Parts of Campaign Finance Law Struck Down

[RandFan]

WASHINGTON - A federal court Friday struck down most of a ban on the use of large corporate and union political contributions by political parties, casting into doubt the future of the campaign finance law that was supposed to govern next year's high-stakes presidential election.

The court also ruled unconstitutional new restrictions on election-time political ads by special interest groups and others. It barred the federal government from enforcing them and all other parts of the law it struck down.

The ruling clears the way for an immediate appeal by the losing parties to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court's decision will lay the ground rules for the 2004 presidential election and beyond.

 

[Brooklyn Dodger]

What is galling is that everyone who voted for this law knew it was unconstitutional when they voted for it. They counted on the courts to bail them out while buying the votes of the gullible.

 

[corplinx]

Its real simple, FULL DISCLOSURE. Get rid of the gift bans that keep a nut lobbyist from giving a Senator a can of nuts. If voters will vote for someone who can be influenced by a can of nuts, than they get what they deserve.

All of the various campaign finance laws are made to circumvent one thing, full disclosure. Bush was brave enough to ask for it.

 

[dsm]

Who were the litigants (is that the right word?) in the action? In other words, who was arguing the "for" and who was arguing the "against" in court?

 

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Its real simple, FULL DISCLOSURE. Get rid of the gift bans that keep a nut lobbyist from giving a Senator a can of nuts. If voters will vote for someone who can be influenced by a can of nuts, than they get what they deserve.

All of the various campaign finance laws are made to circumvent one thing, full disclosure. Bush was brave enough to ask for it.

You put your finger on it. The major campaign finance law should have been, and should ONLY have been full disclosure. And full IMMEDIATE disclosure, which is now technologically possible. All the rest is political posturing. I don't care how much some one donates so long as I know about it. In fact, when I find out how much it might be, that might become a campaign issue in itself.

 

[RandFan]

Who were the litigants (is that the right word?) in the action? In other words, who was arguing the "for" and who was arguing the "against" in court?

Sorry,

Parts of Campaign Finance Law Struck Down

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) became the lead plaintiff in the case by filing suit minutes after President Bush signed the bill into law last year. The National Rifle Association, the Republican National Committee, the California Democratic Party, the American Civil Liberties Union and dozens of others followed.

 

[corplinx]

You put your finger on it. The major campaign finance law should have been, and should ONLY have been full disclosure. And full IMMEDIATE disclosure, which is now technologically possible. All the rest is political posturing. I don't care how much some one donates so long as I know about it. In fact, when I find out how much it might be, that might become a campaign issue in itself.

If I was a congressman and was going to take time out of my day and have lunch or dinner with a lobbyist, the least they could do is pick up the check. Currently this is illegal.

I am sorry, but if you elect someone who is so corrupt that surf and turf can sway their decisions, then throw the bum out.

 

[jj]

Full Disclosure...

I like that a great deal.

Every newspaper in the USA should publish a list of accepted gifts, and who they are from, for all of the candidates.

Note, I said "accepted gifts", otherwise I can see the American Nazi Party offering wooden crosses to the Black Panthers just to spite them.

 

[dsm]

I am sorry, but if you elect someone who is so corrupt that surf and turf can sway their decisions, then throw the bum out.

How do you measure that?

SenatorX: Well, sure, the M$ lobbyist wined me and dined me while explaining the ins and outs the bill. The fact that the restaurant was in Hawaii had nothing to do with my decision to become the bill's sponsor. Why, my son-in-law, their new VP of Marketing, was just telling me...

 

[gnome]

The problem here is, if everyone running is a "bum" what good does it do to throw one bum out for another?

Personally I think a bit of campaign finance reform has two good benefits:

1. Less money wasted on trying to buy influence. Maybe corporations and unions should be doing something more useful with all that money?

2. I personally believe that all this money thrown at them actually cripples a politician's ability to do their job... instead of pandering to a special interest to get money for reelection, they could be voting their conscience without worrying that they'll be unable to mount a campaign if they annoy whoever paid for their publicity last time around.

That said, I don't really mind the constitutional scrutiny. Execution is as important as intent.

Let me throw out a can of worms here, what do you all think of the idea of publicly-funded campaigns? Pros? Cons?

 

[GrapeJ713]

The problem here is, if everyone running is a "bum" what good does it do to throw one bum out for another?

Let me throw out a can of worms here, what do you all think of the idea of publicly-funded campaigns? Pros? Cons?

The longer a politician is in office the more likely he is to be a porkmeister for his district/state. The more we refresh the bums the less money gets wasted in the long run.
My idea for a more level playing field would be for local newspapers, TV & radio stations to donate some space for each candidate in equal amounts. The candidate would still have to pay to produce his commercials but they would air for free so many times a day. I don't think this would infringe on the tv & radio stations too much, part of the FCC liscence is they have to serve the public good. And one page of a newspaper in the editorial section divided equally among the candidates wouldn't cost a paper a huge amount of money.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The court made the correct (and predictable) decision. Campaign finance "reform" restricts speech. Period.

 

[gnome]

The court made the correct (and predictable) decision. Campaign finance "reform" restricts speech. Period.

Then bribery laws restrict speech too.

 

[Smalso]

Kollar-Kotelly and Leon wrote one opinion for the panel, then each judge wrote their own separate opinions. The judges were so divided that they were split 2-1 on almost all the issues. But the same two judges did not always vote together, and sometimes agreed on their vote on a particular issue, while noting they were doing so for different reasons. In general, Kollar-Kotelly voted most often to uphold provisions of the new law, while Henderson voted most often to strike down its provisions.

Makes your head spin. "You're right and I'm right but you're right for the wrong reason." It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court settles this--not necessarily the ruling, but the reasoning(s) behind the rulings,

 

[shanek]

Who were the litigants (is that the right word?) in the action? In other words, who was arguing the "for" and who was arguing the "against" in court?

The Libertarian Party was one of the plaintiffs.

http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=640

 

[shanek]

You put your finger on it. The major campaign finance law should have been, and should ONLY have been full disclosure. And full IMMEDIATE disclosure, which is now technologically possible. All the rest is political posturing. I don't care how much some one donates so long as I know about it. In fact, when I find out how much it might be, that might become a campaign issue in itself.

The problem is, what happens when someone donates a ton of money to a political candidate, the opponent wins, and then the opponent sets about punishing the ones who donated to his opponent's campaign? That's happened. And full disclosure would also violate Constitutional rights to privacy.

 

[shanek]

1. Less money wasted on trying to buy influence. Maybe corporations and unions should be doing something more useful with all that money?

And who are you to be telling them what that is? It's their money.

2. I personally believe that all this money thrown at them actually cripples a politician's ability to do their job... instead of pandering to a special interest to get money for reelection, they could be voting their conscience without worrying that they'll be unable to mount a campaign if they annoy whoever paid for their publicity last time around.

Everyone's going from the point of view of an incumbent politician being the one taking the funds...The incumbents are already at a tremendous advantage as it is, with free press and name recognition. Putting limits on campaign contributions only keeps the competing candidates down and makes it even more difficult to unseat the incumbent. That's why any "campaigh finance reform" bill is really an Incumbent Protection Act.

Let me throw out a can of worms here, what do you all think of the idea of publicly-funded campaigns? Pros? Cons?

Bad. Just as no one should be able to tell someone they can't donate to a candidate's campaign, no one should be forced to fund a candidate they don't agree with.

 

[gnome]

And who are you to be telling them what that is? It's their money.

A separate issue than what I was bringing up. I was contemplating the benefits of such a law, not whether it has the right to be passed.

But I'm willing to get into that too... from a legal standpoint, the right has to be determined by the courts (as it is being)... from a moral standpoint... how is paying a politician to pay more attention to you than other constituents, different than bribing any other public official (such as a policeman) to abandon their duty for your benefit? How is the intent of this law different than any other anti-bribery laws?

Everyone's going from the point of view of an incumbent politician being the one taking the funds...The incumbents are already at a tremendous advantage as it is, with free press and name recognition. Putting limits on campaign contributions only keeps the competing candidates down and makes it even more difficult to unseat the incumbent. That's why any "campaigh finance reform" bill is really an Incumbent Protection Act.

I have worried about this myself, in fact, and it remains a nagging question keeping me from being 100% behind this. Are there any examples we can turn to where this has been tried?

Bad. Just as no one should be able to tell someone they can't donate to a candidate's campaign, no one should be forced to fund a candidate they don't agree with.

I don't think of it as funding the individual candidates... I think of it as paying for a campaign system that avoids plutocracy. But the fact that many feel as you do is a definite "con" and deserves to be said.

How would you change the current (pre-Campaign Finance-Reform) laws, Shanek? Or would you choose not to change them at all?

 

[Brooklyn Dodger]

The problem is, what happens when someone donates a ton of money to a political candidate, the opponent wins, and then the opponent sets about punishing the ones who donated to his opponent's campaign? That's happened. And full disclosure would also violate Constitutional rights to privacy.

Donate to both sides, like many do today.

 

[Agammamon]

What is galling is that everyone who voted for this law knew it was unconstitutional when they voted for it. They counted on the courts to bail them out while buying the votes of the gullible.

Actually they didn't know it was unconstitutional when they voted for it. Like the USAPATRIOT ACT, the legislature didn't read it before they voted (it just sounded like a good idea).

 

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Actually they didn't know it was unconstitutional when they voted for it. Like the USAPATRIOT ACT, the legislature didn't read it before they voted (it just sounded like a good idea).

You are so kind to them! All the conservative commentators, lead by Rush Limbaugh, were screaming at the top of their lungs at how unconstitutional this was. Low and behold, the court says it is unconstitutional exactly as they said.

They knew. Of course they knew. For them not to know they would have had to have been deaf to what was going on around them.

 

[a_unique_person]

If I was a congressman and was going to take time out of my day and have lunch or dinner with a lobbyist, the least they could do is pick up the check. Currently this is illegal.

I am sorry, but if you elect someone who is so corrupt that surf and turf can sway their decisions, then throw the bum out.

That is the fallacy of the 'criminal' view of things. You are either bad or good.

Politicians are human beings. I have observed the rise of a few, and they aren't that different to anyone else, except that their chosen job is in politics, and they work hard at it.

The problem is that it doesn't take much to start compromising someone. That is why most large corporations try to prevent anything more than coffee mugs and pens from being handed out. If their employees are going to be swayed by expensive gifts, they are not going to make sensible purchasing decisions.

Once you feel personally obliged to someone, it is a slippery slope that leads all the way down.

Full disclosure is essential, because it makes transparent to all who owes who what.

 

[Cain]

Monomaniac blathered:

The Libertarian Party was one of the plaintiffs.

No one cares.

Corporations donate money to both parties in the hope of dirtying everyone (See Enron).

The idea that campaign donations -- justified on the grounds that money equates to speech -- should remain "private" is patently absurd.

Here's an absurd idea: publicly financed campaigns.

Instead of setting up a system that subverts democracy by allowing our politicans to be purchased by the highest bidder, publicly financed campaigns will open up genuine choices and allow us to see beyond the Republicrat monopoly.

 

[shanek]

But I'm willing to get into that too... from a legal standpoint, the right has to be determined by the courts (as it is being)... from a moral standpoint... how is paying a politician to pay more attention to you than other constituents,

Who says you're doing that? How about people who donate to campaigns because they feel they're the best candidate for the job and aren't wanting anything personally out of that?

"Objection, your honor—assumes facts not in evidence."

I don't think of it as funding the individual candidates...

But that's exactly what's happening.

How would you change the current (pre-Campaign Finance-Reform) laws, Shanek? Or would you choose not to change them at all?

I'd open it up so that anyone can give any amount of money to any candidate they want, no political repurcussions. That would necessitate allowing companies to keep their donations secret, although of course they could disclose if they wanted to. That ain't a perfect system, but so far every bit of "campaign finance reform" has made it worse.

The latest boogeyman is the so-called "soft money." But "soft money" was a creation of campaign finance reform in the 1970s! In typical government fashion, instead of saying, "Oops, we made a mistake, let's repeal that bad law," you pretend that it's somehow a product of market forces and advocate the passing of a new law that will surely solve the problem...until ten years or so have passed and you need to pass yet another law fixing the problems caused by the previous ones, again pretending they're a result of market forces and not politics. "Insanity" is the only word that really describes this well.

 

[shanek]

Donate to both sides, like many do today.

That's why they do that. And the Democrats and Republicans know that means more money coming into their coffers; so that's why they fight to get more laws like that on the books.

 

[shanek]

Actually they didn't know it was unconstitutional when they voted for it. Like the USAPATRIOT ACT, the legislature didn't read it before they voted (it just sounded like a good idea).

In 2002, the House of Representatives was in session for 126 days. During that time, 2,155 bills were introduced. (Source for both: thomas.loc.gov)

Let's be generous and let them sleep 8 hours a day. Let's also give them an hour for each meal. That leaves a reasonable 13 hours a day to consider each bill. So for the total 126 days you have 1,638 hours to consider 2,155 bills—which means you only have about 45 minutes on average for each bill! That's not enough time to even read most of these bills, much less debate, amend, and vote on them!

Is it any wonder the laws they're passing are so ridiculous?

 

[shanek]

No one cares.

Then why did he ask?

[rattling on of points that have already been addressed in this thread deleted]