{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/12/2015 9:53:25 PM
6
This thread illustrates the problem with trying to regulate campaign funding, which itself isn't even the biggest issue when it comes to creating a government more responsive to the public.
1. Spending/fundraising limits on political campaigns are easily circumvented. If you cap the amount I can donate to a candidate, I'll donate to a PAC that just happens to support that candidate. Similarly, if you cap the amount the candidate can spend, the difference will be made up by a PAC.
2. Transparency laws are either intrusive or useless. Other people shouldn't be able to know who your "average American" donated to or how much he donated. So we mandate that only contributions over, say, $10000 - that only the wealthy would be able to give - are made transparent. "Oho!" says the Crafty Billionaire, "I shall simply make my check out for $9999!". Well played, C.B.
As the Anti-Corruption Act notes, money can get from checkbook A to wallet B in a variety of ways. You can channel money as an individual or as a group, through direct donations or 501(c)'s. Regulating them is like trying to tighten your grip on a current of water: it just splits into smaller streams and slips through the cracks.
The best part is that it doesn't matter if you create the Perfect Set Of Rules. For one, it's very difficult to catch people in the act; it's a well-known fact that PAC's break the rules all the time, but getting the evidence is very difficult. When they do get caught, it's because they've been stupidly careless. And that brings us to point two, which is that getting caught isn't a big deal. In 2004, a couple of these stupidly careless groups was caught. They were promptly prosecuted... in 2007. The risk of getting caught is nothing compared to the necessity of keeping up with the arms race of campaign spending. Even if I do get caught being a devilish SuperPAC, you can't stop me before that timer hits 00:00. So you don't just need laws, you need enforcement. And you don't just need enforcement, you need magic.
English
-
That's what I forgot. PACs should be outlawed from making any form of advertisement, within 6months of any election IMO. Decrease their usefulness.
-
So now you've shifted the balance of power even [i]more[/i] towards a government you yourself describe as "corrupt", by disallowing private citizens from organizing to distribute their message. If I hear that a candidate wants to, say, have Intelligent Design taught alongside evolution in science classes, why should I and my friends be barred from explaining this to the public? Why should I just give the money to an opposing candidate, who I may or may not support, and just hope it's used for what I want? If a third-party candidate with radical ideas to reform government and bring it back to the middle class is running, why am I not allowed to show this to the American people in my own words? Apart from being a violation of free speech, decreasing the power of private campaign organizations would concentrate even more in the hands of the candidate's own campaigns. This environment would naturally select candidates who are even more able to raise the money themselves, while selecting against outside candidates without the visibility or connections. In other words, I hope you like Hillary Clinton more than Bernie Sanders.
-
Edited by Britton: 6/12/2015 10:36:24 PMWell its dammed if ya do, dammed if ya don't I reckon. As for a radical candidate or other radical legislation, that's why we need to be focused more a political debates, actual interviews, and public interaction, not advertising and sound bytes.
-
I don't think there is a way to limit the power of Big Money in elections without limiting everyone's power. Maybe that trade-off is worth it, maybe it's not. Either way, the real power of the wealthy is in their ability to shape the culture and conventional wisdom in Washington. Big Money is what puts the new study on John Boehner's desk telling him how Obamacare is the devil. Big Money is what organizes the annual convention where Ted Cruz is told about the War On Christianity. To me, that's where the power lies. And it doesn't really matter what the punishment for violating campaign laws is if a) nobody gets caught and b) people get caught years after doing it. If I break rules but still get my guy elected, then I'm breaking those rules.
-
Certainly a catch-22 I agree, but what's to be done? Feigned indifference? It seems that if continued down this road somethings got to give. To me it looks like we're at a boiling point or near to already.
-
You're right, its a hard problem.
