Campaign Finance Reform (USA)

[Cynic]

I'm interested in discussing campaign finance reform. How do you all feel about he current state of existing law, what should change (and why!), and what issues factor into it? This discussion is very specifically about problems and solutions to United States campaign finance reform, especially as it applies to elections at the house, senate, and presidential levels, but all non-US perspectives are most certainly welcome.

The obvious questions are about where the money comes from and how much, but there are a growing number of concerns of late. The Citizens United trial is a fairly high-profile example of late, but this could also extend to media bias, unions, 527s, churches, etc. This is an immensely complex problem, one that is often cast as a simple matter of free speech.

My own personal feeling at the moment is that with respect to elections, the free speech issue may have something in common with the proverbial "shouting fire! in a crowded theater" scenario, or shouting down smaller voices with a megaphone, effectively denying free speech with one's own. Enacting finance rules and then allowing everyone and anyone to completely circumvent the well-founded spirit of those rules doesn't make sense.

To be clear, this issue cuts to the core of democracy. Failure to solve the problem amounts to allowing a persistent and intentional attempt to undermine the very ideals our government is founded on to continue unabated.

So, what do you all think?

 

[Beerina]

I'm opposed to giving government any reason to censor, especially political speech.

I'll risk "problems", compared to well-known problems when government can censor this or that thing because "people really want it."


I also encourage supporters who don't like the recent SC decision to stop whining and go about passing a Constitutional amendment the proper way. There's a reason it's so difficult to do so -- to make sure The People have had years to think about major changes to the way their government works, and to make sure most support it over those years, such that it isn't a sudden change due to the blowing winds of political passion.


Hell, in the health care threads, I could grant my detractors every single point they try to make, and I'd still be right that this should be done via Constitutional amendment, for the exact same reason.

 

[Cynic]

I'm opposed to giving government any reason to censor, especially political speech.

I'll risk "problems", compared to well-known problems when government can censor this or that thing because "people really want it."

I think we agree that abridging free and protected speech isn't something entered into lightly. Do you think there are ways that problems like this one can be mitigated in a way that doesn't infringe too harshly? I don't see this problem as necessarily being about censorship or freedom of speech, or even corporate personhood -- especially with regard to blurry incorporations like 501(c)4s, as Citizen's United is, whose whole stated purpose is to raise awareness of issues.

Instead, I would cast this issue as being more about how to make the selection process for our leaders as fair and equitable as possible. That doesn't mean silencing voices, though in a medium in which voices are currency, it might mean capping the volume about certain people until the election cycle is complete.

I also encourage supporters who don't like the recent SC decision to stop whining and go about passing a Constitutional amendment the proper way. There's a reason it's so difficult to do so -- to make sure The People have had years to think about major changes to the way their government works, and to make sure most support it over those years, such that it isn't a sudden change due to the blowing winds of political passion.

Hell, in the health care threads, I could grant my detractors every single point they try to make, and I'd still be right that this should be done via Constitutional amendment, for the exact same reason.

I agree 100%. The Constitution is difficult to change by design, and that's a feature, not a bug. It should be hard to change. Very hard. Which isn't to say that changes shouldn't be made, right? Part of my aim here is to figure out if such a change is in order, and if so, what form that change should take.