John Doe Investigation

[Vander]

You may remember this from last year. There was an investigation into campaign finance issues in Scott Walker's Wisconsin that was halted by the state courts, and all the documents were ordered destroyed. It turns out all the documents weren't destroyed, and were subsequently leaked to The Guardian. They have a fascinating story about what the documents show that amounts to how corruption is basically legal. Give it a read!

For a discussion, how do you relate freedom of speech with money? People should obviously be able to put their money toward issues they feel are important, but how do you balance this with monetary disparity? One person with $1000000 effectively has the same proportional value of speech as ten thousand people with $100. We limit individual electoral spending specifically, but issue spending effectively is unlimited. Should it be?

[woodchip]

Another way of looking at it is th FCC wants to control political speech over the airways. Since most of the control of political speech via radio is done by conservative talk show hosts, the Dem. on the FCC see this as a way of shutting them up. In short this fits with big money (the radio hosts) having a lots of control over the political process. People with small amounts of money can contribute to a powerful group (like the NRA) and sway politicians in that manner. Others with large amounts contribute directly to politicians for influence. So what do you want to see controlled?

[callmeslick]

when equal time was guaranteed, campaigns were much more fact based. Dunno if you can put that genie back in the bottle though.

[Tunnelcat]

Speaking of political cash, is this going too far in the effort to throttle Citizens United? I can't tell the hyperbole from the facts, and IF it's a factual argument, it's downright scary.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/13/pro ... ll-rights/

What the bill states and yes, it is on the Nov. 2016 ballot in California:

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Prop ... ion_(2016)

[callmeslick]

no link on your page, and the bill, as I understand it:
1. won't get anywhere. Amendments seldom do.
2. doesn't say, in any fashion, what the hysterical loons at the Federalist(libertarian hardcores) will have you think.

[Vander]

the Dem. on the FCC see this as a way of shutting them up.

I don't know what "this" is. Are you talking about the fairness doctrine which was eliminated 30 years ago? This basically gave rise to conservative talk radio, since it was no longer necessary to provide time for rebuttal. Can't have that bubble pierced.

So what do you want to see controlled?

At this point in the discussion, nothing. I'd much rather have your opinion on whether or not the problem I describe is important to you. Do you think it's a good thing that George Soros' opinions and ideas have more influence than yours? Should they have more influence because he can spend more money on a bigger, more elaborate soap box?

A good idea with little money behind it will almost always be drowned out by a bad idea with a lot of money behind it. Should we peg the value of an idea by how much money is behind it? Personally, I think the ideas themselves should be their own currency.

[callmeslick]

in the real world, things aren't so black and white. Take corporate money, for instance. In our society, with vast economic freedom of choice, the blowback against a corporation can be significant in moderating some positions. Target found that out with certain political stances that ran afoul of their gay customers. Still, overall, it becomes a political reality that an overwhelming dominance of campaign spending usually prevails. I really have little concern about talk radio, but far more concerns, frankly, about the process being subverted for television ratings points. That phenomenon is starting to make political campaigns into reality programming with less regard for truth, which might have once seemed near impossible to imagine.

[Vander]

in the real world, things aren't so black and white.

They aren't. I'm just trying to clearly define a discussion, reducing it to a point where there might be some agreement, and go from there.

In our society, with vast economic freedom of choice, the blowback against a corporation can be significant in moderating some positions. Target found that out with certain political stances that ran afoul of their gay customers.

I don't think this has anything to do with the outsized influence wealthy individuals have on defining the rules of the game. A big issue is "dark money," too, which avoids blowback.

Do we want wealthy individuals to have such influence? Is it a good thing because it is a motivation to strive to be wealthy? I'm not so sure. I don't necessarily see the accumulation of wealth as a justification for outsized influence.

I'm not sure what I would advocate to fight against it. Donor transparency is probably a start. Maybe set a monetary limit, above which donations are transparent. That way donors can keep some anonymity, but if their "free speech" contribution gets too large, it becomes public knowledge. This doesn't address a lot of the issue, since I'm sure a lot of these donors don't care if it's public knowledge. But it at least opens them up to blowback.

[callmeslick]

I don't think this has anything to do with the outsized influence wealthy individuals have on defining the rules of the game. A big issue is "dark money," too, which avoids blowback.

Do we want wealthy individuals to have such influence? Is it a good thing because it is a motivation to strive to be wealthy? I'm not so sure. I don't necessarily see the accumulation of wealth as a justification for outsized influence.

well, the whole of the American experiment has ALWAYS seen an outsize influence of the wealthy. The founders were most all wealthy. The early political leaders were all wealthy. The wealthy in the 19th century controlled the press, and manipulated voting at a grotesque level by the late 1800s. The patrician class gave us most of our 20th century Presidents until Truman. And, so on. In fact, I'd be interested to see an example in any Western nation in which the wealthy did not/do not have outsized influence, and how well that worked out. Feel free to cull examples from any time in the past, say, 800 years.

I've already pointed out here that the wealthy in America GROW UP with the whole notion of political involvement, engagement and networking, mainly with only a nodding regard for political party. You are raised to interact with politicians, meet with them from an early age, go to school with what will be future political leaders, etc. Sometimes the 'outsized' influence is due to the simple fact most wealthy people have the time and inclination to get heavily involved, and oversimplifying it to mere monetary contributions might prove dangerous. Interesting topic though.

[callmeslick]

not sure why I managed to recall this, but this picture once accompanied an article on the merits of meritocracy....which sort of rapidly fell apart upon examination. The cartoon speaks to both power and illusions for the masses.

[Tunnelcat]

no link on your page, and the bill, as I understand it:
1. won't get anywhere. Amendments seldom do.
2. doesn't say, in any fashion, what the hysterical loons at the Federalist(libertarian hardcores) will have you think.

I don't know. California can get kind of crazy with some of the Propositions they manage to pass.

[Vander]

Those are a lot of very true comments of how things are and have been. I don't mean to reduce societal and governmental influence to just money. Good ideas can and do catch on without the financial backing of the wealthy. But you cannot deny that such ideas face a steep uphill climb to acceptance without or in the face of that financial backing. I do think it should be difficult to change the status quo, but I also think it shouldn't be so easy to entrench the status quo.

If we were designing our government rules concerning campaign and issue finance from scratch right now, would we seek out our current status quo as the goal? I wouldn't think so. "That's just how things will always be" seems like a poor point of view to have during the execution of self determination, and somewhat convenient for the dominators of the current status quo.