Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Ohh you don't have to remove the Governor General to Oust the Royal family.

You just have to stop paying for them and their visits.

[Akigagak]

Where do you live goddamnit? England? Canada? America? Stop being ambiguous.

[Neonivek]

Where do you live goddamnit? England? Canada? America? Stop being ambiguous.

I don't know, I thought my nationality was obvious from all the posts I've done over the years.

Though I don't like giving personal info.

[Jude]

How would american politics change if  you abolished party's and had every man for themselves?

Then parties would re-form in the loopholes within .3 seconds

[Zangi]

I think you missed something very important....  There are no disclosure requirements for political donations, still.

What it means is if a corporation donates X million to a politician's election campaign, noone else knows or can find out about it legally.

Don't you want to know who is giving X millions to your politician?  And to know what these donors are all about?  I do. 
You can actually tell some of what the politician will try to change or keep the same.... what campaign promises are hollow or true...

[Aqizzar]

Uh, what are you talking about?  Because in America, yeah, you have to disclose every dime of campaign donations and spending.  It's often the case that some shady money gets in that isn't investigated until well after the election it helped win, but it's there.  Is this another country you're referring too?

[mainiac]

That sounds alright, except it probably won't work well in practice.

If you want an excellent example of the failure that is range voting, look at ytmnd.  People vote 5 or they vote 1.  Voting 4 is actually considered to be saying that the site in question wasn't very good.  Then the downvoters come along and ruin things even more with strategic voting.  Range voting simply cannot work because people's opinions are not objective measurable quantities.

Uh, what are you talking about?  Because in America, yeah, you have to disclose every dime of campaign donations and spending.  It's often the case that some shady money gets in that isn't investigated until well after the election it helped win, but it's there.  Is this another country you're referring too?

Not to mention that citizens are limited to 2,300 dollar contributions.  Corporations have no limit however.  Corporations aren't people.  People are second class citizens.

[Earthquake Damage]

If you want an excellent example of the failure that is range voting, look at ytmnd.

I so wish I'd thought of that counterexample.  That's exactly the sort of thing I meant.  My hat's off to you, my good sir!

[Aqizzar]

Bumpan mah thread wit new infomashun.  I of course only know of this thanks to the stalwart journalism at Talking Points Memo, who found something that couldn't possibly better fit their title-

...Since the entity or entities financing independent expenditures must be disclosed, a corporation leading the way against a particular candidate risks alienating a significant block of its potential customer or shareholder base.  Moreover, upon the first major corporate-funded public communications airing, media coverage is likely to focus on the corporation's involvement in the campaign rather than the content of any advocacy.

Therefore, most corporations will probably proceed cautiously. If such independent expenditures are made, groups of corporations within an industry may form coalitions or use existing trade associations to support candidates favorable to policy positions that affect the group as a whole. While corporations that contribute to these expenditures might still be disclosed, this indirect approach can provide sufficient cover such that no single contributing entity receives the bulk of public scrutiny. 

Corporations could further lower their profile in such cases by not making contributions specific to a particular expenditure by that third-party corporation. Such independent expenditures can also take the form of advertisements in "under-the radar" sources, such as ideologically-based talk radio, web-based ads or phone banks...

That is an excerpt from an open letter of stock advice, provided by K&L Gates legal services, specialists in American corporate and banking law.  The full article is available (for now), as free if nonspecific, and nonbinding, advice for any incorporated entity considering the new world of Citizens United vs FEC.  Peruse at your leisure.

[Zangi]

Uh, what are you talking about?  Because in America, yeah, you have to disclose every dime of campaign donations and spending.  It's often the case that some shady money gets in that isn't investigated until well after the election it helped win, but it's there.  Is this another country you're referring too?

Ah, this... I must've misread some stuff... my apologies, was wrong on that count.

[Forumsdwarf]

The problem with campaign finance laws is they effectively create a "free speech zone" for lawyers and politicians and anyone who can afford to buy them and a "legal intimidation zone" for everyone else.
Political interests, including powerful politically-connected corporations, had started using campaign finance laws to silence their opponents, not because they had a case but because the small-time activists under assault couldn't afford to hire lawyers.
There was a particularly egregious eminent domain case in which a city and corporate developer ganged up on an outlying suburb, the corporation because they wanted to use eminent domain powers already promised by the city to seize and develop the property and the city for the tax money.
The residents formed a political organization in order to try to keep their homes by encouraging their neighbors to vote against annexation.
Guess who got sued for campaign finance law violations?  Hint: cities and corporations have lawyers in their employ even when they're not suing people or taking their land.
Campaign finance laws create barriers to entry for small-time activists.  They do nothing to deter crony capitalism.

Now let's look at the consequences of unfettered freedom of political speech.  Do small-time players really get drowned out by the deep pockets?

Consider these examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ascNokQFwQ

Both represent propaganda from opposite sides of the same issue.  Which one was more effective for its cause?  Which one cost more money?  Which one was produced by a big, wealthy corporation?

In the age of the internet only the resonance of the message matters.  When information is free the idea that we need to be "protected" from "too much speech" seems more and more anachronistic.  Campaign finance reform tries to solve a problem that cannot exist: when information is free your money can't buy it.  It's like trying to divide by zero.

The point of campaign finance laws is not to keep political speech free but to make it expensive.  That leads to more cronyism, not less.