Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #476  
Old 04-24-2012, 02:32 AM
freemonkey's Avatar
freemonkey freemonkey is offline
professional left-winger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMCCLX
Images: 29
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Isn't part of the biggest problem with Citizens United the amounts given by some donors coupled with their not being required to disclose who they are/how much they gave?
__________________
http://www.peaceteam.net/bumper_stickers.php
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
seebs (04-24-2012), The Man (08-30-2015)
  #477  
Old 04-24-2012, 02:44 AM
seebs seebs is offline
God Made Me A Skeptic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: VMMCMLXVI
Images: 1
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by freemonkey View Post
Isn't part of the biggest problem with Citizens United the amounts given by some donors coupled with their not being required to disclose who they are/how much they gave?
Yeah. And for corporations, I definitely see this as Seriously Fucked Up. For people... that gets trickier. We have some history of people determining that the right to free political speech is strong enough that you are entitled to anonymity for it. See:

Justices Allow Unsigned Political Fliers - New York Times

Although note that this one covers specifically personal distribution of fliers -- not necessarily paid campaigning. Although time seems to have proven Scalia right -- the scope and limits of the right to anonymous political speech are going to be being debated for a while yet.

On the whole, I wouldn't object to mandatory disclosure of funding of political speech. If you want to be anonymous that badly, you can fund your own anonymous leaflets or web site.
__________________
Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open
See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware
Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together
Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Reply With Quote
  #478  
Old 04-24-2012, 02:51 AM
Clutch Munny's Avatar
Clutch Munny Clutch Munny is offline
Clutchenheimer
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMMXCII
Images: 1
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs View Post
If I wanted to live in China, I would live in fucking China.
and, circumcision.
__________________
Your very presence is making me itchy.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ChuckF (04-24-2012), chunksmediocrites (04-24-2012), Dingfod (05-12-2012), The Man (08-30-2015)
  #479  
Old 04-24-2012, 04:12 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMDCCCVI
Images: 11
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

I think disallowing corporations from donating is a good idea. I believe that corporations directing their employees to donate to a particular campaign is already illegal. So that would limit their influence. Corporations are people. But those people already have the right to make political donations, so I don't see the need for the corporation to be able to.

In combination with limits on the amount individuals can donate, I think then that political donations aren't a bad thing. Although I think the ceiling could be lower, in fact, since generally you have to be pretty well-to-do to be able to part with $2000 just for political donations. With a lower ceiling, then it's a measure of enthusiasm. The candidate with the most money has gotten lots of people excited, and a lot of people have donated, possibly a fair amount. In that case, high campaign spending isn't really something nefarious - it's a reflection of how popular the candidate is, rather than creating their popularity in itself. And that's what I think seebs is getting at.

I think there should definitely be some kind of restriction on the PACs though. Although I'm not sure of the best approach to that. It's obvious that the SuperPACs are basically just shadow campaigns that are "not coordinating" with the candidates but carrying out a lot of the functions of a campaign - except with their bankrolls being corporations, millionaires and billionaires who now have no restrictions on how much they can give.

Last edited by erimir; 04-24-2012 at 04:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
freemonkey (04-24-2012), LadyShea (04-24-2012), SR71 (04-24-2012), The Man (04-25-2012), Vivisectus (04-24-2012)
  #480  
Old 04-24-2012, 04:29 AM
seebs seebs is offline
God Made Me A Skeptic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: VMMCMLXVI
Images: 1
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Yeah. And I would not at all mind seeing that aspect of things reviewed or tweaked. I just really strongly object to any solution that involves telling people they cannot personally choose to support a political candidate monetarily, or get together with friends or like-minded people and support a candidate or cause. And maybe we really do need that, but we are very far from having exhausted other options, and I'd want to be pretty damn sure that there were no viable alternatives before agreeing that we should curtail the political speech of actual people.
__________________
Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open
See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware
Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together
Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Reply With Quote
  #481  
Old 04-24-2012, 04:58 AM
freemonkey's Avatar
freemonkey freemonkey is offline
professional left-winger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMCCLX
Images: 29
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

I don't think anyone was proposing telling people they cannot personally choose to support a political candidate monetarily, seebs. I think that the wingnuts are the ones who are saying that's what Nancy Pelosi is going to do.
__________________
http://www.peaceteam.net/bumper_stickers.php
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (04-25-2012)
  #482  
Old 04-24-2012, 05:18 AM
seebs seebs is offline
God Made Me A Skeptic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: VMMCMLXVI
Images: 1
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by freemonkey View Post
I don't think anyone was proposing telling people they cannot personally choose to support a political candidate monetarily, seebs.
Er. That is, in fact, exactly what I was responding to:

Quote:
"People" could still donate to the election pool (to be equally distributed) all they want, if they truly are donating because they care so hard about the democratic process. Also, "people" could still speak freely all they want when speech no longer includes campaign contributions.
That is a proposed policy that it be absolutely prohibited for individuals to give money to a specific candidate instead of others, with an absolute mandate that each person must fund all candidates (if they pay any taxes).

That's what I was objecting to, and that's pretty much all I was objecting to. If PACs, corporate campaign donations, and the like all disappeared, I don't think I'd shed a tear.

Quote:
I think that the wingnuts are the ones who are saying that's what Nancy Pelosi is going to do.
Yes. And that's obviously untrue, but someone did in fact propose exactly that; all campaign funds to be "equally distributed", and an absolute bar to private contributions to specific campaigns.
__________________
Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open
See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware
Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together
Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Reply With Quote
  #483  
Old 04-24-2012, 06:17 AM
freemonkey's Avatar
freemonkey freemonkey is offline
professional left-winger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMCCLX
Images: 29
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs View Post
but someone did in fact propose exactly that; all campaign funds to be "equally distributed", and an absolute bar to private contributions to specific campaigns.
When I said I didn't think "anyone was proposing this" I meant that I didn't think it was a serious proposal by Congressional Democrats. My apologies for my lazy wording.
__________________
http://www.peaceteam.net/bumper_stickers.php
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
seebs (04-24-2012), SR71 (04-24-2012), The Man (08-30-2015)
  #484  
Old 04-24-2012, 06:22 AM
seebs seebs is offline
God Made Me A Skeptic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: VMMCMLXVI
Images: 1
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by freemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs View Post
but someone did in fact propose exactly that; all campaign funds to be "equally distributed", and an absolute bar to private contributions to specific campaigns.
When I said I didn't think "anyone was proposing this" I meant that I didn't think it was a serious proposal by Congressional Democrats.
I would guess it isn't -- in no small part because it could be the bestest idea ever and I would be surprised if many people who had gotten elected under the current system wanted it. :)

And thanks for the clarification, that makes more sense in context.
__________________
Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open
See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware
Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together
Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Reply With Quote
  #485  
Old 04-24-2012, 09:51 AM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Ahh, but that wouldn't work if all campaign finance had to come from the government -- because you couldn't do anything to get those supporters, or even make them aware of you!
Not all campaign finance has to go that way. There are lots of things that can be done privately, or through volunteers. It is merely national and regional TV advertising that is limited this way. You can send flyers privately if you want, you can organize volunteers to pound the pavement, you can hang up posters. Ideally I think this should also be done on an equal basis, but this is currently not the case.

Oddly enough, it is the prohibitive cost of campaigning in YOUR system that keeps the entry requirements so high that few regular people can contemplate attempting it without special backing. The idea behind this is to create a slightly more level playing field by ensuring that someone with a small number of very wealthy supporters cannot drown out a proponent who has more supporters but less funding.

Quote:
"That have reached a certain level of support." Without any funding. Yeah, not buying that one.
I realize it does not appeal to you for some reason I do not quite understand, but it is far from impossible. In fact, it seems to happen all the time in the Netherlands without any funding at all, by people first campaigning on a local level, then provincial level, and finally national level. We now have a Party For The Animals (god help us all), a Party Of The Future (for advanced weirdos) and we even used to have a Party Party, although I think we should look into what happened there, because it's founder is privately wealthy and we are not exactly sure how he got the required signatures.

These people are allowed to provide their own funding to send flyers or send people door to door or such things. But where party political broadcasting is concerned, they are limited and get the same time as everyone else. And no robo-phonecalls are used at all, by the way.

Quote:
Furthermore, once you've established that they get to say "oh, wait, you aren't allowed to campaign
BEEP - knee jerk stuff, and a misrepresentation. They do not get to say that. Remember the bit about where everyone gets their time, once they reach the threshold? You should see the loons and objectionable freaks we gave airtime to. Anyone can organize the required signatures with a dedicated band of volunteers. And again I have to point out that currently, people with capital are actually deciding this. Not the populace.

Quote:
", do you seriously think it will stay unequivocally limited to a given number of supporters?
Yes, I do, because that is how I have seen it work.

Quote:
Because I don't believe that for a minute. They'd start, of course, with terrorists and enemies of the state, because obviously they shouldn't be qualified. Maybe felons. Maybe.... hmm, well, drug offenders, right?
That is separate to the issue we are discussing. You are just dragging that in because you do not like this idea. I do not understand why not, and what the exact nature of your objection is, except for a deep-seated distrust of anything to do with the government. Sure, people could make this system unfair again by messing with it. That does not mean the system is not better than what you have. I could also include a rule to say that red-headed people cannot drive cars. Does that make the licensing system unfair?

Hey, I could say "I don't buy that for a second, because once you have a system where campaigning cost is prohibitive, the only people able to launch a successful campaign will be beholden to very wealthy funders and before you know it you only have two parties and both of them serve the people who pay their bills!!!"

Oh, wait, that already happened.

Quote:
I'm not denying that the current system is bad; I'm just saying that letting the government say "you aren't allowed to run a meaningful campaign" is worse.
You are becoming a bit repetitive, equating "more equal campaigning opportunity based on very simple entry requirements" to "The Government deciding who can run a meaningful campaign". Talk about a soundbite. This is simply not the case: we are merely making sure that ideas are competing, not wallets, and that your politicians are no longer beholden to the people who provide their massive funding. Trying to keep private business and public politics separate, just a little bit.

It is not perfect by any stretch, and it may be hard to implement in your culture where politics, business and the media are so intertwined it is sometimes hard to tell them apart. But it would make it more fair, and open the door to a more varied party political landscape.

I do understand some of where you are coming from. In a country as massive as the US, it is easy to become alienated from national politics and to feel that you are ruled by technocrats. But it is this ability of wealthy groups to buy influence through campaign donations that actually adds to that and keeps it that way.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, because uncritically accepting a meaningless sound bite which presumes that "the government" is somehow more truly the public than "the actual members of the public" is totally the height of rationality
Bit of a cheapshot,
Well, yes. It was a response to an allegation that I was being "not even rational" on an issue when it's pretty clear that there is thinking going on. Disagreeing with my premises does not make me irrational. I could be wrong on this issue, but "not even rational" is not a reasonable way to dispute the claims.
Not really. You can have arguments that are more rational and arguments that are based more on an emotional reaction and less on rational thinking. I think your distrust of regulation by a national government has more emotional content than rational content, as it seems to automatically dismiss any regulation, even if this regulation makes for a fairer system, without bringing up support for your decision that deals with the proposal itself. Your two objections seem to be: 1: It would be too hard to get to the base level of support required. But this is simply not the case, as is demonstrated by the fact that there are countries where this happens all the time.

2: The government would then immediately corrupt the system. This does not address the actual proposal itself but merely expresses your distrust of anything to do with your federal government.

Both of these sound more like the kind of rationalization you come up with AFTER you have decided against an idea.

Quote:
That's not necessary for my claim to hold. My claim is only that right now the public, both as individuals and as groups, get to decide which campaigns they want to support. Claiming that it would somehow give the public more of a say to prohibit them from doing so is not plausible to me. The government is not the public. It represents us, and is in some cases selected by us, but it isn't actually us.
Oh but it is necessary if your claim is that the current system is preferable. Because it leaves you with the problem that a small handful of wealthy backers can drown out a far larger group that has far less to spend. You can simply unilaterally state you do not find it plausible without supporting that further and then go off on a tangent about the difference between the government and the people, but that hardly deals with the issue at hand.

Quote:
Yes, the current system is bad. There are lots of things that we could do to fix it. We could change the $3 tax declaration for the federal election fund to an opt-out ("check this box to NOT contribute $3") which would on average increase the fund by about $2.80 or so per taxpayer who currently doesn't check the box, because people do the default most of the time. (Same reason organ-donor status should be opt-out.) We could thus increase the minimum amount of funding people have available even if they can't get much buy-in.
I like that idea.

Quote:
We could massively limit corporations in how much they can contribute, though doing this effectively might take some effort. That would clean things up a bit. We could impose transparency rules on corporations, at least. (I'm not so comfortable with transparency rules about individual citizens and their political contributions; this country exists because people were able to anonymously engage in politicking.)
I like this one also.

Quote:
We could do lots of things that do not take away the right of individual citizens to cooperate to promote candidates or views they feel strongly about. And until we have actually tried every last one of these things, I am pretty strongly opposed to jumping straight to the essential legal theory that so many faux democracies use to pretend to be actually open to political aspirations.
Which faux democracies? This is a bit on the knee-jerk side again. We cannot create a fair playing field because that would involve any regulation (even fair regulation) or else we are CHINA!!!!

I think the Netherlands are by far more democratic that the United States. There is a bigger separation between business and politics. There are many different parties with fairly clear agendas for you to vote on, from the local to the national level. Unfortunately, several of them promote rather disgusting ideas, sometimes quite obviously racist even. This is the price of democracy: you also get opinions that you hate. And again - simple entry requirements do not Government mind control make.

Quote:
Right now, I've at least seen proof that our current system can occasionally yield genuinely surprising results where a "minor" candidate wins. I think it could be improved a lot, but individual people have their basic free speech rights and it seems to occasionally work.
It could be far better. A more vibrant and varied political landscape IS possible!

Quote:
Honestly, a lot of this may be changing faster than governments move anyway. The effectiveness of crowdsourced funding and relatively cheap-to-free information channels is booming.
True! Internet democracy is going to be interesting, because it allows anyone to create content and reach people relatively cheaply, thus lowering the bar.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (04-24-2012), freemonkey (04-24-2012), LadyShea (04-24-2012), livius drusus (04-24-2012), The Man (04-24-2012)
  #486  
Old 04-24-2012, 01:03 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Oddly enough, it is the prohibitive cost of campaigning in YOUR system that keeps the entry requirements so high that few regular people can contemplate attempting it without special backing. The idea behind this is to create a slightly more level playing field by ensuring that someone with a small number of very wealthy supporters cannot drown out a proponent who has more supporters but less funding.
This. My "proposal" (ie: half baked idea, I haven't considered every angle) was offered because I think a level playing field would increase public participation in the process, and would increase actual speech by people, and would allow more people to run for office giving us more choices.

My state has a single check box allowing for straight D or R party voting. One box and you are done. No need to research the candidates at all. Pick a party. That's a problem, to me, because independents and those with new ideas have to choose who to align with and then tow the party line to maintain office. In case you haven't noticed the two party system has caused our government to be very dysfunctional. Nobody is representing the people anymore, they are courting the big money for the next election the minute they get into office, they are working to pay back their "investors" that got them elected in the first place.

This is not free speech, to me, this is big business doing what it does and affecting all of us. It's fucked up and it sucks.

If not public campaign funding, what else might level things out so that more people could afford to run, and more parties could be formed and have an equal chance of getting the word out?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (04-24-2012), Crumb (04-24-2012), freemonkey (04-24-2012), livius drusus (04-24-2012), SR71 (04-24-2012), The Man (08-30-2015), Watser? (04-24-2012), Ymir's blood (04-24-2012)
  #487  
Old 04-24-2012, 02:39 PM
Kael's Avatar
Kael Kael is offline
the internet says I'm right
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Western U.S.
Gender: Male
Posts: VMCDXLV
Blog Entries: 11
Images: 23
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Donation limits are frequently opposed on the grounds that it costs so much to run a campaign these days, so lowering the cap on individual and/or corporate donations would sharply limit a candidate's ability to run. Most of the ideas I've heard and liked are ones that combine significantly lower caps on individual and corporate donations with a kind of fund match from public money, so that a candidate can still get the raw cash needed without having to court big-ticket backers.

I wouldn't support a plan that said no private donations full stop, though.
__________________
For Science!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-24-2012), The Man (08-30-2015)
  #488  
Old 04-24-2012, 05:25 PM
seebs seebs is offline
God Made Me A Skeptic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: VMMCMLXVI
Images: 1
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Ahh, but that wouldn't work if all campaign finance had to come from the government -- because you couldn't do anything to get those supporters, or even make them aware of you!
Not all campaign finance has to go that way. There are lots of things that can be done privately, or through volunteers. It is merely national and regional TV advertising that is limited this way. You can send flyers privately if you want, you can organize volunteers to pound the pavement, you can hang up posters. Ideally I think this should also be done on an equal basis, but this is currently not the case.
Again, I'm talking about the proposal of a complete ban on private monetary contributions, not a limitation of only some kinds of spending.

Quote:
Oddly enough, it is the prohibitive cost of campaigning in YOUR system
The current system is not "my" system, and I am not arguing that it is a particularly good system. I am arguing exactly one thing:

No law prohibiting individual citizens from donating money to political campaigns or spending their money on political causes is acceptable to me. I will oppose all such laws, period, as a simple matter of principle. That is a fundamental liberty I am not willing to compromise on.

I am totally in favor of massive rethinking of the way we run elections, but I will not abandon the belief that people should have the right to spend their money promoting their own views.

Quote:
I realize it does not appeal to you for some reason I do not quite understand, but it is far from impossible. In fact, it seems to happen all the time in the Netherlands without any funding at all, by people first campaigning on a local level, then provincial level, and finally national level.
I would be interested in seeing how they are arranging a "national level" campaign without any funding at all...

Quote:
These people are allowed to provide their own funding to send flyers or send people door to door or such things.
This concerns me a little. It seems basically sane at first glance, but I am a bit worried about it. Here's why:

Say a friend of mine is genuinely flat broke, but I think she'd make an amazing politician. Under the "no private contributions EVAAAR" system, unless she spends a ton of her own time walking around collecting signatures, nothing can ever happen. Under a system in which it is permissible for other people to contribute, her friends who have a bit of money can chip in to hire people to go around seeking signatures or the like.

Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, once you've established that they get to say "oh, wait, you aren't allowed to campaign
BEEP - knee jerk stuff, and a misrepresentation. They do not get to say that. Remember the bit about where everyone gets their time, once they reach the threshold?
Yeah, if they reach the threshold. And so far as I can tell, you have already said that you are talking about a substantially more permissive system than the one I am objecting to.

Quote:
And again I have to point out that currently, people with capital are actually deciding this. Not the populace.
The people with capital are at least some portion of the populace, and if you look at donation size counts, many candidates have a ton of support from people who are probably not all that rich. Enough to at least bootstrap a campaign to the point where a hypothetically much-expanded campaign funding source would be available to them.

Quote:
That is separate to the issue we are discussing. You are just dragging that in because you do not like this idea. I do not understand why not
Because I consider the rights of free speech on political issues and free assembly to be foundational principles. It does not matter how cool the excuse is: A law saying "you may not use your personal resources to advocate for your personal political views" is unacceptable to me.

Quote:
Hey, I could say "I don't buy that for a second, because once you have a system where campaigning cost is prohibitive, the only people able to launch a successful campaign will be beholden to very wealthy funders and before you know it you only have two parties and both of them serve the people who pay their bills!!!"

Oh, wait, that already happened.
Governor Ventura says "hi". :)

Also, the fallacy of the excluded middle remains fallacious. I am not opposing all possible systems other than ours, and would consider many of them vast improvements.

I am opposing only the blanket ban on (personal) private spending on political campaigns.

Quote:
Not really. You can have arguments that are more rational and arguments that are based more on an emotional reaction and less on rational thinking. I think your distrust of regulation by a national government has more emotional content than rational content,
No. I emotionally dislike a lot of the conclusions my position on free speech leads to, but I have gradually become convinced that liberties have to be defended even when they seem problematic, or it is too easy to erode them in ways that ultimately destroy them.

ETA: I would certainly agree to "dogmatic", but not to "emotional rather than rational". I spent a lot of time thinking and eventually concluded that foundational liberties should be defended dogmatically, because this protects them against the sorts of "oh, but that's totally worth it" arguments that sucker people into giving up their liberties.

Quote:
as it seems to automatically dismiss any regulation
No, only regulation which prevents individual people from choosing to spend money on political speech.

Quote:
But this is simply not the case, as is demonstrated by the fact that there are countries where this happens all the time.
But apparently even in those countries it is permissible to spend some amount of money on at least some aspect of political campaigns.

Quote:
This does not address the actual proposal itself but merely expresses your distrust of anything to do with your federal government.
To quote: "But this is simply not the case, as is demonstrated by the fact that there are countries where this happens all the time." And I didn't say "immediately". It can take decades for us to get around to corrupting stuff! :)

(Various points of relative agreement snipped.)

Quote:
True! Internet democracy is going to be interesting, because it allows anyone to create content and reach people relatively cheaply, thus lowering the bar.
Yes. And this, to some extent, magnifies the importance of allowing individuals to spend money promoting campaigns they approve of -- because it levels the playing field substantially. Doesn't eliminate imbalance, by any means, but it creates a situation in which "lots of people like it" can matter more than "I have a million dollars to spend promoting it". But if we have a law where I am prohibited from spending my money supporting a campaign I like... whoops. Bye bye, millions of voices all yammering away. Welcome to the smallish set of approved campaigns.

But yes, it's certainly possible to massively reform and improve this system. The only regulations I oppose are those which prevent individual humans from spending their money on political campaigning, whether individually or cooperatively. You wanna tell corporations to STFU? You have my vote. And my sword. :P
__________________
Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open
See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware
Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together
Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Reply With Quote
  #489  
Old 04-24-2012, 05:27 PM
seebs seebs is offline
God Made Me A Skeptic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: VMMCMLXVI
Images: 1
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael View Post
Donation limits are frequently opposed on the grounds that it costs so much to run a campaign these days, so lowering the cap on individual and/or corporate donations would sharply limit a candidate's ability to run. Most of the ideas I've heard and liked are ones that combine significantly lower caps on individual and corporate donations with a kind of fund match from public money, so that a candidate can still get the raw cash needed without having to court big-ticket backers.

I wouldn't support a plan that said no private donations full stop, though.
I would be fine with a $0 cap on corporate donations, and actually prefer it to any higher cap. I am less comfortable with a cap on private donations, just because it is getting close to restricting the freedom of speech. Note that the ban is on abridging it, not just on eliminating it.
__________________
Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open
See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware
Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together
Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Reply With Quote
  #490  
Old 04-24-2012, 05:49 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Say a friend of mine is genuinely flat broke, but I think she'd make an amazing politician. Under the "no private contributions EVAAAR" system, unless she spends a ton of her own time walking around collecting signatures, nothing can ever happen. Under a system in which it is permissible for other people to contribute, her friends who have a bit of money can chip in to hire people to go around seeking signatures or the like.
Quote:
you may not use your personal resources to advocate for your personal political views
In my half baked idea, you could spend your own money doing whatever you want to promote the candidate you want to see in office or for any causes as you see fit, you simply couldn't give it to the candidate to spend or coordinate directly with the candidate. No "I am this candidate and I approve this message"...just people speaking their mind on their own dime.

Free speech right here, that I think should be totally allowed and encouraged, by a corporation in cooperation with organized citizens and businesses Get the Dough Out!,

Last edited by LadyShea; 04-24-2012 at 06:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (08-30-2015)
  #491  
Old 04-24-2012, 06:29 PM
Clutch Munny's Avatar
Clutch Munny Clutch Munny is offline
Clutchenheimer
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMMXCII
Images: 1
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
There are lots of things that can be done privately, or through volunteers... you can organize volunteers to pound the pavement
Again, I'm talking about the proposal of a complete ban on private monetary contributions, not a limitation of only some kinds of spending...

I am arguing exactly one thing:

No law prohibiting individual citizens from donating money to political campaigns or spending their money on political causes is acceptable to me. I will oppose all such laws, period, as a simple matter of principle. That is a fundamental liberty I am not willing to compromise on.

...

Say a friend of mine is genuinely flat broke, but I think she'd make an amazing politician. Under the "no private contributions EVAAAR" system, unless she spends a ton of her own time walking around collecting signatures, nothing can ever happen.
So you think she's amaaaaazing, but you won't collect signatures for her? And you're the only person in the world who thinks this about her? Or other people also think it, but they too can't be fucked to go door-to-door for her? Why, only money could be effective here! Without money nothing can ever happen! My daughter wants to volunteer at the homeless shelter; I'll be sure to tell her to donate $20 instead -- otherwise nothing can ever happen.

Or, wait. No. The claim that only money could be effective is obviously false.

There's something pathologically American about the hysterical invocation of liberty multiplied by the monetarization of any notion of effective individual action or value, to generate a system demonstrably certain to limit liberty, pervert value, and make effective actions impossible at the individual level.

But, liberty! And, circumcision!
__________________
Your very presence is making me itchy.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (04-24-2012), freemonkey (04-24-2012), Janet (04-25-2012), Kael (04-24-2012), LadyShea (04-24-2012), livius drusus (04-24-2012), The Man (04-25-2012), Watser? (04-24-2012)
  #492  
Old 04-24-2012, 07:04 PM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VCCXXX
Images: 299
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Ahh, but that wouldn't work if all campaign finance had to come from the government -- because you couldn't do anything to get those supporters, or even make them aware of you!
Not all campaign finance has to go that way. There are lots of things that can be done privately, or through volunteers. It is merely national and regional TV advertising that is limited this way. You can send flyers privately if you want, you can organize volunteers to pound the pavement, you can hang up posters. Ideally I think this should also be done on an equal basis, but this is currently not the case.
Again, I'm talking about the proposal of a complete ban on private monetary contributions, not a limitation of only some kinds of spending.

Quote:
Oddly enough, it is the prohibitive cost of campaigning in YOUR system
The current system is not "my" system, and I am not arguing that it is a particularly good system. I am arguing exactly one thing:

No law prohibiting individual citizens from donating money to political campaigns or spending their money on political causes is acceptable to me. I will oppose all such laws, period, as a simple matter of principle. That is a fundamental liberty I am not willing to compromise on.

I am totally in favor of massive rethinking of the way we run elections, but I will not abandon the belief that people should have the right to spend their money promoting their own views.
Federal Elections Commission: A Citizen's Guide
Quote:
Contribution Limits
An individual may give a maximum of:

•$2,500 per election to a Federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee.2 Notice that the limit applies separately to each election. Primaries, runoffs and general elections are considered separate elections.
•$5,000 per calendar year to a PAC. This limit applies to a PAC (political action committee) that supports Federal candidates. (PACs are neither party committees nor candidate committees. Some PACs are sponsored by corporations and unions--trade, industry and labor PACs. Other PACs, often ideological, do not have a corporate or labor sponsor and are therefore called nonconnected PACs.) PACs use your contributions to make their own contributions to Federal candidates and to fund other election-related activities.
•$10,000 per calendar year to a State or local party committee. A State party committee shares its limits with local party committees in that state unless a local committee's independence can be demonstrated.
•$30,800 per calendar year to a national party committee. This limit applies separately to a party's national committee, House campaign committee and Senate campaign committee.
•$117,000 total biennial limit. This biennial limit places a ceiling on your total contributions, as explained below.
•$100 in currency (cash) to any political committee. (Anonymous cash contributions may not exceed $50.) Contributions exceeding $100 must be made by check, money order or other written instrument.
$117,000 Biennial Limit
You have a biennial (two year) limit of $117,000 on your total contributions to Federal candidates and Federal political committees combined. Of the $117,000, an individual may contribute no more than $46,200 to candidates and no more than $70,800 to all PACs and parties (no more than $46,200 of the $70,800 may be given to committees that are not national party committees).

Presidential Campaigns
The contribution limits work a little differently for Presidential campaigns. In the case of a Presidential candidate running in various State primaries, you may contribute up to $2,500 for the entire primary campaign period--not $2,500 for each State primary in which the candidate runs.
Do you percieve these rules as limiting each (wealthy) citizen's "right to spend money promoting their own views?"
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (04-25-2012)
  #493  
Old 04-24-2012, 07:06 PM
seebs seebs is offline
God Made Me A Skeptic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: VMMCMLXVI
Images: 1
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clutch Munny View Post
So you think she's amaaaaazing, but you won't collect signatures for her?
So I can't contribute even a buck to her to hire people to go door-to-door, but I can go door-to-door myself? There's a problem with that, see. I'm autistic. The idea of trying to approach a ton of strangers and talk to them is way, way, outside what I am able to manage for pretty much any goal, no matter how important it is to me. I might be able to talk to a few strangers, but I'm on the pretty high-functioning end as such go; some of my friends would be absolutely incapable of doing even one.

Boy, I really like the idea that instead of, say, doing the most productive things I can with my time, and using the money to advance my goals, I should be totally prohibited from pursuing my political goals by any means but going out and doing it myself.

So let's think about the wonders of this "may never contribute even a penny or spend it on someone's campaign, but may go door-to-door" thing. Could my mom do it? Oh, wait, she's got a walker and literally can't ring our doorbell because it is up stairs. (The stairs predate the walker by about fifty years.) So she could not come here and tell us about a candidate she likes. Oh, well. People who can't walk aren't entitled to try to obtain signatures; they are not healthy members of society, and thus don't count. How about my friend with the severe social anxieties? Nah, not entitled to political participation.

You're totally right that there are things other than money, but many of those things are not available to some people. You prevent people from spending money on advancing their goals, you are substantially restricting their ability to pursue those goals. In particular, for people who have specialized skills, you are massively restricting their ability to pursue those goals efficiently. Money is a really good proxy for basically everything, and in particular, it lets us convert one kind of effort (I can make computers to things real good!) into another (walking around talking to people).

So, yeah, nice snide remarks and straw men, but really, there are sound reasons for which telling people they can do things directly but not hire someone to do those things can be pretty seriously problematic and restrict speech -- and in particular, does so in a way that disproportionately impacts some groups, such as people with disabilities.

ETA: Seriously? You're plenty smart that it should be instantly obvious to you that, no, not everyone can go door-to-door. And that a policy under which the only way to help start a campaign effectively is to go door-to-door excludes these people. And you can't possibly think that I believe that money is the only way people do things, what with all the time I spend doing things by not spending money on them. It's just that there are a whole lot of problems which are easily solved by money, and vary from difficult to impossible to solve without spending money. My friend is poor and needs to see a doctor. I should (1) pay for her visit (2) drop my career, go to medical school, become a doctor, and then have a look at her problem. SHEESH.
__________________
Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open
See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware
Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together
Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Reply With Quote
  #494  
Old 04-24-2012, 07:08 PM
seebs seebs is offline
God Made Me A Skeptic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: VMMCMLXVI
Images: 1
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites View Post
Do you percieve these rules as limiting each (wealthy) citizen's "right to spend money promoting their own views?"
Yes, and I am not super happy about them. But there is a huge difference between "capped at values that are more than the vast majority of people could afford to spend" and "capped at $0". I am ambivalent about limits on spending, but I basically see the need to keep people from utterly dominating discourse by being stupidly wealthy.
__________________
Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open
See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware
Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together
Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Reply With Quote
  #495  
Old 04-24-2012, 07:17 PM
Clutch Munny's Avatar
Clutch Munny Clutch Munny is offline
Clutchenheimer
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMMXCII
Images: 1
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Some people don't have full mobility, this is true.

And some don't have money.

My dad can't climb stairs, either, as it turns out. But he can still use a telephone. But wait! Some people can't use the phone either! But they can still email. But wait! Some people can't email, either.

In sum, public-only base funding harms liberty, because somewhere there's a person with locked-in syndrome who has spare money, so China!
__________________
Your very presence is making me itchy.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (04-25-2012)
  #496  
Old 04-24-2012, 07:21 PM
Iacchus's Avatar
Iacchus Iacchus is offline
Flipper 11/11
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCXXXVI
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clutch Munny View Post
Or other people also think it, but they too can't be fucked to go door-to-door for her?
Unless of course it were consensual. Then you'd have to call it something else.
__________________
Death (and living) is all in our heads. It is a creation of our own imagination. So, maybe we just "imagine" that we die? :prettycolors:

Like to download a copy of my book, The Advent of Dionysus? . . . It's free! :whup:
Reply With Quote
  #497  
Old 04-24-2012, 07:23 PM
Clutch Munny's Avatar
Clutch Munny Clutch Munny is offline
Clutchenheimer
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMMXCII
Images: 1
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs View Post
Seriously? You're plenty smart that it should be instantly obvious to you that, no, not everyone can go door-to-door. And that a policy under which the only way to help start a campaign effectively is to go door-to-door excludes these people.
So "nothing can ever happen" means "everything necessary can nearly always happen, but there is a very small class of problematic cases that would have to be finessed by ancillary rules about accessibility by the disabled"?

Huh.

And "SHEESH" means, what, "Sorry"?
__________________
Your very presence is making me itchy.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (08-30-2015)
  #498  
Old 04-24-2012, 07:34 PM
seebs seebs is offline
God Made Me A Skeptic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: VMMCMLXVI
Images: 1
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clutch Munny View Post
Some people don't have full mobility, this is true.

And some don't have money.

My dad can't climb stairs, either, as it turns out. But he can still use a telephone. But wait! Some people can't use the phone either! But they can still email. But wait! Some people can't email, either.

In sum, public-only base funding harms liberty, because somewhere there's a person with locked-in syndrome who has spare money, so China!
Yeah, because it is totally ridiculous to compare government determination of who may campaign to government determination of who may campaign.

I am not even sure what distinction you are making between "funding" and "base funding".

But yeah, I get it. Argumentation isn't at issue here; all that's at issue is mocking any suggestion that maybe the right to choose to support a candidate you like by giving them money might be part of our Constitution for a reason.
__________________
Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open
See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware
Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together
Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Reply With Quote
  #499  
Old 04-24-2012, 07:50 PM
seebs seebs is offline
God Made Me A Skeptic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: VMMCMLXVI
Images: 1
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clutch Munny View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs View Post
Seriously? You're plenty smart that it should be instantly obvious to you that, no, not everyone can go door-to-door. And that a policy under which the only way to help start a campaign effectively is to go door-to-door excludes these people.
So "nothing can ever happen" means "everything necessary can nearly always happen, but there is a very small class of problematic cases that would have to be finessed by ancillary rules about accessibility by the disabled"?
No. It means "in reality, with actual people and their actual jobs and lives, many people can afford money but not time, and telling them they can spend only time, never money, is destructive of our political discourse".

Quote:
And "SHEESH" means, what, "Sorry"?
No, it means I seriously have a hard time believing you are advancing this as an argument.

I know people who have to do into multi-day panics of effort to deal with the risk of losing $16/month in food stamp coverage. And even they can more easily contribute five or ten bucks to help a campaign than they can contribute substantial personal time to it. I cannot believe that you seriously think that there is no harm to people in preventing them from spending money to pursure their goals on the grounds that most of them could probably pursue the goal without spending money, albeit at a massive reduction in efficiency.

We have low enough political involvement and participation already. If you make it so that supporting a campaign must involve commitments of time, which almost everyone is short of, instead of money, which most people can spare at least a little of, you have made that involvement even harder.

This really is a very simple free speech issue.

I am all for public funding of campaigns. I would not mind if the bulk of campaign funding came from a public fund, even. I would love to see public funding increased, and corporate donations eliminated, so that campaigns are more on level ground, and more likely to reflect personal rather than corporate goals.

But I am absolutely convinced that the option of choosing to fund a campaign rather than participating directly is a very clear example of protected first amendment speech, and that it should not be taken away. Caps so that billionaires aren't a billion times louder than poorer people? I can see that.

But once you say "you need a note from your doctor before you can give even five bucks to help a campaign you believe in", you have Gone Too Far. Any such policy will necessarily exclude at least some people, and I am not okay with that, because I'm pretty much not okay with excluding anyone at all from meaningful participation in the process.

How about this. What if we, before we completely banned people from supporting candidates financially, tried the dozen or so obvious major fixes which don't require us to throw out the idea of protected political expression, and see whether they make a difference? You know, just a crazy thought.

I know, it feels better to really put it to those rich fat cats and also the disabled people who outnumber them something like ten to one. And then "finesse" that with "ancillary rules" which will cover a bunch of the disabled people but not all of them and some of them aren't even functional enough to jump through the hoops it takes to get legal certification that they're disabled.

But really, the corporate donation problems, and the indirect effects of PACs and the like, strike me as several orders of magnitude larger than the problem of individual people sending money to campaigns.

I think this issue is sort of turning into the abortion debate, where it is prohibited by law to hold any position other than:
1. It's okay to kill the baby as long as it's not totally out of the birth canal yet.
2. It is criminally evil to even think about not having sex when fertile, because you might be killing a baby before it was even conceived.

It really seems like there ought to be some kind of position other than:
1. Absolutely no financial contributions to specific campaigns by anyone, except maybe if they can prove they can't spend hours going door-to-door.
2. Why don't we just let Disney write the electoral commission a check to save paperwork?
__________________
Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open
See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware
Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together
Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Reply With Quote
  #500  
Old 04-24-2012, 08:05 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
maybe the right to choose to support a candidate you like by giving them money might be part of our Constitution for a reason
Article and section of the Constitution you are referring to please? Do you think the founding fathers equated speech with money? If so, what led you to think that?

Readings - The Constitution And Campaign Finance - A Legal Movement For Change | Washington's Other Scandal | FRONTLINE | PBS

Quote:
[In Bullock v. Carter] Chief Justice Warren Burger, writing for the Court, stated that the primary is part of the democratic process and that "it seems appropriate that a primary system designed to give the voters some influence at the nominating stage should spread the cost among all the voters in an attempt to distribute the influence without regard to wealth." Given the many functions that government pays for, Burger wrote, "it is difficult to single out any of a higher order than the conduct of elections at all levels to bring forth those persons desired by their fellow citizens to govern."
Quote:
It presents an increased danger of actual corruption as large contributors dominate the financing of public election campaigns. It places enormous time pressures on officeholders running for re-election, interfering with their ability to carry out their governing duties. It enables candidates with wealth or access to wealth to drown out the voices of lesser-funded candidates and their supporters. It violates the promise of political equality.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
erimir (04-24-2012), Kael (04-24-2012), The Man (04-25-2012)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.20937 seconds with 14 queries