Fair Elections Bill

[Woodruff]

I understand WHY corporations do what they do. I don't blame them so much, since they're allowed to do so. I quite simply believe that their ability to influence things of that nature should be removed by limited campaign financing.

I'm pretty sure there are already campaign financing limits in force as it is.

Not in any meaningful way, no. Not in my opinion, at least.

Unfortunately, the "unintended cost" (I hate you, BBS!) of that policy is that corporations are starting to own politicians to the point where legislation is happening in their favor in return for those "investments in speech", even when those corporations are doing nothing that is necessarily illegal. The politicians still feel beholden to them, because that is where the future money is going to come from. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. That is, in my opinion, a very serious problem in our current political world in the United States.

You get stuck in a rock and a hard place as a politician.

See, I don't buy that. Ron Paul is the best example. The others (the vast majority) are simply more self-interested than nationally-interested, and not in a close fight between the two either. They're weak-willed.

Congress has to regulate commerce, right? So, for instance, Congress has to write the regulations on the Big Pharma industry. Now, how much do you think and average Senator or Representative knows about drug production, drug interaction, research, costs, etc etc etc? Who do you think is going to actually write the regulations?
Big Pharma of course.

That's the problem. I recognize that the politicians themselves are not likely to be able to be extremely informed on the vast array of subjects. Which is why they should have those who work for them that they can go to in order to get credible, informative advice.

Now, you might be quick to say "That's messed up and wrong!" but think about it, if you have to write the regulations on an industry and you don't know crap about said industry, wouldn't you have no choice but to consult the experts?

This presumes that the corporation is necessarily the expert. I don't believe that is necessarily the case, at least not solely. As well, I certainly wouldn't expect their "provided expertise" to be anything but the most favorable to them. And that is a problem.

Of course, this gives the perception (rightly so I'd say) that Congress is being used, duped, bought, or whatever term you want, but hell, do you want some idiot politician writing regulations on subjects he doesn't know a damn thing about?

No. I want politicians to be informed about the subjects they're working on. Seriously...I do not believe this is asking too much. It's their freaking job. I'm just a bloody overworked high school teacher, and I'm at least able to be reasonably informed on a lot of these subjects. I'm by no means an expert, but I'm not of the opinion that expertise is what is necessary on the part of the Congresscritter.

Campaign finance reform could simplify things enormously. It wouldn't complicate things (if done properly).

I don't know about you, but I have serious doubts in Congress' ability to do much of anything "properly"......<chuckles>

There is that, of course.

Companies and individuals should not be allowed or able to buy politicians. However, companies and individuals should not be limited in speech, political or otherwise. Just because they got the big bucks to buy television time is no reason to deny them the ability to speak to the public and make known their stance on issues.

But that's the problem. I'm not talking about "buying politicians" in the sense of payoffs and bribes (though I'm certain those are happening). I'm talking about "buying politicians" in the sense of the feeling of obligation and quid pro quo. When that happens, they're still bought.

If you wanted, Woodruff, you could take your own money, make your own political add and have it aired on TV. You could make a Youtube political add and it should in no way count against the politician or cause you are supporting. You should be able to spend all the money you could wish to spend without restriction making your own adds. And people do that, you know. It's fine by me because it's a free speech issue and should not be infringed upon, be you an individual, small or large company.

I do not at all believe that money should be equated to free speech. And while I do recognize you're not making that equation yourself by what you said, it is the effect of the policy. Unfortunately, that's what this idea leads to. Those with the most money get the most free speech. I think that is a serious problem.

Now giving politicians money directly, that's another matter and is already covered by plenty of campaign finance laws. Whether or not that's effective depends on how much faith you have in your fellow human beings. Plenty of idiots out there who will believe anything told to them, but by and by I'd as soon as just let people make up their own minds. If they want to vote for liars and frauds then they have plenty of choices.....

The current campaign finance laws are largely irrelevant. And the Citizens United decision made that even worse.

[saxitoxin]

The current campaign finance laws are largely irrelevant. And the Citizens United decision made that even worse.

Do you disagree with the court's opinion in Citizens United, namely -

Under the antidistortion rationale, Congress could also ban political speech of media corporations. Although currently exempt from §441b, they accumulate wealth with the help of their corporate form, may have aggregations of wealth, and may express views “hav[ing] little or no correlation to the public’s support” for those views. Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment, and there is no support for the view that the Amendment’s original meaning would permit suppressing media corporations’ political speech. https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http: ... hrome=true

If McCain-Feingold had existed in 1972, should a 3-member president-appointed panel have been allowed to ban the Washington Post from publishing the Watergate expose until after the 1972 election? If they published it anyway, what kind of enforcement would you have supported? Should Nixon have ordered the Army to raid the offices of the Washington Post, seize their printing presses and jail the editorial staff?

[PLAYER57832]

Those people count they have a vote just like everyone else. Why should they be able to vote with their pocket as well?

What's stopping you from voting with your own pocket?

Lack of money.

If corporations are supporting a candidate you like or plan to vote for, are you as equally disturbed then as well?

Of course.

Can people, anyone, spend their money as they so wish so long as they are not harming others?

Except, unduly influencing elections.. that is, giving themselves more power than others, IS undo influence as far as many people, including myself, are concerned.

Can a private business spend their own money as they wish?

No, they have to follow the law.

Instead of corporations, would it be all right if you and your neighbors agree to pool some money together and collectively buy ad space in the local newspaper supporting which ever candidate you wish? Or any other political speech with your own group money pooled over a large number of your neighbors?

Its the difference between the voice of many and the voice of one having the same power. Voting is everyone's power. Giving a few greater influence is not supposed to be the American way... even though I have no illusions about our system being truly "fair" and "equal".. at least we have had some pretense of that. Now, that is utterly gone.

If there is nothing wrong with that, then how can anyone care what a corporation says?

Because a coporation is specifically NOT a human being, is an entity specifically designed to shield investors and owners from harm caused by their business errors. Now it will effectively shield the leaders from political decision outfall as well. PLUS, just the fact of giving a few people the power of many -- but a many who are not truly volunteering to donate money to a cause, who are, instead invested in a business.

Are corporations forcing people to vote one way or another or are they just trying to convey a message and it's up to those who hear it to decide for themselves?

They are definitely attempting to manipulate.

Does the outrage toward the corporations making political speech extend the same toward Unions?

Slightly different, in that unions are specifically designed to serve the people who are members. Corporations are not. They are designed to make people money and to shield the investors and contributors from harm caused by negative decisions. So, they get to take the gains and don't pay the full measure of the result of bad decisions, not on an individual basis and often not even as a corporate entity.

That said, I am not in favor of unions donating without the express approval of its membership... and even then, I believe there should be definite limits.

Just some questions is all I'm asking. You won't find anyone else more against crony capitalism than I, but I also believe that a person or business can spend their money any way they deem fit so long as they are not harming me, my family or my neighbors (or anyone else for that matter). And that a person or business must accept the consequences (read- no bailouts) of their own actions. Endorsing a candidate or engaging in political speech in no way should be feared. Be it a person or a group of people.

Except, escaping consequences is precisely what a corporation is about. By encorporating, you don't risk your house, etc (unless you are incredibly stupid in how you set it up, anyway) or face much personnal liability. To a point, for pure business dealings, that is reasonable. Even that has been heavily abused of late. This takes it way, way beyond reasonable.

If a group is campaigning against your own political interests, then start your own group or join one that already lies within your own ideology.

Most people don't have the power of corporations.

More power to you. Just don't go out threatening people or coercing people. Speak, if people want to listen, let them. If people don't want to listen, let them not listen. If people oppose your point of view, so be it. Take it out at the ballot box, or forums or newspaper, whatever floats your boat.

Not in the world of today's TV advertising, when ads perporting to put forward "opinion" can spout almost anything and get away with it. When you control the information, you control the opinions.

[Night Strike]

Absolutely, I am. I very firmly believe in public financing of campaigns with equal, and pretty limited, funds.

Then how do you account for different markets charging very different prices for ads? There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all for this country (although some are trying to make it so).

That's really all that the Citizen's United case does. Let's companies speak for themselves in public on their own dime. Not that of the taxpayer. It's a speech issue.

Unfortunately, the "unintended cost" (I hate you, BBS!) of that policy is that corporations are starting to own politicians to the point where legislation is happening in their favor in return for those "investments in speech", even when those corporations are doing nothing that is necessarily illegal.

So none of this was happening before Citizens United? Because I seem to remember you being a very outspoken critic of Halliburton that got investments based on their political connections and spending.

Its the difference between the voice of many and the voice of one having the same power. Voting is everyone's power. Giving a few greater influence is not supposed to be the American way... even though I have no illusions about our system being truly "fair" and "equal".. at least we have had some pretense of that. Now, that is utterly gone.

But you're fine with elected politicians to have a louder voice than the many. Why can't groups of people get together to oppose those who have the bully pulpit?

Because a coporation is specifically NOT a human being, is an entity specifically designed to shield investors and owners from harm caused by their business errors. Now it will effectively shield the leaders from political decision outfall as well. PLUS, just the fact of giving a few people the power of many -- but a many who are not truly volunteering to donate money to a cause, who are, instead invested in a business.

But it is a collection of human beings who have the First Amendment right to freedom of assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Plus, why do you assume that someone looking out for the interests of their business to be a bad thing? Those companies are creating jobs and paying taxes, both of which are important to this country. Why shouldn't they be allowed to support politicians who will make sure they keep their freedom to make money? Furthermore, corporations aren't the only ones affected by Citizens United. Unions and individuals are also free to form and to spend money in Super PACs. I'd be much more concerned about all these Hollywood people going to other countries to raise money for Obama than the individuals and groups within this country who are trying to protect American interests.

Slightly different, in that unions are specifically designed to serve the people who are members. Corporations are not. They are designed to make people money and to shield the investors and contributors from harm caused by negative decisions. So, they get to take the gains and don't pay the full measure of the result of bad decisions, not on an individual basis and often not even as a corporate entity.

A lot of people would vehemently disagree that their unions actually serve their viewpoints when it comes to politics. Especially on the national level when people like Trumpka are best-buds with Obama. Not all businesses are corporations, so why can't they spend money on campaigns either? Plus, most corporations are specifically designed so that if something goes wrong with the business, someone can only go after the assets of the business and not someone's personal assets. Personal assets are distinct from business assets in a corporation, which is why they exist. It's not due to some nefarious desire to not be accountable as you are implying.

Most people don't have the power of corporations.

Most people don't have the power of politicians either. Most people don't have the power of unions either. You don't rail against them having the power.



And the most important point in my post:

Not in the world of today's TV advertising, when ads perporting to put forward "opinion" can spout almost anything and get away with it. When you control the information, you control the opinions.

Which is exactly what you're trying to do. You want to limit political speech to only be spoken by politicians. ALL people have the freedom to speak on politics, not just politicians. This was the crux on which Citizens United was decided.

[GreecePwns]

Then how do you account for different markets charging very different prices for ads? There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all for this country (although some are trying to make it so).

What's wrong with them charging different prices? You have a budget, spend it how you please so as to maximize utility. What's wrong with that?

So none of this was happening before Citizens United? Because I seem to remember you being a very outspoken critic of Halliburton that got investments based on their political connections and spending.

Of course, Hailburton paying a former employee and Vice President a severance package of $34 million straight to his pocket is not the same as independent spending on advertising.

But the point still stands that the spending is essentially an investment in probable future favorable legislation, no matter the method. The Citizens United case esentially removed the limits that existed beforehand, so as to increase the supply of probably future favorable legislation, the demand of which knows no bounds.

But you're fine with elected politicians to have a louder voice than the many. Why can't groups of people get together to oppose those who have the bully pulpit?

In this post, NS advocates direct democracy.

But it is a collection of human beings who have the First Amendment right to freedom of assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Spending money on a certain candidate to be shown to the general public is not "petitioning government for a redress of grievances." It's petitioning the masses for a vote for their favored candidate, in order for government to potentially probably redress their "grievances."

If I set up 10 million corporate entities tomorrow, does that entitle me to 10 million votes?

[Timminz]

If corporations are going to be taxed and regulated, why can't they also have a say in who gets elected? Corporations are run by people too. Or do those people just not count?

I don't think you've thought this position through, entirely.

Actually, I have.

Okay, then you've expressed it poorly.

Within your well-thought-out position, do you make a distinction about the nationality of shareholders, or is having operations in the US enough to support that corporation's involvement in American politics? For example, if a corporation that was headquartered in Boise and traded on the NYSE, was 51% owned by a militant Islamic man from Iran, would it be acceptable for that corporation to spend a billion dollars attempting to influence the presidential election this year?

[spurgistan]

If corporations are going to be taxed and regulated, why can't they also have a say in who gets elected? Corporations are run by people too. Or do those people just not count?

I don't think you've thought this position through, entirely.

Actually, I have.

Okay, then you've expressed it poorly.

Within your well-thought-out position, do you make a distinction about the nationality of shareholders, or is having operations in the US enough to support that corporation's involvement in American politics? For example, if a corporation that was headquartered in Boise and traded on the NYSE, was 51% owned by a militant Islamic man from Iran, would it be acceptable for that corporation to spend a billion dollars attempting to influence the presidential election this year?

Well, he is Muslim, so probably not.

Not actually my opinion

[Woodruff]

The current campaign finance laws are largely irrelevant. And the Citizens United decision made that even worse.

Do you disagree with the court's opinion in Citizens United, namely -

Under the antidistortion rationale, Congress could also ban political speech of media corporations. Although currently exempt from §441b, they accumulate wealth with the help of their corporate form, may have aggregations of wealth, and may express views “hav[ing] little or no correlation to the public’s support” for those views. Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment, and there is no support for the view that the Amendment’s original meaning would permit suppressing media corporations’ political speech. https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http: ... hrome=true

Reading only the part you noted there, I don't see how that impacts the point I'm making. Perhaps you could be more explicit with your point?

If McCain-Feingold had existed in 1972, should a 3-member president-appointed panel have been allowed to ban the Washington Post from publishing the Watergate expose until after the 1972 election? If they published it anyway, what kind of enforcement would you have supported? Should Nixon have ordered the Army to raid the offices of the Washington Post, seize their printing presses and jail the editorial staff?

Again, how is this impacted by the point I'm making? This seems to be a completely different subject within the thread. Could you clarify please?

[Woodruff]

Absolutely, I am. I very firmly believe in public financing of campaigns with equal, and pretty limited, funds.

Then how do you account for different markets charging very different prices for ads? There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all for this country (although some are trying to make it so).

I don't account for different markets charging different prices for ads. I don't think I need to...that is for the candidates and their budgets to deal with. Of course, different candidates should be paying the same cost for the same "time" in the same "locality"...there definitely shouldn't be different prices for different candidates. But if the market location is different, then that's simply a choice of the candidate.

That's really all that the Citizen's United case does. Let's companies speak for themselves in public on their own dime. Not that of the taxpayer. It's a speech issue.

Unfortunately, the "unintended cost" (I hate you, BBS!) of that policy is that corporations are starting to own politicians to the point where legislation is happening in their favor in return for those "investments in speech", even when those corporations are doing nothing that is necessarily illegal.

So none of this was happening before Citizens United? Because I seem to remember you being a very outspoken critic of Halliburton that got investments based on their political connections and spending.[/quote]

Where did I say anything about it never happening before Citizens United? Why must you pretend I'm going from one extreme to the other? You're just making yourself look silly. I even explicitly said "it's making it worse" (of course, you didn't quote that...).

[saxitoxin]

The current campaign finance laws are largely irrelevant. And the Citizens United decision made that even worse.

Do you disagree with the court's opinion in Citizens United, namely -

Under the antidistortion rationale, Congress could also ban political speech of media corporations. Although currently exempt from §441b, they accumulate wealth with the help of their corporate form, may have aggregations of wealth, and may express views “hav[ing] little or no correlation to the public’s support” for those views. Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment, and there is no support for the view that the Amendment’s original meaning would permit suppressing media corporations’ political speech. https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http: ... hrome=true

Reading only the part you noted there, I don't see how that impacts the point I'm making. Perhaps you could be more explicit with your point?

If McCain-Feingold had existed in 1972, should a 3-member president-appointed panel have been allowed to ban the Washington Post from publishing the Watergate expose until after the 1972 election? If they published it anyway, what kind of enforcement would you have supported? Should Nixon have ordered the Army to raid the offices of the Washington Post, seize their printing presses and jail the editorial staff?

Again, how is this impacted by the point I'm making? This seems to be a completely different subject within the thread. Could you clarify please?

You said "the Citizens United decision made it worse" - would you support a reversal of the Citizens United decision so that the government could stop media corporations (e.g. Washington Post, MSNBC) from publishing articles that might have a negative impact on a candidate in a political campaign?

You seem to be opposed to the Citizens United ruling which means that, if McCain-Feingold had existed in 1972, you would theoretically support the FEC having the power to stop the Washington Post from breaking the Watergate scandal because it would give the Washington Post Corporation undue influence in impacting Richard Nixon's re-election campaign.

I'm wondering how you envision this power should be exercised - special military units trained to blow-up broadcast towers and arrest renegade journalists - or would it be a civilian police force?

[saxitoxin]

Everyone forgets about the test of McCain-Feingold that lower courts upheld before Citizens United made it to the Supreme Court ... in 2004 the Republican Party successfully had advertisements for Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 banned from TV unless it removed images or mention of George Bush as it was a violation of the electioneering ban of McCain-Feingold by Dog Eat Dog Films Corporation.

That censorship power of the federal government was, along with the federal government's banning of distribution of "Hillary: The Movie", ended in the Citizens United ruling.

McCain-Feingold was a censorship law cloaked as campaign finance reform. In their ruling, the Court invited Congress to write a better law but Congress did nothing because they never really wanted a campaign finance law, they wanted a censorship law. And Americans - in response - now clamor for the constitution to be amended, perfectly exhibiting what Sheikh Abd al-Wahid Yahya described in the early 1900s ... "there are two kinds of people in the west: the gullible and the guileful"

[Woodruff]

The current campaign finance laws are largely irrelevant. And the Citizens United decision made that even worse.

Do you disagree with the court's opinion in Citizens United, namely -

Under the antidistortion rationale, Congress could also ban political speech of media corporations. Although currently exempt from §441b, they accumulate wealth with the help of their corporate form, may have aggregations of wealth, and may express views “hav[ing] little or no correlation to the public’s support” for those views. Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment, and there is no support for the view that the Amendment’s original meaning would permit suppressing media corporations’ political speech. https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http: ... hrome=true

Reading only the part you noted there, I don't see how that impacts the point I'm making. Perhaps you could be more explicit with your point?

If McCain-Feingold had existed in 1972, should a 3-member president-appointed panel have been allowed to ban the Washington Post from publishing the Watergate expose until after the 1972 election? If they published it anyway, what kind of enforcement would you have supported? Should Nixon have ordered the Army to raid the offices of the Washington Post, seize their printing presses and jail the editorial staff?

Again, how is this impacted by the point I'm making? This seems to be a completely different subject within the thread. Could you clarify please?

You said "the Citizens United decision made it worse" - would you support a reversal of the Citizens United decision so that the government could stop media corporations (e.g. Washington Post, MSNBC) from publishing articles that might have a negative impact on a candidate in a political campaign?

Oh, I see. It is a different topic essentially (which is why I was confused...I thought you were trying to relate it to the limited funding issue), but that's ok...we'll just start a new branch of the thread here.

Truthfully, I was not aware that the government COULD stop media corporations previous to Citizens United. Otherwise, to use your own example, the Watergate incident would never have been publicized when it was. In other words, I'm not sure it really impacted that aspect, despite the statement within the ruling.

You seem to be opposed to the Citizens United ruling which means that, if McCain-Feingold had existed in 1972, you would theoretically support the FEC having the power to stop the Washington Post from breaking the Watergate scandal because it would give the Washington Post Corporation undue influence in impacting Richard Nixon's re-election campaign.

I can't seem to find anything within the McCain-Feingold Act that states the government can stop this sort of thing (I assume you meant FCC, right?). I'm willing to grant that's the case, however. Despite that, I find that irrelevant to my larger problem of campaign finance reform. I'm not stating that everything about the ruling is necessarily bad, but it absolutely did make campaign contribution problems worse.

I'm wondering how you envision this power should be exercised - special military units trained to blow-up broadcast towers and arrest renegade journalists - or would it be a civilian police force?

I'm wondering why you troll so much when you clearly can discuss issues well. It's really rather sad.

[saxitoxin]

The current campaign finance laws are largely irrelevant. And the Citizens United decision made that even worse.

Do you disagree with the court's opinion in Citizens United, namely -

Under the antidistortion rationale, Congress could also ban political speech of media corporations. Although currently exempt from §441b, they accumulate wealth with the help of their corporate form, may have aggregations of wealth, and may express views “hav[ing] little or no correlation to the public’s support” for those views. Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment, and there is no support for the view that the Amendment’s original meaning would permit suppressing media corporations’ political speech. https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http: ... hrome=true

Reading only the part you noted there, I don't see how that impacts the point I'm making. Perhaps you could be more explicit with your point?

If McCain-Feingold had existed in 1972, should a 3-member president-appointed panel have been allowed to ban the Washington Post from publishing the Watergate expose until after the 1972 election? If they published it anyway, what kind of enforcement would you have supported? Should Nixon have ordered the Army to raid the offices of the Washington Post, seize their printing presses and jail the editorial staff?

Again, how is this impacted by the point I'm making? This seems to be a completely different subject within the thread. Could you clarify please?

You said "the Citizens United decision made it worse" - would you support a reversal of the Citizens United decision so that the government could stop media corporations (e.g. Washington Post, MSNBC) from publishing articles that might have a negative impact on a candidate in a political campaign?

Oh, I see. It is a different topic essentially

no

Truthfully, I was not aware that the government COULD stop media corporations previous to Citizens United. Otherwise, to use your own example, the Watergate incident would never have been publicized when it was. In other words, I'm not sure it really impacted that aspect, despite the statement within the ruling.

McCain-Feingold was in force from 2003 to 2010 when it was struck-down in the Citizens United ruling. It was not in effect in 1972.

I can't seem to find anything within the McCain-Feingold Act that states the government can stop this sort of thing

Since most of the Act deletes and adds words and sentences to existing law it would probably be difficult to find a single passage of that type if you are of the opinion that the Supreme Court - in the decision I linked above - simply made it all up.

[Woodruff]

The current campaign finance laws are largely irrelevant. And the Citizens United decision made that even worse.

Do you disagree with the court's opinion in Citizens United, namely -

Under the antidistortion rationale, Congress could also ban political speech of media corporations. Although currently exempt from §441b, they accumulate wealth with the help of their corporate form, may have aggregations of wealth, and may express views “hav[ing] little or no correlation to the public’s support” for those views. Differential treatment of media corporations and other corporations cannot be squared with the First Amendment, and there is no support for the view that the Amendment’s original meaning would permit suppressing media corporations’ political speech. https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http: ... hrome=true

Reading only the part you noted there, I don't see how that impacts the point I'm making. Perhaps you could be more explicit with your point?

If McCain-Feingold had existed in 1972, should a 3-member president-appointed panel have been allowed to ban the Washington Post from publishing the Watergate expose until after the 1972 election? If they published it anyway, what kind of enforcement would you have supported? Should Nixon have ordered the Army to raid the offices of the Washington Post, seize their printing presses and jail the editorial staff?

Again, how is this impacted by the point I'm making? This seems to be a completely different subject within the thread. Could you clarify please?

You said "the Citizens United decision made it worse" - would you support a reversal of the Citizens United decision so that the government could stop media corporations (e.g. Washington Post, MSNBC) from publishing articles that might have a negative impact on a candidate in a political campaign?

Oh, I see. It is a different topic essentially

no

Truthfully, I was not aware that the government COULD stop media corporations previous to Citizens United. Otherwise, to use your own example, the Watergate incident would never have been publicized when it was. In other words, I'm not sure it really impacted that aspect, despite the statement within the ruling.

McCain-Feingold was in force from 2003 to 2010 when it was struck-down in the Citizens United ruling. It was not in effect in 1972.

I can't seem to find anything within the McCain-Feingold Act that states the government can stop this sort of thing

Since most of the Act deletes and adds words and sentences to existing law it would probably be difficult to find a single passage of that type if you are of the opinion that the Supreme Court - in the decision I linked above - simply made it all up.

Nothing you're talking about here relates at all to putting actual limitations on campaign funding. You seem to be trying to pretend that because I may think a certain portion of the Citizens United ruling is a good thing that it overrides the very bad that also goes along with it. That is poor logic.

[saxitoxin]

Nothing you're talking about here relates at all to putting actual limitations on campaign funding. You seem to be trying to pretend that because I may think a certain portion of the Citizens United ruling is a good thing that it overrides the very bad that also goes along with it. That is poor logic.

Nowhere in Citizens United did the court say "corporations can give as much money as they want to whomever." If you're arguing that shouldn't be the case (You said "The current campaign finance laws are largely irrelevant. And the Citizens United decision made that even worse."), then you're arguing against an internet meme, not the court's actual decision.

In Citizens United, the Court ruled that (1) limitations on corporations had to apply to all corporations or no corporations at all, (2) the first amendment prevented media corporations (newspapers, magazines, television stations) from being regulated in their communications about political campaigns, (3) therefore, no corporation could be regulated in their communications about political campaigns.

I do not support the idea that a president appointed panel - as created by the McCain-Feingold Censorship Act - should be able to rule on what is a non-media corporation and what is a media corporation. When that happens, every magazine critical of the president will be classed a non-media corporation subject to regulation. Do you support the McCain-Feingold censorship panel?

[saxitoxin]

It's inconvenient to remember there was no total dissent in Citizens United. The judges in the minority of the 5-4 decision partially concurred with the majority and only argued technical points. In the follow-up decision (Speech Now vs. FEC), the U.S. Court of Appeals sitting en banc issued a unanimous ruling (9-0). The wide consensus is these were horribly written laws. So horribly written they were probably designed to be struck-down.

Rather than re-write the laws to be constitutionally compliant, a very easy hurdle, Democrats leverage the court's decision to argue that a partisan majority of the court ruled "corporations are people", a super-dumbed-down summary that helps them mobilize high school drop-outs and persons with low IQs/poor cognitive skills, historically the Democrats most crucial demographic but the ones least likely to vote.

On the other side, Republicans argue whatever it is they argue to help them mobilize their voting base of lunatic reactionaries who, zombified, march off in the opposite direction of whatever way the Democrats are heading.

[Night Strike]

Absolutely, I am. I very firmly believe in public financing of campaigns with equal, and pretty limited, funds.

Then how do you account for different markets charging very different prices for ads? There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all for this country (although some are trying to make it so).

I don't account for different markets charging different prices for ads. I don't think I need to...that is for the candidates and their budgets to deal with. Of course, different candidates should be paying the same cost for the same "time" in the same "locality"...there definitely shouldn't be different prices for different candidates. But if the market location is different, then that's simply a choice of the candidate.

Then you're directly benefiting incumbents, especially those who don't have to face a serious primary challenge. In Missouri, McCaskill has already purchased $3 million of ad time in the run-up to the November election while her Republican challengers are in a tight primary. So not only has she benefited from buying better air times in bulk, but the Republican winner will have to get the times she left over at a price that's probably higher because it's not purchased as far in advance. Thankfully, she's losing by about 10 points to each main challenger so it probably wouldn't hurt this election. But the point still stands: strict campaign finance laws only benefit incumbents.

[Woodruff]

Absolutely, I am. I very firmly believe in public financing of campaigns with equal, and pretty limited, funds.

Then how do you account for different markets charging very different prices for ads? There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all for this country (although some are trying to make it so).

I don't account for different markets charging different prices for ads. I don't think I need to...that is for the candidates and their budgets to deal with. Of course, different candidates should be paying the same cost for the same "time" in the same "locality"...there definitely shouldn't be different prices for different candidates. But if the market location is different, then that's simply a choice of the candidate.

Then you're directly benefiting incumbents, especially those who don't have to face a serious primary challenge.

I can see that argument, but I disagree with it. If the people are happy with the incumbent, then yes...the incumbent has the advantage of name brand. However, if the people are not happy with the incumbent, then that name brand advantage becomes a disadvantage.