Correct. There needs to be campaign finance restrictions put in place, otherwise these media owning oligarchs and their networks will continue to have overwhelming control over democracy.
Gabbard is just a congresswoman and army major with a very modest background.
Right now they have no chance of being elected unless they spend obscene sums. Remove that need through campaign finance regulations and you will remove an enormous source of leverage. I would be happy to see a 50% mix of public money and 50% individual capped donations making up a cursory figure. Legally require large networks to give free and equal airtime to each candidate with enough support to justify inclusion. It simply cannot be impossible to remove the biggest sources un-democratic influence.
Well we need to encumber the two dominant parties with the most restrictions in fund raising, block them from setting rules as to who can be in debates let alone setting onerous ballot requirements. We already do not do enough to prevent them from profiting from their position nor enriching their friends and families. That money doesn't come from the people.
This is all fine and I don't disagree with you, but how do you propose we fix the real problem (federal control over far too much) without first removing the endemic corruption favoring entrenched interests that our current campaign finance laws not only permit but encourage? Do you expect our current political class to vote for less power for themselves? Or for the corporate entities funding congressment to suggest to those congressmen that the regulations which protect them need to be lifted?
> In competitive districts, politicians are far more dependent on campaign funding.
If we're dreaming big here, how about we try fixing campaign funding too? To give a concrete suggestion, the US should pass a constitutional amendment which allows Congress to limit expenditure on political advertising (but not other forms of political speech). Here is one such approach:
Pass a Constitutional amendment that states that corporations are not people. Then start passing laws that restrict the free speech of corporations and then pass more laws stating that money is speech. Then there can be fine tuned laws stating the max that a person can give to a candidate and start forcing all organizations that have anything to do with politics to register and state who is giving them money. Eliminate all anonymous donations.
I don't know what I think about campaign finance reform. On the one hand I have the obvious concerns about money buying influence. On the other hand, money tried real real hard to buy the 2012 election and failed comically.
Meanwhile, the free speech issues involved in regulating campaign spending, while admittedly very inconvenient for all of us, are real, and no appeal to plutocracy extinguishes them.
Certainly: the approach Sanders seems to take to this problem, of literally amending the Constitution to neuter to First Amendment and then delegating to Congress --- yes, this Congress --- an unlimited power to regulate political speech, is not OK with me.
There are lots of reforms I want to see happen at the federal level. Sentencing reform, accountability for prosecutors, financial markets regulation, health care, school funding, health care, drug decriminalization, and health care are all I think good targets for top down federal regulation. Campaign finance, I think, might be a better thing for states to grapple with first.
It all comes down to campaign finance. We need pblicly funded elections with absolutely no tolerance for private money, and a set equal amount for each major party candidate. Until Citizens United is overturned, and we get some kind of legislation like this, money will continue to dominate everything. And as long as that’s the case, there will always be unethical behavior because the incentives are too great.
Larry Lessig's approach is fundamentally misguided:
1. It increases complexity and discourages participation in the election system - campaign finance regulations are anti-free speech.
2. It treats the symptom, not the problem. The symptom is that people will spend a lot to get people important to them into office. The problem is that the government controls so much money and so many things, that it is in your best interest to try influence it so that 1. the money comes to you and 2. the laws and regulations favor you.
3. The centralization of power at the Federal level exacerbates this problem, since there is one main body that you are trying to influence instead of lots of smaller ones.
Indeed. I would argue that the state of campaign finance is such that only special interest groups have the influence required with congress to pass or kill anything. When 100% of your time is dedicated to raising money, you only ever talk to the people who provide that money - for better or worse. Representatives need not be in the pocket of industry shills for campaign finance to be a problem, there's simply nobody else around for them to talk to.
Who funds our lawmakers and elected officials? Who bribes their way into regulatory agencies so that these agencies promote business interests over interests of the people and country at large? Who's got the revolving door between private enterprise and public office?
Large business, owned by very rich people. Without campaign contribution limitations and regulation, the voice of people is drowned out by the flow of money. We're about the least regulated in that respect in about a century.
It's not enough to control the funding, you have to control the political speech. Basically, candidates would get fixed slots of tv and radio time to spread their message, and all other political speech would be forbidden. Otherwise money can dominate the conversation as it does with the pacs. However, such a thing could never be done in the US due to the core belief that free speech is a fundamental right that cannot be curtailed.
We need to get out of the habit of calling these situations censorship and start calling then what they really are: in kind donations. Providing a communication platform for elected officials has a knowable monetary value. There are already campaign finance laws on the books for this situation.
reply