Supreme Court Ruining Democracy?

[blahface]

This is absolutely insane. SCOTUS has ruled that Arizona's public financing of campaigns to candidates that are vastly outspend by their competitor unconstitutional.

Representing the majority opinion, John Roberts' reasoning is that it "imposes a substantial burden on the speech of privately financed candidates and independent expenditure groups." This does no such thing. Seriously, how is this not judicial activism? They are just making shit up to ensure that the richest, most pro corporate candidates always win. SCOTUS is way too powerful.

[evilsoup]

Well this is bullshit. I think the reason why this kind of bullshit is happening is because the judges are appointed by the president, which makes them political.

[Simon_Jester]

The obvious brute-force solution is to just raise the flat ceiling for public financing, such that it becomes largely irrelevant- there's an upper bound on how much people are willing to pay to buy a legislature, and government could feasibly outbid them without too much trouble. Say that the funding ceiling for federal matching funds is up to whichever candidate spent the most in the last election, for instance.
_________________

What I would say is that the problem we have here is not the Court's power; it's the Court's composition. At the moment, the Supreme Court has several justices whose basic policies are fundamentally anti-democratic and pro-corporatist. This isn't the first era during which the composition of the Court led to bad decisions- Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson come to mind as examples far worse than anything we've seen recently.

The justices being political appointees makes this more likely to happen, and luck plays a huge role- at this point five of the nine justices are Republican appointees, mostly because of the times at which previous justices happened to retire. If one or two people had retired a few years earlier or later, the composition of the Court would change and with it many of these narrow decisions.

However, the entire legal infrastructure of the US is caught up in this process, with ideology merging with interpretation of law. The American left suffers from this as much as the right; it truly is a case of "common sense" in the legal sphere becoming nothing more than the political bias you can't see. So removing the practice of presidential appointment of justices wouldn't necessarily change much.

[K. A. Pital]

A more subtle way of trying to sneak back with the whole suffrange property census thing, heheh. Not that the de-facto abolition of censitary limits on suffrage changed the picture in the higher echelons of power much, anyway.

[Simon_Jester]

A more subtle way of trying to sneak back with the whole suffrange property census thing, heheh. Not that the de-facto abolition of censitary limits on suffrage changed the picture in the higher echelons of power much, anyway.

Sneers aside, you're wrong, it did. Even now, to an extent, it has- both political parties look quite different from how they would look if, say, the bottom half (or three fourths, or nine tenths) of the national income distribution were disenfranchised.

Many great issues in American history, and many important policies created during those years, would never have existed were it not for the extension of the vote to the lower class. Note that this isn't always what you'd call a good thing- religious fundamentalism is concentrated among the poor, for instance.

[Feil]

This was decided before it began. The Court has repeatedly held in recent years that money is speech and has first-amendment protection. The ruling is not insane, in and of itself. It is a rational extrapolation from that dangerous premise: anything which impedes one's ability to spend money on political goals is unconstitutional. Obviously, this ends up just making it easier for corporations to buy the government.

And, frankly, from the strict-constructionist viewpoint, they're probably right. The authors of the document were for the most part rich self-interested bastards. Utopian rich self-interested bastards, yes, but only in a utopia that the rich could control: a modern-day roman republic, right down to the fucking columns. The move towards egalitarianism came much later.

[blahface]

The ruling is not insane, in and of itself. It is a rational extrapolation from that dangerous premise: anything which impedes one's ability to spend money on political goals is unconstitutional.

I'm not sure how it even does that. It doesn't restrict anyone's ability to spend money on speech. It just makes sure that one candidate's voice isn't completely handicapped by the lack of funds. It increases the amount of speech - it doesn't abridge it.

[blahface]

Well this is bullshit. I think the reason why this kind of bullshit is happening is because the judges are appointed by the president, which makes them political.

I completely agree with this. The President should not be the one appointing judges and prosecutors. In my opinion, there should be a Judicial Congress that should handle 99.99% of the appointments of judges and prosecutors. This body would be made up of people who have a law degree and have passed the bar exam. Members of this body would be elected by people who have passed an exam which would be less extensive than the bar exam, but also ensure that anyone who passes it would have a good grasp of basic law.

This body would divide into 5 caucuses. Each caucus should elect a leader from within. Whenever there is a vacant position for a prosecutor or judge, each leader should nominate a candidate for that position. Each member of the Judicial Congress would rank the five candidates and the Condorcet method would be used to determine which candidate fills that vacancy.

This Judicial Congress would also have the power to remove a judge or prosecutor with 60% consensus.

[Kane Starkiller]

Wait let me see if I get the law correctly. Say there are two candidates. I support candidate A and despise candidate B. I may or may not choose to support candidate A by making a donation to his election campaign. However if candidate A raises more money than the established limit I am forced to give money (through taxes) to the candidate B which I don't want to win?
That doesn't strike me as particularly democratic.

[K. A. Pital]

Of course. Next logical step - who are the biggest funding sources? Why, big corporations! Okay, who do they love? They absolutely hate candidate B and love candidate A, who is a corporate whore. I mean, folks who buy whores love them.

Once upon a time equal funding was a concept which was also once seen as a good idea for democracy. Equal funding, equal access to media... that sort of thing.

Now, in a situation when there's no demand for equal funding, obviously this law is not valid. However, from a moral standpoint it is more than valid. And equal funding and equal access are moral requirements too - not just legal ones.

This whole situation with corporate whores can only be abolished by one logical measure - public and equal funding for all. Pass the necessary barrier (vote collection) to get yourself on the ballot? From there on you only have public funds to boot and an equal time on TV screens. You're a corporate whore who would like to paint the entire city with WE LOVE CORPORATE COCK IN OUR ASSHOLES posters? Too bad, but you'll only get enough money to put as many posters as your opponents do and not much more.

It's kinda sad America doesn't subscribe to public-funding-only

[Dave]

But, prior to the SCOTUS decision, what prevented big corporations from creating the non-profit organization CITIZENS FOR CANDIDATE A, financing them to the hilt and letting this front company finance Candidate A's campaign in addition to whatever public funding was given to him?

[K. A. Pital]

But, prior to the SCOTUS decision, what prevented big corporations from creating the non-profit organization CITIZENS FOR CANDIDATE A, financing them to the hilt and letting this front company finance Candidate A's campaign in addition to whatever public funding was given to him?

Nothing did. Hence why I said this particular decision matters not, and neither does this law. It's either public financing or corporate financing, openly or in disquise - doesn't matter (although the disquise does make it a little more complex for the corporation, but not by a big margin).

Since there's no PUBLIC ONLY rule, everything else is just patchwork on a rotten blanket.

[Simon_Jester]

Institutions like the Arizona law are patches big enough to cover much of the blanket- if a corporate candidate can't outspend his opponent, it matters a lot less that he's corporate funded. But as long as the constitutional idea "money equals speech, therefore controlling the role of money in elections equals censorship" is applied... yeah, the blanket stays rotten.

Wait let me see if I get the law correctly. Say there are two candidates. I support candidate A and despise candidate B. I may or may not choose to support candidate A by making a donation to his election campaign. However if candidate A raises more money than the established limit I am forced to give money (through taxes) to the candidate B which I don't want to win?
That doesn't strike me as particularly democratic.

Democracy is expressed in the voting process, not the donation process.

Donation systems are inherently nondemocratic, because one man with fifty million dollars can more easily spare a million for an election campaign than ten thousand men with five thousand dollars can spare a hundred each for that campaign. The distribution of resources and political organization is not uniform, and has nothing to do with the principle of "one man, one vote." The entire point of private campaign donations is to allow one person to alter the outcome of the election in favor of their own goals.

Which is obviously reasonable to a point, or we couldn't even talk about politics- but where's the limit? We know, anyone who isn't a complete fool knows, that people who give large amounts of money to a politician's campaign effectively own that politician. When the political arena is dominated by donations (as is likely to be the case in low-turnout, mass-media societies), whoever is in the best position to give politicians money will own them. That is not democracy.

This is why money is different from speech- because the number of dollars you own does not translate on a one-to-one basis with your rights. Having twice as many dollars does not give you twice as much right to a say in how an election comes out. Which is why the election is supposed to be decided at the voting booth, not at the fundraisers.

Failing to respect this principle means, effectively, disenfranchising people who lack the money to donate to campaigns.

[Flagg]

Well this is bullshit. I think the reason why this kind of bullshit is happening is because the judges are appointed by the president, which makes them political.

I completely agree with this. The President should not be the one appointing judges and prosecutors. In my opinion, there should be a Judicial Congress that should handle 99.99% of the appointments of judges and prosecutors. This body would be made up of people who have a law degree and have passed the bar exam. Members of this body would be elected by people who have passed an exam which would be less extensive than the bar exam, but also ensure that anyone who passes it would have a good grasp of basic law.

This body would divide into 5 caucuses. Each caucus should elect a leader from within. Whenever there is a vacant position for a prosecutor or judge, each leader should nominate a candidate for that position. Each member of the Judicial Congress would rank the five candidates and the Condorcet method would be used to determine which candidate fills that vacancy.

This Judicial Congress would also have the power to remove a judge or prosecutor with 60% consensus.

You're a fucking moron. The US Senate vets and approves judicial nominations, the President doesn't just get to appoint anyone he chooses. And nothing stops your retarded body from being just as political as the current process.

[Kane Starkiller]

To Simon_Jester and Stas Bush:

None of this changes the simple fact that no amount of money, commercials and posters can force a person to give his vote to someone. Rich people can spend more money to try and influence people but ultimately the decision is up to the people.
In this scheme people are forced, whether they like the candidate or not, to give the candidate money.
So if one chooses to give a candidate money that's private funding and it's bad and oppressive and unfair but if the state takes away ones money without any questions or discussions and then gives it to a candidate the state (not the people) thinks deserves it it's super duper fair and supports democracy? Sorry don't buy that.
If anything it opens up even more chance for corruption. Who decides which candidates are eligible and deserving to get all that sweet "public" money?

[Bakustra]

To Simon_Jester and Stas Bush:

None of this changes the simple fact that no amount of money, commercials and posters can force a person to give his vote to someone. Rich people can spend more money to try and influence people but ultimately the decision is up to the people.
In this scheme people are forced, whether they like the candidate or not, to give the candidate money.
So if one chooses to give a candidate money that's private funding and it's bad and oppressive and unfair but if the state takes away ones money without any questions or discussions and then gives it to a candidate the state (not the people) thinks deserves it it's super duper fair and supports democracy? Sorry don't buy that.
If anything it opens up even more chance for corruption. Who decides which candidates are eligible and deserving to get all that sweet "public" money?

Well, theoretically you could have a mechanism for getting on the ballot and being able to receive public funding- perhaps some sort of thing where people could sign a paper to indicate their support for that candidate. I don't know what you would call such an outlandish contraption, though!

In addition, you're ignoring that if we have three candidates, A, B, and C, and A and B get money and thus exposure, but C does not, then even if C would be the best and most popular candidate, C will still lose because she has no chance to make herself known, and so the amount of people voting for her will remain limited. Even if A and B would be more popular, they are still beholden to the interests that get them elected by funding them, thus kicking democracy further down the road of oligarchy. That's without addressing the rational-actor implications in your post.

[Kane Starkiller]

Sure we have that in Croatia: you get more than 10,000 signatures and you are a candidate for a president or a parliament. Small problem: as it turns out all kind of bozos can get those 10,000 signatures, folk singers, local celebrities etc. They're clowns and don't actually stand a chance of winning the elections but people gave signatures for shits and giggles.
So in 2003 Croatian election law stipulated that ALL candidate parties for parliamentary elections had to get equal time on national TV and they had to be presented in alphabetical order so as not to be partial.
So you had a program in which there were dozens of one-man clown parties laying out their nonsensical programs and promises.
It was the funniest piece of TV programming I've seen in many years I'll say that much but in no way did it improve democracy and the quality of our parliament.
The only real result was that those clowns pocketed state money and obviously never intended to actually win in the elections.

[Simon_Jester]

To Simon_Jester and Stas Bush:

None of this changes the simple fact that no amount of money, commercials and posters can force a person to give his vote to someone. Rich people can spend more money to try and influence people but ultimately the decision is up to the people.

If voting were compulsory (like Australia), or if turnout were high for other reasons, it wouldn't matter very much.

But in a society where voter turnout is low (like the US), having more money for your campaign translates directly into the ability to 'buy' votes by paying people to increase turnout- people whose opinions haven't been changed but who would otherwise not participate in the election. It also translates into the ability to slander candidates and make up lies about them, then broadcast those lies to the media, which affects voting patterns even if no one is "forced" to believe the lies.

In this scheme people are forced, whether they like the candidate or not, to give the candidate money.

Yes, just as pacifists are forced to pay taxes to support the military, and people who don't care about agriculture are forced to pay taxes for farm subsidies. Or, looked at another way, I put X thousand dollars into the system in taxes, which could be spent on anything- not necessarily on things I approve of or disapprove of. It balances out.

Doesn't bother me much either way.

So if one chooses to give a candidate money that's private funding and it's bad and oppressive and unfair but if the state takes away ones money without any questions or discussions and then gives it to a candidate the state (not the people) thinks deserves it it's super duper fair and supports democracy? Sorry don't buy that.

It's not oppressive to give a candidate money. What's oppressive is the cumulative effect of everyone giving as much money as they want in a system where voter turnout is low and where you can effectively spend cash to secure votes.

At which point elections can be decided by who has the bigger budget, rather than by who would win if you actually stopped to ask every individual citizen what they think, which is how a democracy is supposed to work.

If anything it opens up even more chance for corruption. Who decides which candidates are eligible and deserving to get all that sweet "public" money?

The voters, by signing petitions. Who else?

Sure we have that in Croatia: you get more than 10,000 signatures and you are a candidate for a president or a parliament. Small problem: as it turns out all kind of bozos can get those 10,000 signatures, folk singers, local celebrities etc. They're clowns and don't actually stand a chance of winning the elections but people gave signatures for shits and giggles.
So in 2003 Croatian election law stipulated that ALL candidate parties for parliamentary elections had to get equal time on national TV and they had to be presented in alphabetical order so as not to be partial.
So you had a program in which there were dozens of one-man clown parties laying out their nonsensical programs and promises.
It was the funniest piece of TV programming I've seen in many years I'll say that much but in no way did it improve democracy and the quality of our parliament.
The only real result was that those clowns pocketed state money and obviously never intended to actually win in the elections.

Candidates who cannot claim to have some minimum share of the popular support shouldn't receive a full share of state support for their campaign- but that's a problem you can fix.

You can manage it by controlling the size of the list of signatures required. For example, you could require ten thousand signatures to be recognized as a candidate and receive a small amount of state funding, enough to start a grassroots campaign. But then you need twenty or fifty or a hundred thousand to be recognized as a major candidate and receive a larger amount of state funding, and so on. Only a handful of candidates who can receive support in the 5-10% range or higher would get significant media air time.

You could even receive funding proportionate to the number of registered voters on your signature list, which would be a very democratic way to fund an election campaign.

Weeding out one-man clown parties is something the state is perfectly capable of doing, given the will to do so. It has the drawback that fringe parties will have a hard time breaking out into the mainstream. But then, so does the US system, because big corporations don't bother to give large donations to fringe parties- they wouldn't get any payback.

[Bakustra]

You ignored half of my post altogether! But your entire argument is founded on oligarchic elitism, quite contrary to the democratic ideals you profess to hold. Consider the Rent is Too Damn High Party that was founded by one man in the New York gubernatorial race. It was a "joke" party without a chance of victory. It According to you, it would be a waste and Jimmy McMillan a clown. But he did what he did to get the problem of rent hikes into the public view. Minor parties can still have a role to contribute even if you think that only large parties should count.

PS: The US has the same method, I was being sarcastic. I see it made no impact on the metallic skull you possess. Curiously, even in the US there are rarely more than six parties on the ballot at a time!

[Kane Starkiller]

Obviously a state granting a CERTAIN amount of money so even that smallest can have a voice and state matching private funding are not the same thing are they?
I haven't ignored your post and it doesn't change anything. You can have A,B,C and DEFGHIJKLMNOPQR candidates right? Do you give all of them money? So that all of them match the private funding of A and B?

But wait: not wanting to state to use my tax money to match private funding of certain candidates=oligarchical elite!

[blahface]

Well this is bullshit. I think the reason why this kind of bullshit is happening is because the judges are appointed by the president, which makes them political.

I completely agree with this. The President should not be the one appointing judges and prosecutors. In my opinion, there should be a Judicial Congress that should handle 99.99% of the appointments of judges and prosecutors. This body would be made up of people who have a law degree and have passed the bar exam. Members of this body would be elected by people who have passed an exam which would be less extensive than the bar exam, but also ensure that anyone who passes it would have a good grasp of basic law.

This body would divide into 5 caucuses. Each caucus should elect a leader from within. Whenever there is a vacant position for a prosecutor or judge, each leader should nominate a candidate for that position. Each member of the Judicial Congress would rank the five candidates and the Condorcet method would be used to determine which candidate fills that vacancy.

This Judicial Congress would also have the power to remove a judge or prosecutor with 60% consensus.

You're a fucking moron. The US Senate vets and approves judicial nominations, the President doesn't just get to appoint anyone he chooses. And nothing stops your retarded body from being just as political as the current process.

The senate has a super majority of Republicans and corporate Democrats. What are the odds that a corporate stooge wouldn't slip through the cracks? Also, once a justice is in, he is in for life and there is no accountability for judicial activism. My body allows for the removal of judges who blatantly misinterpret the law. In addition, do you think the Senate is going to object to an Attorney General that has the philosophy that we shouldn't investigate detainee abuses because those crimes happened in the past?

The body I proposed may end up being a little political, but it wouldn't be nearly as bad as it is now. They would be elected by people who know the law and the voters would only have to concentrate on that area alone instead of the wide spectrum of issues that are involved in selecting the President or a congressman.

[blahface]

None of this changes the simple fact that no amount of money, commercials and posters can force a person to give his vote to someone. Rich people can spend more money to try and influence people but ultimately the decision is up to the people.

The implicit statement you are making is that people are informed rational human beings. A good chunk of people aren't going to do much research and the only information they base their decisions on are from the sound bites on the 30 second television ads. This is a huge handicap to overcome. So technically, you are right, nobody can force anyone to vote a certain way, but you are naive if you think money doesn't have a massive influence on elections.

For the sake of argument, let's just say money doesn't influence voters. What if it is the perception of the candidates that it does? If they feel they need corporate cash to win the election, they are going to do what it takes to get corporate donations. There is implicit bribery going on.

Lets forget about all of that though. Whether or not you agree with the Arizona law, you cannot make an honest case that it is unconstitutional.

[Flagg]

I completely agree with this. The President should not be the one appointing judges and prosecutors. In my opinion, there should be a Judicial Congress that should handle 99.99% of the appointments of judges and prosecutors. This body would be made up of people who have a law degree and have passed the bar exam. Members of this body would be elected by people who have passed an exam which would be less extensive than the bar exam, but also ensure that anyone who passes it would have a good grasp of basic law.

This body would divide into 5 caucuses. Each caucus should elect a leader from within. Whenever there is a vacant position for a prosecutor or judge, each leader should nominate a candidate for that position. Each member of the Judicial Congress would rank the five candidates and the Condorcet method would be used to determine which candidate fills that vacancy.

This Judicial Congress would also have the power to remove a judge or prosecutor with 60% consensus.

You're a fucking moron. The US Senate vets and approves judicial nominations, the President doesn't just get to appoint anyone he chooses. And nothing stops your retarded body from being just as political as the current process.

The senate has a super majority of Republicans and corporate Democrats. What are the odds that a corporate stooge wouldn't slip through the cracks? Also, once a justice is in, he is in for life and there is no accountability for judicial activism. My body allows for the removal of judges who blatantly misinterpret the law. In addition, do you think the Senate is going to object to an Attorney General that has the philosophy that we shouldn't investigate detainee abuses because those crimes happened in the past?

The body I proposed may end up being a little political, but it wouldn't be nearly as bad as it is now. They would be elected by people who know the law and the voters would only have to concentrate on that area alone instead of the wide spectrum of issues that are involved in selecting the President or a congressman.

Instead of implementing a retardedly government breaking body that would be just as political (or even moreso) than the current clusterfuck of a nomination/ vetting process, how about we just take away lifetime appointments and make them follow the ethics rules that govern every other federal judge?

[Simon_Jester]

Obviously a state granting a CERTAIN amount of money so even that smallest can have a voice and state matching private funding are not the same thing are they?
I haven't ignored your post and it doesn't change anything. You can have A,B,C and DEFGHIJKLMNOPQR candidates right? Do you give all of them money? So that all of them match the private funding of A and B?

But wait: not wanting to state to use my tax money to match private funding of certain candidates=oligarchical elite!

Don't be disingenuous.

Extreme minority candidates for an office, who have a negligible chance of winning, should not be given funding parity with the major candidates. That way, foolishness lies.

Suppose you have a seat where the parties running are:
-Party A, with 35% of voters in the district registered as members.
-Party B, with 31%
-Party C, with 25%
-Party D, with 5%
-Party E, with 2%
-Party F, with 1%
-Parties G through Z, splitting 1% of the electorate between them (the 'one man clown parties')

It doesn't take a genius to see a way to resolve this in a reasonably fair-minded manner. Parties G through Z receive minimal public funding, if any, because their candidacy is supported by too small a group of voters. They do not have a reasonable claim to equal time on public media This can easily be established using requirements for how many people sign their candidacy petitions, and so forth.

Parties D through F are small, but large enough to reasonably deserve a voice. They should get some money, to ensure that they are heard, but cannot realistically claim a right to equal participation in the campaign compared to the larger parties. They may have a right to some public media access, but not much.

Parties A through C are all relatively large, and should receive significant public funding and air time. If anyone is to get 'full matching funds' in a privately-funded election, it will be them. If elections are strictly government-funded, they will between them get the lion's share of the available funds because, realistically, the election is between those three parties.

This is so easy to set up that your entire argument seems ridiculous to me. Tiny parties should get get only a tiny share of funding, small parties get a small amount of funding, and the bulk of the funding is divided among the major parties, of which there can only be a limited number by definition.
____________________

On top of this, Kane, you say: "But wait: not wanting to state to use my tax money to match private funding of certain candidates=oligarchical elite!"

Now think this over. For one, I assume you're fine with the state using my tax money to pay for a military, whether I think we need a military or not. Or to pay for renovations to the national capital even if I think the government might as well meet in a tent. Or to pay to enforce contract law even if I think the contract is unenforceable.

Why is election funding any different?

And even beyond that, you should be asking yourself: what's the alternative? If the state does not fund elections, who will? Is that a more democratic result? Is it more democratic to have elections bought and sold by the highest bidder than to have the state use taxpayer funding to set up the elections in a way that puts major parties on an equal footing?

[TC Pilot]

Of course. Next logical step - who are the biggest funding sources? Why, big corporations! Okay, who do they love? They absolutely hate candidate B and love candidate A, who is a corporate whore. I mean, folks who buy whores love them.

Of course, a fair number of American corporations take it one step further and donate to both major parties.

Democracy is expressed in the voting process, not the donation process.

Though, looking at Russia's recent history (say, the '96 presidential election), it's understandable why the difference is rather blurry.