Campaign funding and Freedom of Speech

[Uraniun235]

As we all know, corporations throw a lot of money behind candidates.

And as we all know, any suggestions of restricting campaign fund contributions is met with cries of "Freedom of speech!"

My choir teacher had (what I thought was) a really good idea. Every person (including corporations, since they are legally considered persons) in the United States is taxed $5. They are free to use this money to support any candidate or political party they wish. They may not contribute anything beyond that. If they do not wish to contribute, they mark off on their tax forms to have the money returned.

In doing so, each person gets an equal voice, preserving freedom of speech, while leveling the field for candidates who otherwise might not get the massive funding from corporations others might. This would prevent some of the "buying off" that corporations have had in the past; senators and representatives no longer have to worry about pleasing their corporate sponsors in hopes of re-election funding.

What do you all think of this?

[^^]

Whoa whoa there

Curtailing huge ass corporate contributions is violating freedom of speech?

People over here tend to equate stupid shit with constitutional freedoms~ See SUV thread for examples of this

[Mr Bean]

Better idea

No Adds, No Campains, Just 6 Debates between the Canidates, One a week in the six weeks leading up to the Election set aside during a specific time and replayed twice the following day so you have a chance to see it on PBS, ABC, and mmm Fox to make sure your likley to see it
Plus an offical Canadite Website which the Canadit has the exlusive right to during the election run but must give it up after the fact

Saves alot of money and acutal makes lets us see these Canadates in auction... so to speak

[Wicked Pilot]

Here's an idea:

Candidates disclose what they recieve, in what amounts, and from who. The public, who is always properly informed, will know where the loyalties lie.

Wait a second, that is what happens. Except for the informed public of course.

[weemadando]

Debates are inherently biased. Its too easy for a network to show favour to one candidate, be it via their selection of their audience or host, or merely the camera techniques used on each candidate.

I like Sea Skimmers idea, let it all be open. And officially disband any companies that "hedge their bets".

[Joe]

As we all know, corporations throw a lot of money behind candidates.

And as we all know, any suggestions of restricting campaign fund contributions is met with cries of "Freedom of speech!"

My choir teacher had (what I thought was) a really good idea. Every person (including corporations, since they are legally considered persons) in the United States is taxed $5. They are free to use this money to support any candidate or political party they wish. They may not contribute anything beyond that. If they do not wish to contribute, they mark off on their tax forms to have the money returned.

In doing so, each person gets an equal voice, preserving freedom of speech, while leveling the field for candidates who otherwise might not get the massive funding from corporations others might. This would prevent some of the "buying off" that corporations have had in the past; senators and representatives no longer have to worry about pleasing their corporate sponsors in hopes of re-election funding.

What do you all think of this?

You do realize this is already done, right? You can choose to give two or three dollars, IIRC, to support a candidate of a political party.

I hate the idea of politicians getting government money to run their campaigns. Get a real job for a while and fund your own fucking campaigns, you lazy pieces of shit.

And campaign finance legislation has always seemed, to me at least, to be a fairly obvious violation of free speech. A politically correct violation, but still a violation. We don't need legislate to convince our politicians to not be corporate whores, we need to elect ethical politicians. Not to mention that politicians have a LOT to lose should they hide their campaign donor information.

And Ando, I totally agree with you about debates. Compared to truly great debates like the Lincoln-Douglas debates, modern debates are pathetic.

[Yogi]

Just because candidates cannot promote themselves, doesn't stop private orginizations from running ads supporting one candidate or another.
THAT is what is generally protected under "Freedom of Speach"

[^^]

And campaign finance legislation has always seemed, to me at least, to be a fairly obvious violation of free speech. A politically correct violation, but still a violation.

Explain this bullshit

We don't need legislate to convince our politicians to not be corporate whores, we need to elect ethical politicians. Not to mention that politicians have a LOT to lose should they hide their campaign donor information.

Guess what? Politicians can't regulate themselves (same as the market), and citizens have an atrocious record of doing so (similar to consumers in the market). Some time of regulatory action needs to be taken.

[Joe]

Campaign contributions are a type of political speech, why shouldn't they be protected?

Not to mention the fact that Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to regulate political campaigns, only elections (not that anyone gives a shit anymore what the Constitution permits Congress to do).

[Uraniun235]

As we all know, corporations throw a lot of money behind candidates.

And as we all know, any suggestions of restricting campaign fund contributions is met with cries of "Freedom of speech!"

My choir teacher had (what I thought was) a really good idea. Every person (including corporations, since they are legally considered persons) in the United States is taxed $5. They are free to use this money to support any candidate or political party they wish. They may not contribute anything beyond that. If they do not wish to contribute, they mark off on their tax forms to have the money returned.

In doing so, each person gets an equal voice, preserving freedom of speech, while leveling the field for candidates who otherwise might not get the massive funding from corporations others might. This would prevent some of the "buying off" that corporations have had in the past; senators and representatives no longer have to worry about pleasing their corporate sponsors in hopes of re-election funding.

What do you all think of this?

You do realize this is already done, right? You can choose to give two or three dollars, IIRC, to support a candidate of a political party.

I hate the idea of politicians getting government money to run their campaigns. Get a real job for a while and fund your own fucking campaigns, you lazy pieces of shit.

You're missing the point. The point is that corporations with really deep pockets can heavily support one candidate, allowing him to buy TV ads at prime-time, pay for billboards, etc, while his opponent, without such corporate backing, doesn't have half the exposure.

What the solution proposes is to deny people and corporations the ability to "outshout", per se, their less financially well-off opponents. Every person would have the same ability to contribute, no more, no less; that way, a poor man living in the Appalachians has just as loud a 'voice' as Bill Gates.

This reminds me of the other half of the plan. There would be different timeslots forced open throughout the day (i.e. morning, afternoon, prime-time) by the government (the airwaves are a public resource), and a lottery would be held; by the luck of the draw, each candidate would get certain minutes throughout the day, for free.

Basically, the general plan is for each candidate and each voter to have an equal voice, independant of the financial status of any of them.

And campaign finance legislation has always seemed, to me at least, to be a fairly obvious violation of free speech. A politically correct violation, but still a violation. We don't need legislate to convince our politicians to not be corporate whores, we need to elect ethical politicians.

Guess what? Those "ethical" politicians won't get as much contributions from corporate sponsors; they won't get as much airtime, ads, or exposure to the general public. They'll lose to the politicians with the bigger pockets... or the best blowjobs, depending on where the cash is coming from.

And if anything, this plan would enhance freedom of speech. No longer would the man with the deepest pockets be able to shout the loudest and longest. I suppose if you support the idea of "He who has the most gold makes the rules" then you'd be just peachy with the current system, but I'm a little disgruntled.

Just because a whole bunch of people in the nation are apathetic about voting doesn't mean they should be able to drag the rest of us down with them. We need to force ethics back into politics.

[Joe]

So our First Amendment rights need to be restricted because 1) politicians can't control themselves and 2) people are apathetic about voting?

[^^]

snip illogical claptrap

Amazing what some people will equate with freedom of speech ._.

[Joe]

snip illogical claptrap

Amazing what some people will equate with freedom of speech ._.

The Supreme Court thought so; the Burger Court ruled that limits on campaign contributions were illegal about 30 years ago. It was later overturned, IIRC, but that goes to show that this isn't just some idea I pulled out of my ass, it's been out there for some time.

And again; campaign contributions are a form of political expression. If you think that political expression is not protected by the First Amendment, then you need to take a course in basic political science, because political expression is one of the things that the Founders wanted to protect.

[^^]

snip illogical claptrap

Amazing what some people will equate with freedom of speech ._.

The Supreme Court thought so; the Burger Court ruled that limits on campaign contributions were illegal about 30 years ago. It was later overturned, IIRC, but that goes to show that this isn't just some idea I pulled out of my ass, it's been out there for some time.

And again; campaign contributions are a form of political expression. If you think that political expression is not protected by the First Amendment, then you need to take a course in basic political science, because political expression is one of the things that the Founders wanted to protect.

Buying off politicians, for some strange reason, doesn't look like free speech to me.

[Joe]

Amazing what some people will equate with freedom of speech ._.

The Supreme Court thought so; the Burger Court ruled that limits on campaign contributions were illegal about 30 years ago. It was later overturned, IIRC, but that goes to show that this isn't just some idea I pulled out of my ass, it's been out there for some time.

And again; campaign contributions are a form of political expression. If you think that political expression is not protected by the First Amendment, then you need to take a course in basic political science, because political expression is one of the things that the Founders wanted to protect.

Buying off politicians, for some strange reason, doesn't look like free speech to me.

What you sweepingly refer to as "buying off politicians" is actually not only corporations, but labor unions, lobbying groups like the AARP and NFIB, and individuals of wealth making their voice heard in a way that will actually work.

It also would be silly to not mention the fact that we already have laws - a lot of them - on the books that regulate and control campaign finance and they have failed to significantly impact the political process. More legislation is not a cure-all to every political and social problem.