and all liberals, should support the CU decision is it allows middle class people to get together and do the same thing rich people can.

Limiting direct campaign donations, but not spending, is what is skewing the current system. Romney is bringing up a valid point that candidates should be able to vet ads that appear in their name. Ron Paul just filed a law suit against a group that is airing an ad that they are claiming was made by him. The example used in the OP was just one example of the good that comes from not limiting donations, it gives people who think that there needs to be change more power to make a difference.

At this point in time, with Republicans experiencing a resurgence of conservative activists, disrupting the party by allowing them to support the candidates they want instead of the ones that are put forth by the establishment could probably produce similar results to what occurred happened to the Democrats in the 1960s, more Democrats getting elected.

By the way, it is a fallacy that money always benefits conservatives, the (D)s easily outspent the (R)s in 2010, it just didn't make a lot of difference. I will also point out that the single most expensive gubernatorial campaign in CA history resulted in the guy with no money being elected.

I did know that. The relevant part of McCain-Feingold was a limit on corporate rather than individual spending. It didn't affect all spending by organizations though, just certain kinds of organizations.

You present corporate spending as though it were spending by the owners of corporations, which include middle class people who own mutual funds. Such persons still tend, weighted by their dollar ownership, to be much wealthier than the average American. Even so, there is little evidence that political spending by corporations is responsive to the political views of small shareholders. Rather, it is spending made at the direction of corporate officers who are fairly unresponsive, particularly in this arena, to many of the owners.

You're right that money isn't everything in politics. Some candidates, such as Giuliani in 2008 or Perry in 2012 spend a great deal of money while earning few votes indeed. However, money isn't nothing either. I continue to wish that it was more difficult rather than less to use money to influence politics.

It's certainly true that money sometimes benefits Democrats in politics. My impression is that it tends to benefit Republicans over Democrats but I certainly could be wrong. Again, though, my primary objection to the use of money in politics is that it takes power away from voters rather than from Democrats.

 

[Dr Grump]

I wonder how many liberal/progressives think that ending the Vietnam War is a bad thing. Imagine if George Soros could have given a billion dollars to Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich? Ask yourself who benefits most from campaign finance restrictions, incumbents, or the public.

That is an excellent conservative progressive right wing position, and you got a conservative SCOTUS to support unlimited campaign funding.

Progressives support limiting donations because it is their moral position that donations and money are evil.

I would suggest their moral position is that people can buy favours....

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I wonder how many liberal/progressives think that ending the Vietnam War is a bad thing. Imagine if George Soros could have given a billion dollars to Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich? Ask yourself who benefits most from campaign finance restrictions, incumbents, or the public.

That is an excellent conservative progressive right wing position, and you got a conservative SCOTUS to support unlimited campaign funding.

Progressives support limiting donations because it is their moral position that donations and money are evil.

So, you don't speak for the right, but you do speak for "progressives"?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did you know that, even if McCain Fiengold was still the law, rich people would be able to pay for, and air, any advertisement they wanted as long as they did it themselves? One reason you, and all liberals, should support the CU decision is it allows middle class people to get together and do the same thing rich people can.

Limiting direct campaign donations, but not spending, is what is skewing the current system. Romney is bringing up a valid point that candidates should be able to vet ads that appear in their name. Ron Paul just filed a law suit against a group that is airing an ad that they are claiming was made by him. The example used in the OP was just one example of the good that comes from not limiting donations, it gives people who think that there needs to be change more power to make a difference.

At this point in time, with Republicans experiencing a resurgence of conservative activists, disrupting the party by allowing them to support the candidates they want instead of the ones that are put forth by the establishment could probably produce similar results to what occurred happened to the Democrats in the 1960s, more Democrats getting elected.

By the way, it is a fallacy that money always benefits conservatives, the (D)s easily outspent the (R)s in 2010, it just didn't make a lot of difference. I will also point out that the single most expensive gubernatorial campaign in CA history resulted in the guy with no money being elected.

I did know that. The relevant part of McCain-Feingold was a limit on corporate rather than individual spending. It didn't affect all spending by organizations though, just certain kinds of organizations.

You present corporate spending as though it were spending by the owners of corporations, which include middle class people who own mutual funds. Such persons still tend, weighted by their dollar ownership, to be much wealthier than the average American. Even so, there is little evidence that political spending by corporations is responsive to the political views of small shareholders. Rather, it is spending made at the direction of corporate officers who are fairly unresponsive, particularly in this arena, to many of the owners.

You're right that money isn't everything in politics. Some candidates, such as Giuliani in 2008 or Perry in 2012 spend a great deal of money while earning few votes indeed. However, money isn't nothing either. I continue to wish that it was more difficult rather than less to use money to influence politics.

It's certainly true that money sometimes benefits Democrats in politics. My impression is that it tends to benefit Republicans over Democrats but I certainly could be wrong. Again, though, my primary objection to the use of money in politics is that it takes power away from voters rather than from Democrats.

No, I present Citizens United specifically as spending by the middle class owners of the corporation. Election law requires anyone who gets together to advocate on an election issue to form a corporation. McCain Feingold then prohibited those citizens from mentioning a candidate by name during the period leading up to the election. I still don't understand why anyone thinks that is a good idea. There are states that do the same thing, and then make it all but impossible for citizens to actually get incorporated. Maybe the problem here is not that corporations can spend money, maybe it is that politicians do not want voters to be able to spend money.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is an excellent conservative progressive right wing position, and you got a conservative SCOTUS to support unlimited campaign funding.

Progressives support limiting donations because it is their moral position that donations and money are evil.

I would suggest their moral position is that people can buy favours....

You admit that it is a moral position? Because Starkey is still trying to redefine progressive statist in a way that it does not include him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is an excellent conservative progressive right wing position, and you got a conservative SCOTUS to support unlimited campaign funding.

Progressives support limiting donations because it is their moral position that donations and money are evil.

So, you don't speak for the right, but you do speak for "progressives"?

No, I am responding to a specific poster that defines progressives in a way that facilitates his attempt to prove he is a conservative. If you want to speak up and defend Starkey I will be happy to prove that you are as wrong as he is.

 

[Care4all]

I wonder how many liberal/progressives think that ending the Vietnam War is a bad thing. Imagine if George Soros could have given a billion dollars to Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich? Ask yourself who benefits most from campaign finance restrictions, incumbents, or the public.

Sheldon Adelson is supposedly a bad man. The gambling mogul gave $5 million to a Newt Gingrich-loving super PAC and this enabled Gingrich to maul Mitt Romney — a touch of opinion here — who had it coming anyway. Adelson is a good friend of Gingrich and a major player in Israeli politics. He owns a newspaper in Israel and supports politicians so far to the right I have to wonder if they are even Jewish. This is Sheldon Adelson, supposedly a bad man. But what about Howard Stein?

The late chairman of the Dreyfus Corp. was a wealthy man but, unlike Adelson, a liberal Democrat. Stein joined with some other rich men — including Martin Peretz, the one-time publisher of the New Republic; Stewart Mott, a GM heir; and Arnold Hiatt of Stride Rite Shoes — to provide about $1.5 million for Eugene McCarthy’s 1968 challenge to Lyndon Johnson. Stein and his colleagues did not raise this money in itsy-bitsy donations but by chipping in large amounts themselves. Peretz told me he kicked in $30,000. That was a huge amount of money at the time.

That sort of donation would now be illegal — unless it was given to a super PAC that swore not to coordinate with the candidate. And until quite recently, even that would have been illegal — the limit being something like $2,400. Many people bemoan that the limit is no more, asserting that elections are now up for sale, as if this was something new. They point to the Adelson contribution and unload invective on the poor right-wing gambling tycoon. I understand, but I do not agree.

Back in 1967, a small group of men gave McCarthy the wherewithal to challenge a sitting president of the United States. The money enabled McCarthy to swiftly set up a New Hampshire operation and — lo and behold — he got 42 percent of the popular vote, an astounding figure. Johnson was rocked. Four days later, Robert F. Kennedy, who at first had declined to do what McCarthy did, jumped in himself. By the end of March 1968, Johnson was on TV, announcing he would not seek a second term.

How political donations changed history - The Washington Post

but WHY should SO FEW PEOPLE have that much CONTROL over the elections of the candidates and their fate, whom we.... the average joe citizens are suppose to elect to represent us?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Progressives support limiting donations because it is their moral position that donations and money are evil.

So, you don't speak for the right, but you do speak for "progressives"?

No, I am responding to a specific poster that defines progressives in a way that facilitates his attempt to prove he is a conservative. If you want to speak up and defend Starkey I will be happy to prove that you are as wrong as he is.

I don't care about personal internet message board squabbles.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wonder how many liberal/progressives think that ending the Vietnam War is a bad thing. Imagine if George Soros could have given a billion dollars to Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich? Ask yourself who benefits most from campaign finance restrictions, incumbents, or the public.

Sheldon Adelson is supposedly a bad man. The gambling mogul gave $5 million to a Newt Gingrich-loving super PAC and this enabled Gingrich to maul Mitt Romney — a touch of opinion here — who had it coming anyway. Adelson is a good friend of Gingrich and a major player in Israeli politics. He owns a newspaper in Israel and supports politicians so far to the right I have to wonder if they are even Jewish. This is Sheldon Adelson, supposedly a bad man. But what about Howard Stein?

The late chairman of the Dreyfus Corp. was a wealthy man but, unlike Adelson, a liberal Democrat. Stein joined with some other rich men — including Martin Peretz, the one-time publisher of the New Republic; Stewart Mott, a GM heir; and Arnold Hiatt of Stride Rite Shoes — to provide about $1.5 million for Eugene McCarthy’s 1968 challenge to Lyndon Johnson. Stein and his colleagues did not raise this money in itsy-bitsy donations but by chipping in large amounts themselves. Peretz told me he kicked in $30,000. That was a huge amount of money at the time.

That sort of donation would now be illegal — unless it was given to a super PAC that swore not to coordinate with the candidate. And until quite recently, even that would have been illegal — the limit being something like $2,400. Many people bemoan that the limit is no more, asserting that elections are now up for sale, as if this was something new. They point to the Adelson contribution and unload invective on the poor right-wing gambling tycoon. I understand, but I do not agree.

Back in 1967, a small group of men gave McCarthy the wherewithal to challenge a sitting president of the United States. The money enabled McCarthy to swiftly set up a New Hampshire operation and — lo and behold — he got 42 percent of the popular vote, an astounding figure. Johnson was rocked. Four days later, Robert F. Kennedy, who at first had declined to do what McCarthy did, jumped in himself. By the end of March 1968, Johnson was on TV, announcing he would not seek a second term.

How political donations changed history - The Washington Post

but WHY should SO FEW PEOPLE have that much CONTROL over the elections of the candidates and their fate, whom we.... the average joe citizens are suppose to elect to represent us?

The electoral college gives states with high concentrations of urban population more power than rural states. It is supposed to be balanced by the fact that Senators represent their states.

If, on the other hand, you are talking about money, what makes you think restricting the size of donations helps ordinary citizens? The fact that politicians whose prime interest is getting elected all voted for the law should tell you who really benefits, if you are cynical enough.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, you don't speak for the right, but you do speak for "progressives"?

No, I am responding to a specific poster that defines progressives in a way that facilitates his attempt to prove he is a conservative. If you want to speak up and defend Starkey I will be happy to prove that you are as wrong as he is.

I don't care about personal internet message board squabbles.

Good.

 

[The Rabbi]

The problem with unlimited political donations isn't (just) that it advantages conservatives over liberals. It's that it advantages the rich over the poor. Allowing donations of this kind on either side gives more power to the dollar and less to the human being in deciding who will hold political office. While I am relieved that powerful financial interests don't give exclusively to Republicans, I still support tighter restrictions on political spending.

The author's choice of example is also quite weak. His best use of liberal donations is apparently one that set off an intraparty squabble that led to the election of President Nixon.

Ive never seen "advantaged" as a verb.

ANyway, politics is not rich vs poor. I would rather see unlimited contributions with full disclosure than any restrictions. Restrictions are first off probably unconstitutional. Second, they throw the advantage to the encumbent, which is really the issue. Finally, they discourage better candidates from running since the race becomes about who can run around bundling $500 donations vs who can present the best case.
As for rich vs poor, lower income people can band together and pool their money to challenge better-funded candidates. They can form a corporation to do so and limit liability. Liberals should thank G-d for Citizens United.

 

[The Rabbi]

I wonder how many liberal/progressives think that ending the Vietnam War is a bad thing. Imagine if George Soros could have given a billion dollars to Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich? Ask yourself who benefits most from campaign finance restrictions, incumbents, or the public.

Sheldon Adelson is supposedly a bad man. The gambling mogul gave $5 million to a Newt Gingrich-loving super PAC and this enabled Gingrich to maul Mitt Romney — a touch of opinion here — who had it coming anyway. Adelson is a good friend of Gingrich and a major player in Israeli politics. He owns a newspaper in Israel and supports politicians so far to the right I have to wonder if they are even Jewish. This is Sheldon Adelson, supposedly a bad man. But what about Howard Stein?

The late chairman of the Dreyfus Corp. was a wealthy man but, unlike Adelson, a liberal Democrat. Stein joined with some other rich men — including Martin Peretz, the one-time publisher of the New Republic; Stewart Mott, a GM heir; and Arnold Hiatt of Stride Rite Shoes — to provide about $1.5 million for Eugene McCarthy’s 1968 challenge to Lyndon Johnson. Stein and his colleagues did not raise this money in itsy-bitsy donations but by chipping in large amounts themselves. Peretz told me he kicked in $30,000. That was a huge amount of money at the time.

That sort of donation would now be illegal — unless it was given to a super PAC that swore not to coordinate with the candidate. And until quite recently, even that would have been illegal — the limit being something like $2,400. Many people bemoan that the limit is no more, asserting that elections are now up for sale, as if this was something new. They point to the Adelson contribution and unload invective on the poor right-wing gambling tycoon. I understand, but I do not agree.

Back in 1967, a small group of men gave McCarthy the wherewithal to challenge a sitting president of the United States. The money enabled McCarthy to swiftly set up a New Hampshire operation and — lo and behold — he got 42 percent of the popular vote, an astounding figure. Johnson was rocked. Four days later, Robert F. Kennedy, who at first had declined to do what McCarthy did, jumped in himself. By the end of March 1968, Johnson was on TV, announcing he would not seek a second term.

How political donations changed history - The Washington Post

but WHY should SO FEW PEOPLE have that much CONTROL over the elections of the candidates and their fate, whom we.... the average joe citizens are suppose to elect to represent us?

There is no issue of control. Those wanting to limit contributions are in favor of control.

 

[editec]

I wonder how many liberal/progressives think that ending the Vietnam War is a bad thing. Imagine if George Soros could have given a billion dollars to Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich? Ask yourself who benefits most from campaign finance restrictions, incumbents, or the public.

Sheldon Adelson is supposedly a bad man. The gambling mogul gave $5 million to a Newt Gingrich-loving super PAC and this enabled Gingrich to maul Mitt Romney — a touch of opinion here — who had it coming anyway. Adelson is a good friend of Gingrich and a major player in Israeli politics. He owns a newspaper in Israel and supports politicians so far to the right I have to wonder if they are even Jewish. This is Sheldon Adelson, supposedly a bad man. But what about Howard Stein?

The late chairman of the Dreyfus Corp. was a wealthy man but, unlike Adelson, a liberal Democrat. Stein joined with some other rich men — including Martin Peretz, the one-time publisher of the New Republic; Stewart Mott, a GM heir; and Arnold Hiatt of Stride Rite Shoes — to provide about $1.5 million for Eugene McCarthy’s 1968 challenge to Lyndon Johnson. Stein and his colleagues did not raise this money in itsy-bitsy donations but by chipping in large amounts themselves. Peretz told me he kicked in $30,000. That was a huge amount of money at the time.

That sort of donation would now be illegal — unless it was given to a super PAC that swore not to coordinate with the candidate. And until quite recently, even that would have been illegal — the limit being something like $2,400. Many people bemoan that the limit is no more, asserting that elections are now up for sale, as if this was something new. They point to the Adelson contribution and unload invective on the poor right-wing gambling tycoon. I understand, but I do not agree.

Back in 1967, a small group of men gave McCarthy the wherewithal to challenge a sitting president of the United States. The money enabled McCarthy to swiftly set up a New Hampshire operation and — lo and behold — he got 42 percent of the popular vote, an astounding figure. Johnson was rocked. Four days later, Robert F. Kennedy, who at first had declined to do what McCarthy did, jumped in himself. By the end of March 1968, Johnson was on TV, announcing he would not seek a second term.

How political donations changed history - The Washington Post

The Citzens United decision is disasterous for the democractic part of the democratic republic.

It definitely DOES serve the REPUBLIC part of our society, though.

But, based solely on the consitution, I can't see how the SCOTUS could have arrived at any other decision.

Limiting the amount of money that a private group spends on SPEECH (not on giving money to a candidate...that is something we can control) isn't really possible because of the 1st amendment.

 

[FA_Q2]

The problem with unlimited political donations isn't (just) that it advantages conservatives over liberals.

That, right there, is complete bunk and why this concept that CU is some RW plan a complete fallacy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is an excellent conservative progressive right wing position, and you got a conservative SCOTUS to support unlimited campaign funding.

Progressives support limiting donations because it is their moral position that donations and money are evil.

I would suggest their moral position is that people can buy favours....

Progressive liberals support limiting donations, Progressive conservatives support unlimited donations.