USA's supreme court lifts campaign funding limits

[alhoon]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A3116V20140402


I find this development bad for USA's democracy and a step towards Oligarchy.

Campaign funding limits meant that politicians should cater to the voters not only for the vote but for funding the campaigns, which gave more power to the voters.
Now, a politician can cater to fewer and wealthier individuals and get most of their funds from them. Lobbies now hold another carrot/stick: "Promise to do that else we will stop sending you the 1 million $/week that we've been giving you for 6 weeks" etc.


While it's not that democracy will collapse overnight because of this, it's IMO a step towards the WRONG direction. Money had too much influence already.

[Vanoi]

This along with Citizen's United makes me doubt the current USA Supreme Court. I just don't see how money is speech. I don't get how blind these justices are to how money can influence and corrupt elections.

[YukonTrooper]

The judges aren't blind to the effects. They're just corrupt themselves.

[Euphoric]

Thanks for making us an aristocracy, SCOTUS. I hate to say it, but my revolutionary friends and sounding more and more sane these days.

[AqD]

It's already an oligarchy due to extreme level of wealth inequality.


It's blue, just like Russia and China:

[Love Mountain]

It's already an oligarchy due to extreme level of wealth inequality.


It's blue, just like Russia and China:

Agreed. It's been an oligarchy since the 80s.

[Theodotos I]

Didn't go far enough, but it was the right decision. The Constitution doesn't give the federal government power to limit campaign contributions. And yes. . .my libertarian friends are going berserk over this decision. Near as I can tell, their argument is somewhere on the lines of, "We need more government so that we can have less government."

[The spartan]

Didn't go far enough, but it was the right decision. The Constitution doesn't give the federal government power to limit campaign contributions. And yes. . .my libertarian friends are going berserk over this decision. Near as I can tell, their argument is somewhere on the lines of, "We need more government so that we can have less government."

You mean like having the government outlaw slavery? How dare they limit our freedom to own slaves!

[Col. Tartleton]

Oh no! Increased advertising budgets, how will democracy survive in the wake of such tragedy?

[Love Mountain]

Oh no! Increased advertising budgets, how will democracy survive in the wake of such tragedy?

It won't. Just what we need. Involving more money with politics.

[alhoon]

Oh no! Increased advertising budgets, how will democracy survive in the wake of such tragedy?

Advertising budgets are the life-blood of a campaign. You get more money, you increase your chances to get elected. Not because your program is better, but because you use funds to be heard by more people.

[Euphoric]

Oh no! Increased advertising budgets, how will democracy survive in the wake of such tragedy?

Naiveté. Do you think a candidate with a million campaign dollars at his disposal could ever overcome a candidate with a billion campaign dollars at his disposal? Elections today are bought, not won.

[Col. Tartleton]

It won't. Just what we need. Involving more money with politics.

The problem is not money in politics, the problem is the wealth inequality that allows some people to contribute millions of dollars to campaigns with no effect on their lifestyle while many other people cannot donate any money, or at least any significant amount of money without severe effects on their lifestyle. Solving that problem would be beneficial. Setting a cap on donations is just a bandage.

Advertising budgets are the life-blood of a campaign. You get more money, you increase your chances to get elected. Not because your program is better, but because you use funds to be heard by more people.

There is of course going to be a financial goal needed to get a message out nation wide, but there is also going to be a saturation point where it ceases to matter how many ads you buy, but the quality of the content of your ads. Of course one may argue that this also costs money, but that's a presentation issue. You can get effective advertisements cheaply and ineffective advertisements at a great expense.

Naiveté. Do you think a candidate with a million campaign dollars at his disposal could ever overcome a candidate with a billion campaign dollars at his disposal? Elections today are bought, not won.

If the people are so easily swayed by advertisements why let them vote in the first place? Clearly they're not capable of making the sorts of informed decisions demanded of their role as voters.

Secondly if a candidate cannot acquire the support of organizations and individuals he isn't succeeding.

[AqD]

If the people are so easily swayed by advertisements why let them vote in the first place? Clearly they're not capable of making the sorts of informed decisions demanded of their role as voters.

But there is no way to keep idiots from voting.

Secondly if a candidate cannot acquire the support of organizations and individuals he isn't succeeding.

So all political rivals to Putin are failures because they can't even gain enough support in order to be seen on TV?

[Col. Tartleton]

But there is no way to keep idiots from voting.

Poll Test.

So all political rivals to Putin are failures because they can't even gain enough support in order to be seen on TV?

I would think that is the definition of failing at politics.

[Zephyrus]

But there is no way to keep idiots from voting.

Proof of college graduation from accredited universities in the citizen's home country when you register to vote. Asking State/Federal ID passport/documents that is "fake-proof" and checked as such when registering is done. BAM, done.

Political information should be primed for children in public-funded schooling, with civics classes, and from the home. A democracy is possible when people are educated and have checks and balances for their power. Which is why citizenship must be the most important part of any democratic government, and why access to citizenship must be guarded, respected, and face penalization upon capital and severe crimes.

Citizens, nobles, and elites who are favored in their country, should put more effort into that country to keep it healthy and vibrant.

[Euphoric]

If the people are so easily swayed by advertisements why let them vote in the first place? Clearly they're not capable of making the sorts of informed decisions demanded of their role as voters.

And that, in a nutshell, is why democratic representation will always fail to produce the optimal candidate. The general electorate isn't politically informed enough to make such important decisions and never will be.

[chamaeleo]

And that, in a nutshell, is why democratic representation will always fail to produce the optimal candidate. The general electorate isn't politically informed enough to make such important decisions and never will be.

So...in the interest of creating a more politically informed general electorate, would you say that shifting towards limitless campaign contributions makes us more, or less informed?

That's the real question, and it also depends on whether your definition of "information" includes: ad hominems, slander, falsehoods, mistruths, outright lies, and out-of-context statements.

Hard enough educating people on actual facts...

[justicar5]

Oh no! Increased advertising budgets, how will democracy survive in the wake of such tragedy?

Propaganda works, Propaganda costs money. This makes the big lie even easier, just throw enough money at it.

[PointOfViewGun]

I believe Supreme Court have been applying a very strict definition of freedom with their decision on Citizens United and McCutcheon. By definition these decisions defy democracy which is normally fine. We defy democracy because of checks and balances or when it's for the common good every day. Democracy is not something that is 100% progressive. It can go either way and it did in history and still does. In my opinion, limiting or even eliminating private funding of political campaigns would be a move for the common good as money does determine who wins and who loses. There are two questions we need to ask: Do elections need to be fair? Does considerable difference in amount of money a campaign possesses automatically make an election unfair? Yes to both. Why? Because money is not a skill a candidate can use while in office tied to the job. That said, the system have been corrupt regardless of these decisions. It just makes it easier for corruption to remain in power. Keep in mind though, the same Supreme Court upheld prohibitions on foreign contribution to political campaigns.

I got one question though; if it's freedom to contribute whatever you wish to a political campaign why is it not freedom to have a rule (which limits political campaign contributions) that is created or upheld by elected individuals?