Stealth Money

[Denny Crane]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/opinion/18mon2.html

We can’t turn on the television these days without being assaulted by ads anonymously savaging candidates. Welcome to politics in post-Citizens United America. The Supreme Court allowed unlimited campaign spending by corporations and unions but didn’t require the folks picking up the tab to stand behind their words.

It is too late for this campaign. The House approved a measure requiring phantom check writers to identify themselves on their ads and barring money from overseas corporations. Senate Republicans blocked it. Voters who say they’re fed up with negative politics — and sleazy back-room deals — need to demand better.

 

[Denny Crane]

I have a few observations on this.

1) Obama is using this as a rallying cry in his recent speeches
2) Republicans are quite hypocritical in opposing transparency
3) The rules are the same for the democrats as for the republicans and it wouldn't be beneath them to take advantage if they could
4) George Soros has stayed out of this election cycle - he'd be leading the charge for doing this sort of thing on the dems' side

 

[Natebishop3]

I really don't think corporations should be able to donate to campaign funds. I also think there should be a cap on how much someone can donate to a campaign. Level the playing field a bit. We should be voting for people based on what they stand for, not because they have more money than the opposition and can run endless negative campaign ads.

 

[Denny Crane]

Obama (and W before him) pretty much had more campaign donations, even at little amounts, than the rest of the field and were able to run 1st class campaign organizations with all the frills.

The thing is, the spending is actually speech, in the same sense that burning a flag is. So I think it should be allowed. But it should be well known who's spending what, so we can factor that into our decisions.

Like we all know Meg Whitman is spending $100M+ of her own money on her campaign. Some people might see that as trying to buy the office, while others may see it as her not taking special interest money. But at least we know.

 

[Natebishop3]

Obama (and W before him) pretty much had more campaign donations, even at little amounts, than the rest of the field and were able to run 1st class campaign organizations with all the frills.

The thing is, the spending is actually speech, in the same sense that burning a flag is. So I think it should be allowed. But it should be well known who's spending what, so we can factor that into our decisions.

Like we all know Meg Whitman is spending $100M+ of her own money on her campaign. Some people might see that as trying to buy the office, while others may see it as her not taking special interest money. But at least we know.

I really wouldn't equate it to free speech. They are or are trying to be public officials. Donations feel more like bribe money to me. If I hand a cop a couple thousand dollars and call it a "donation", how is that any different than handing a couple million to a guy who is running for president? I really don't see the distinction.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Campaign finance reform has proven to be a very slippery thing. For every law or rule, candidates find a way to get around it. I'd be happier to let them spend what they want (it goes into the economy, afterall), but have deeply serious repercussions for ads that are either misleading or untruthful. Serious enough to lose an election over.

 

[Denny Crane]

I really wouldn't equate it to free speech. They are or are trying to be public officials. Donations feel more like bribe money to me. If I hand a cop a couple thousand dollars and call it a "donation", how is that any different than handing a couple million to a guy who is running for president? I really don't see the distinction.

As long as the voters know someone handed a couple thousand dollars to a campaign, the voters can decide if the candidate is going to perform some quid pro quo.

 

[Natebishop3]

As long as the voters know someone handed a couple thousand dollars to a campaign, the voters can decide if the candidate is going to perform some quid pro quo.

You know what the problem is Denny? Most of the voters have no fucking clue. How many people hear a rumor or an ad and just believe it without actually fact checking? I'm talking both sides here. People will believe anything these days. If someone ran an ad saying that Chris Dudley punches babies, I'm sure a percentage of the population would believe it. You can make the facts available, but a lot of the population is either too lazy or too naive to actually look for them.

 

[Denny Crane]

You know what the problem is Denny? Most of the voters have no fucking clue. How many people hear a rumor or an ad and just believe it without actually fact checking? I'm talking both sides here. People will believe anything these days. If someone ran an ad saying that Chris Dudley punches babies, I'm sure a percentage of the population would believe it. You can make the facts available, but a lot of the population is either too lazy or too naive to actually look for them.

Well, the candidates will run an ad saying "so and so took $X from this dastardly outfit" and the other guy will run an ad saying "look, the local newspaper says the other guy is full of shit"

Nice and soundbite sized.

 

[MARIS61]

Outlaw any and all campaign ads of any sort. They're all worthless hype, lies and distortions anyway.

Face to face debates should be sponsored by taxes, should be mandatory for all candidates, and should be the only exposure voters have to the candidates.

The quality and competence of our leaders would increase tenfold immediately.

 

[barfo]

You know what the problem is Denny? Most of the voters have no fucking clue. How many people hear a rumor or an ad and just believe it without actually fact checking? I'm talking both sides here. People will believe anything these days. If someone ran an ad saying that Chris Dudley punches babies, I'm sure a percentage of the population would believe it. You can make the facts available, but a lot of the population is either too lazy or too naive to actually look for them.

Why does Chris Dudley keep punching babies? Is it because he doesn't like small people?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Why does Chris Dudley keep punching babies? Is it because he doesn't like small people?

barfo

The little people barf on him while he's kissing them.

 

[Denny Crane]

Outlaw any and all campaign ads of any sort. They're all worthless hype, lies and distortions anyway.

Face to face debates should be sponsored by taxes, should be mandatory for all candidates, and should be the only exposure voters have to the candidates.

The quality and competence of our leaders would increase tenfold immediately.

Who qualifies for these debates? The Nazi Party USA candidate and the Communist Party USA candidate?

The ability to attract and raise money adds some serious qualification for a candidate.

 

[barfo]

Who qualifies for these debates? The Nazi Party USA candidate and the Communist Party USA candidate?

The ability to attract and raise money adds some serious qualification for a candidate.

True, if you don't put some sort of restriction on it, you'll have all sorts of crackpots in the debate. Libertarians, even.

You could just have a signature requirement. X voters have to sign a petition in order to get you into the debate.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

True, if you don't put some sort of restriction on it, you'll have all sorts of crackpots in the debate. Libertarians, even.

You could just have a signature requirement. X voters have to sign a petition in order to get you into the debate.

barfo

Whatever X is, it'll be unfair to someone.

 

[barfo]

Whatever X is, it'll be unfair to someone.

Not anymore unfair than having limits set by fundraising is. Arguably, a lot more fair, since the $$$ system shuts out those w/o money. Anyone can sign a petition, except of course for the hillbillies who didn't learn to write.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Not anymore unfair than having limits set by fundraising is. Arguably, a lot more fair, since the $$$ system shuts out those w/o money. Anyone can sign a petition, except of course for the hillbillies who didn't learn to write.

barfo

I'd be OK with X signatures to get free air time, but not with shutting out people who want to buy it. Like I said, it's speech like burning a flag. Putting their money where their interests lie - and what's wrong with that?

 

[barfo]

I'd be OK with X signatures to get free air time, but not with shutting out people who want to buy it. Like I said, it's speech like burning a flag. Putting their money where their interests lie - and what's wrong with that?

I'd rather see the candidates burn flags.

There's no reason why the system should favor rich people.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I'd rather see the candidates burn flags.

There's no reason why the system should favor rich people.

barfo

It doesn't favor rich people.

Obama raised a shitpile of money from small individual donors. Far more than all the special interest groups combined.

 

[barfo]

It doesn't favor rich people.

Obama raised a shitpile of money from small individual donors. Far more than all the special interest groups combined.

Are we talking only about presidential races? What about Meg Whitman?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Are we talking only about presidential races? What about Meg Whitman?

barfo

Like I said, you can view her spending one of two ways (maybe others). She's trying to buy the office, or she's spending her own money and thus not taking money from special interests.

I think if Bloomberg ran for president in 2012 and spent $1B, people would think the latter.

 

[barfo]

Like I said, you can view her spending one of two ways (maybe others). She's trying to buy the office, or she's spending her own money and thus not taking money from special interests.

I think if Bloomberg ran for president in 2012 and spent $1B, people would think the latter.

The latter view doesn't work so well if they outspend the competition by a large factor. If they only spend about the same amount, then it is more reasonable to view it as not taking special interest money, but it is still a huge advantage because the competition has to spend time fundraising.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

The latter view doesn't work so well if they outspend the competition by a large factor. If they only spend about the same amount, then it is more reasonable to view it as not taking special interest money, but it is still a huge advantage because the competition has to spend time fundraising.

barfo

Not taking special interest money is the only way to be viewed as not taking special interest money. Obama raised $750M in 2008, if not more than that. He spent 2:1 to McCain's $370M raised. And that doesn't include 3rd party spending on his behalf. And regardless of the funds coming from lots of individuals, they mostly came from moveOn.org, a single organization (you can try to say the same about tea party, but it's not an actual organization).

So if Bloomberg spent $1B to Obama's $750M or $250M (more likely as he continues to sink in the polls), at least he's not beholden to even moveOn.org type groups. And it's HIS money, he is the candidate, and he's using it to have a very big megaphone so he can be heard. It's tough enough being a 3rd party candidate with the way everything else is stacked against him.

 

[MARIS61]

The ability to attract and raise money adds some serious qualification for a candidate.

If by qualification you meant to say obstacle or barrier, then I agree. No candidate can raise enough money to compete without selling his soul and betraying his country. It is simply not possible.

It pretty much eliminates anyone who seriously and honestly wants to represent the people without being a puppet or paid flunkie.

Who qualifies for these debates? The Nazi Party USA candidate and the Communist Party USA candidate?

Absolutely. They are every bit as valid as the Republican or Democratic parties. They would add a variety of viewpoints that no longer exists in our political arena.

In some ways they are both more American than either of our main parties, because they represent people, and unlike the Dems and Reps they are not (yet) corporate owned and corporate controlled.

 

[Denny Crane]

There were at least 100 candidates, including write-ins, in 2008. What a debate that would be, to have 100 people involved. Give them a minute each to speak and it takes over an hour and a half. 2 minutes each and it's over 3 hours, etc.

I don't see how anyone could gain anything from seeing that in action.

 

[barfo]

And regardless of the funds coming from lots of individuals, they mostly came from moveOn.org, a single organization (you can try to say the same about tea party, but it's not an actual organization).

You vastly overstate the amount of money raised by MoveOn. It is not the case that most small Obama donations arrived via MoveOn.

And it's HIS money, he is the candidate, and he's using it to have a very big megaphone so he can be heard. It's tough enough being a 3rd party candidate with the way everything else is stacked against him.

I'd agree a third party candidate might be given a little more leeway, since the deck is in fact stacked against them. However, that doesn't apply to Whitman.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You vastly overstate the amount of money raised by MoveOn. It is not the case that most small Obama donations arrived via MoveOn.



I'd agree a third party candidate might be given a little more leeway, since the deck is in fact stacked against them. However, that doesn't apply to Whitman.

barfo

Any candidate has the right to chose their party, be it 3rd or 2nd rate.

 

[Paxil]

Outlaw any and all campaign ads of any sort. They're all worthless hype, lies and distortions anyway.

Face to face debates should be sponsored by taxes, should be mandatory for all candidates, and should be the only exposure voters have to the candidates.

The quality and competence of our leaders would increase tenfold immediately.

No way people with money are ever going to agree to that. =) Damn good idea... but Republican's would never let that pass.

 

[Denny Crane]

Oddly, I was just reading a blog on Robert Reich's site and he names the guys running 3 of the organizations buying a lot of ads. So maybe there is some transparency after all.

And Paxil, it's not people with money that wouldn't agree to debates, it's the incumbent or guy leading in the polls who has everything to lose and nothing to gain who refuses to debate in most case.

 

[Minstrel]

Who qualifies for these debates? The Nazi Party USA candidate and the Communist Party USA candidate?

Of course...every debate involves the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate. Why would you ask if they'd qualify?