Campaign Finance in the US.

[Sphere]

Back in 2002 a big elephant in the legislative room was federal campaign finance. Members from both sides of the aisle were worried about the amount of soft money contributions to candidates, but also by the rapid growth and spending of outside advocacy groups which can operate without the more stringent rules put on actual candidates. And not in the big presidential elections, but in the small congressional elections were political spending was exploding. The result was a bipartisan campaign reform act.

However a great deal of the act was subsequently cut down in Supreme Court cases. The shorthand result is that constitutionally corporations/unions etc. are people and money is speech.

Justice Stevens dissent for those interested

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United may be required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.

In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.

...The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution. Before turning to the question whether to overrule Austin and part of McConnell, it is important to explain why the Court should not be deciding that question.

Fast forward to 2012 and Congresses approval rating hovers around 12% and when polled only 28% of the electorate disagree's with the idea that congress is corrupt. None of this should be surprising.

What is surprising is why it is not getting more play in an election year. Granted, the PAC's are getting lambasted, but only in a partisan way (Republicans vs. MoveOn, Unions etc. Democrats vs. Move America Forward, Focus on the Family etc.). While PAC's like Solar Energy Industries Association, or Goldman Sachs PAC, i.e what I would call the real problem, are left untouched.

Here's a talk by Lawrence Lessig on the subject. He has very specific examples of how Congress behaves in light of the fund raising realities of our times. Just one example, Reagan's 1981 R&D Tax Credit which by all accounts is a great idea and has bipartisan and academic support as sound public policy, is still 21 years on a temporary law that requires periodic extensions. This is because there is a windfall for Senators and Congressmen who receive sizable industry donations each time it is up for renewal, a source of campaign funds not available if they made the law permanent.



In short the elephant has not gone away, in fact it has gotten bigger. I personally like to believe McCain, Feingold and their colleagues of of the 2002 Congress really foresaw these consequences of where money in politics was headed, (the undermining of support for congress, the perceived corruption, the distortion of legislation etc.) and they were trying to head it off as it was not a system they wanted to be forced into.

Yet here we are.

[Kanaric]

Congress always has 12% approval and like 60% approval for THEIR representative. Its sickening, IF YOU DONT APPROVE VOTE THE S OUT.

The congress approval rating means literally nothing because they disapprove of congress as a whole but WILL NOT vote anyone else is. I think this says more about the stupidity of the people as opposed to congress. They can do whatever they want pretty much at this point but unless you are in a rare swing district your congressman is there to stay.

This is only going to get worse and worse until people REALIZE they need to kick these s out.

[YukonTrooper]

EDIT: Never mind, off topic.