• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
106,265
Reaction score
97,652
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions - The Washington Post

BARRINGTON, N.H. - Sen. Ted Cruz said Sunday that eliminating limits on how much money voters can give politicians would give people a greater say in the political process.


The Texas Republican, in New Hampshire courting grassroots support ahead of an expected presidential run, equated the flow of money to the First Amendment right to free speech: It is something that allows voices to be heard and candidates to be supported.


“I believe in free speech and the First Amendment, which means everyone here has a right to speak out in politics as effectively as possible," Cruz said. "To speak out and make your views known, whether that is standing on a street corner on a soap box, whether that is printing out a yard sign, whether that is spending money to run a radio ad or a TV ad, effectively communicating."

I thoroughly support this proposal, as it would eliminate the last of my demonstrably false idea that the non-rich have any voice in our government.
 
*Further on in the article:
Conservatives of all economic stripes, from the rich to those subsisting on food stamps, rejoiced at the news that the wealthy would have greater power and influence than they currently enjoy


*Not actually in the article.
 
*Later in the article:

One citizen noted, "Is it really wise to give what is essentially absolute power and influence to business interests that have so often been shown to be counter to the well-being of the poor?" He immediately added "Never mind, I guess," after being accused of using "class warfare rhetoric" by numerous conservative talk show pundits.



*I made that up too.
 
This is going to be a mess of a subject, but it all comes down to agreeing with an association. That association being that freedom of speech means being able to spend what you wish on that speech. Even if it results in political output, or even a redress of grievances by engaging in the political process in that manner.

While I tend to agree I see a clear consequence of the association means the OP is also right, the more money you have to spend on the process means more influence. My own opinion for or against a candidate may not be swayed by the ads I see (presumption being the more money in, the more out on ads for and attack ads against) I cannot speak for every voter out there. Nor can anyone else. Further, I would offer that we have mixed results on the average voter being moved towards a candidate based on spending for the campaign. We also cannot dismiss the other back end result of some being able to spend more on a candidate's campaign than the average income earner. Once in office, all that donation is bound to come with a vote for something that money wanted. Which makes a political theory become very realized. That modern politics, for both (D) and (R,) comes down to a vote in exchange for the promise of less contribution to the treasury in taxes, more in spending in some regard, or some terrible combination of the two resulting in deficits and debt additions no matter what the condition of the economy.

It is going to be painfully difficult to find a Democrat or Republican today that truly wants to even the playing field among voters and their money. Democrats can say they do, but in the end they want to really target the Koch brothers but ignore Soros and Steyer. Democrats may say they are against pools of cash coming in from pools of the public but seem to be very excited to speak to and take money from unions. At the same time Republicans have made it clear the more money the better, as Ted Cruz eludes to. It sounds good to give the association of speech to money but I suspect the real reason is current trend.

For the 2014 election cycle among the over 200 groups that wrote checks of $100,000 or more to a political organization of some distinction, Democrats had a 3-to-1 cash advantage throughout the cycle. Any review of opensecrets.org and indexed on top 50 donors to the election cycle will see interesting results for liberals. For individual, 3 of the top 5 (including the #1 and #2 donors) gave to liberals over conservatives. Steyer, Bloomberg, and Eychaner (Newsweb.) For organization, 8 of the top 10, donated to liberals over conservatives. Fahr LLC (Steyer,) ActBlue, National Education Association, Bloomberg Lp, NextGen Climate Action, and the Service Employees International Union round out the top 6, all liberal leaning. For the 501c groups that is another matter and tend to lean conservative over liberal. You add in all the ways and means the Koch brothers get money into politics and I find it dubious today's political climate is really about campaign contributions. It all comes down to who's campaign contributions.

Seems to be the only real answer is overwhelming campaign finance reform, 501(c) code reform, and hard limits putting every single voter on the same level. It is against my own political leans but we clearly have a real problem with today's set up. Especially since the last election saw some $3.7 billion in money flying around. But, every time we think about reforms it will run up against those on the bench who clearly see the association of freedom of speech and the cash to spend on it. Meaning, money still wins no matter how it is pooled then funneled into the process.
 
Last edited:
We have a system corrupted by money, so, by all means, let's take away any and all controls over how much money may be used/donated.

The best hope we have is technology. As more people use a DVR to skip commercials, TV ads declaring one's opponent to be Satan incarnate will have less influence. As more people use the internet, television will have less and less influence.

Money still talks, but it doesn't have quite as loud of a voice as it once did.
 
If more money means more speech, wouldn't equal money mean equal speech?

Seems to me if we had low limits on donations, then everyone could have equal speech. I wonder if Ted Cruz supports equality...
 
If more money means more speech, wouldn't equal money mean equal speech?

Seems to me if we had low limits on donations, then everyone could have equal speech. I wonder if Ted Cruz supports equality...

Assuming equal money means equal speech, he might, which is like begging the question.
 
Last edited:
If more money means more speech, wouldn't equal money mean equal speech?

Seems to me if we had low limits on donations, then everyone could have equal speech. I wonder if Ted Cruz supports equality...

Only way to do that is to ban political speech. If you don't, someone will need to arbitrarily put a dollar value on Person X's voice vs Person Y's voice.
 
Only way to do that is to ban political speech. If you don't, someone will need to arbitrarily put a dollar value on Person X's voice vs Person Y's voice.
You don't have to ban political speech to set a limit on how much money can be donated to a candidate. That's silly.
 
Seems to me if we had low limits on donations, then everyone could have equal speech.

This strikes me as similar to the logic by which, if we simply ban handguns, criminals will all turn theirs in.



Thanks to the fact that our government is actively involved in steering the market, there is massive return on investment to be made by investing in government decision-makers. So long as you have the former, you will get the latter. The history of several campaign "reform" efforts bear this out - all you do is push the money out of the limelight and to where it is more difficult to be seen. You won't get "equal speech", you will get "non-transparent funding of political campaigns".


On top of that, this doesn't provide for any kind of differentiation in levels of focus or perceived importance. If I desperately believe that America needs education reform, why shouldn't I be allowed to spend my own money trying to sway the public to support my position? Why should I be limited to what Joe Schmoe my next door neighbor who doesn't care chooses to spend? Unless you intend to force everyone to pay your proposed cap, "speech" as represented by "money" still won't be equal.
 
You don't have to ban political speech to set a limit on how much money can be donated to a candidate. That's silly.

In Hillary v Citizens United the government was forced to admit to SCOTUS that under the logic of the campaign finance reform act, it claimed the authority to ban books. I'd say that pretty much covers it.
 
This strikes me as similar to the logic by which, if we simply ban handguns, criminals will all turn theirs in.
This strikes me as making absolutely no sense to the point I was making. Good for you.

On top of that, this doesn't provide for any kind of differentiation in levels of focus or perceived importance. If I desperately believe that America needs education reform, why shouldn't I be allowed to spend my own money trying to sway the public to support my position? Why should I be limited to what Joe Schmoe my next door neighbor who doesn't care chooses to spend?
You're not limited to what he CHOOSES to spend, but rather what he's capable to spend. Big difference.

Unless you intend to force everyone to pay your proposed cap, "speech" as represented by "money" still won't be equal.
Sure it would be. Having the right and not exercising it doesn't remove the fact you have the right.
In Hillary v Citizens United the government was forced to admit to SCOTUS that under the logic of the campaign finance reform act, it claimed the authority to ban books. I'd say that pretty much covers it.
I have no idea why you think what you said is at all relevant to what I said.
 
This strikes me as making absolutely no sense to the point I was making.

Ah. I will draw it out for you. You are assuming willing disarmament by those who have no incentive to do so, lots of incentive not to do so, and the means not to do so.

You're not limited to what he CHOOSES to spend, but rather what he's capable to spend. Big difference.

Joe likes to rack up the credit cards and has zero savings. He can't afford to spend anything. I, on the other hand, am deeply dedicated to improving our society, and am willing to devote much of the fruits of my labor and my life trying to achieve this worthy goal. Why, again, should I be limited to him?

Sure it would be. Having the right and not exercising it doesn't remove the fact you have the right.

Ah, but you were not asking for equal rights of speech but equal speech. As you put it:

Slyfox said:
unequal money, which means unequal speech

Unequal Money = Unequal Speech.

Even were there to be no cap, Joe's rights to speech are as free as Bill Gates. As you say, exercise of a right =/= the right itself.

I have no idea why you think what you said is at all relevant to what I said.

Because that is banning political speech :)
 
You don't have to ban political speech to set a limit on how much money can be donated to a candidate. That's silly.

If I pay $2 for a button that says "Vote for Samhain" to wear wherever I go and Mark Cuban pays $2 for the same button to wear everywhere, is that the same contribution?
 
Right, because you say so. :roll:
No, because it's the truth.
Ah. I will draw it out for you. You are assuming willing disarmament by those who have no incentive to do so, lots of incentive not to do so, and the means not to do so.
Nope, still doesn't make any sense.

Your entire opposition seems to rest on the "if we make it a rule, then the rule will be violated". Well, we have laws against murder and murder still happens...should we just remove the laws on murder too?

The idea we shouldn't strive for equality under the law because some people will break the law is absurd. And I have absolutely no idea why you think talking about guns is relevant to this discussion.

Joe likes to rack up the credit cards and has zero savings. He can't afford to spend anything. I, on the other hand, am deeply dedicated to improving our society, and am willing to devote much of the fruits of my labor and my life trying to achieve this worthy goal. Why, again, should I be limited to him?
You're not limited to him. This isn't hard to understand. Here, I'll give you a brief, off the cuff, example of a constitutional amendment.

"Donations to political causes can exceed no more than 100 times the amount of the federal minimum wage per year".

Obviously I'm just using random numbers, but you get the point. You're not limited by Joe, you're limited to the law.

Ah, but you were not asking for equal rights of speech but equal speech. As you put it:

Unequal Money = Unequal Speech.

Even were there to be no cap, Joe's rights to speech are as free as Bill Gates. As you say, exercise of a right =/= the right itself.
I'm really trying hard to understand what you're saying here. But it's not getting through. I'll try to clarify my position.

Ted Cruz is saying that more money gives people more speech. If that's the case, then equal money gives equal speech. So set a limit on how much money can be donated, a limit which allows all Americans equal speech.

Because that is banning political speech :)
Again, what are you talking about? No one is saying we should ban political speech.

Your entire post seems to have no basis in reality with regards to what I'm talking about.
If I pay $2 for a button that says "Vote for Samhain" to wear wherever I go and Mark Cuban pays $2 for the same button to wear everywhere, is that the same contribution?
If that same button cost $1,000,000, would you be able to afford it?

The point is to make it affordable for everyone to have a roughly equal opportunity to monetarily engage in political discourse (if we entertain the rather absurd notion that money = speech). By removing any limits to contributions, Mark Cuban can buy off a politician who wouldn't even need to listen to my opposing viewpoint, because I simply don't have enough money to make it worth his time.

If you don't see how it's a problem to let only a wealthy few control the government, then I'm not sure you really belong in this discussion.
 
Nope, still doesn't make any sense.

Oh. Well then I will try to explain it to you more simply, perhaps with smaller words.

Your entire opposition seems to rest on the "if we make it a rule, then the rule will be violated". Well, we have laws against murder and murder still happens...should we just remove the laws on murder too?

Ah. You did get it, you are merely being obtuse :).

No. My point is that you are expecting an effect (disarmament) which will not occur. In the case of the armed criminals, the mechanism is illegal, in the case of money supporting political causes, it is not.

Remember the 527 organization hooflah of the 2004 election? When you make it more difficult for people to donate to candidates, you do not stop money flowing to support candidates, you merely change how they go about doing it.

You're not limited to him.

That is what you are arguing for. Equal Money so we can have Equal Speech, right?


This isn't hard to understand. Here, I'll give you a brief, off the cuff, example of a constitutional amendment.

"Donations to political causes can exceed no more than 100 times the amount of the federal minimum wage per year".

This will achieve neither of the ends that you have described. Firstly, because many people do not have that extra cash to donate, and so by your logic we are still allowing those who are wealthier to speak more than those who are not (which is a ridiculous backwards standard of judging a freedom by whether or not it is used - but it's yours), and secondly because many people will donate a variety within that limit, meaning that their speech is still unequal.

Obviously I'm just using random numbers, but you get the point. You're not limited by Joe, you're limited to the law.

Ah, but the law you have described does not, actually, create equal speech. It merely limits speech.

I'm really trying hard to understand what you're saying here. But it's not getting through. I'll try to clarify my position.

Ted Cruz is saying that more money gives people more speech. If that's the case, then equal money gives equal speech.

Equal Speech =/= an Equal Right to Speech. I see no reason why we would want to force all Americans to engage in Equal Speech.

For example, both Bill Gates and I are equally free to support Pro-Life causes. But I would wager that in fact I donate far more of my money to Pro-Life Speech than he does. My Speech in this instance is greater than his, even though our rights to engage in it are equal. Similarly, we both agree that School Reform is needed, but Gates donates far more than I do. In that case, his speech is more than mine but our right to it is still equal.

So set a limit on how much money can be donated, a limit which allows all Americans equal speech.

No, because no matter how you set the limit A) some people will not be able to meet it and B) those who want to exceed it will remain capable of legally doing so, and will simply have to do so in manners that are more convoluted and less transparent.

Again, what are you talking about? No one is saying we should ban political speech.

Sure you are. Specifically you are stating that we should ban political speech beyond a given limit.

If that same button cost $1,000,000, would you be able to afford it?

If I wasn't, would that mean that I do not have the right to purchase it?

My exercise of a right is not the right itself. That is as true in the case of the million-dollar-button as it is in the case of me-and-joe-schmoe.

If you don't see how it's a problem to let only a wealthy few control the government, then I'm not sure you really belong in this discussion.

If you are incapable of recognizing that so long as we legislate buying and selling, the first things bought and sold will be legislators, I'm not sure you belong here. Want to get the money out of politics? Make it unprofitable by getting the politicians out of the money. Ironically, by reducing the reach of government and it's power to effect who wins and who loses in the marketplace, Cruz would actually reduce the incentives for the Big Money Folks to invest in politicians, reducing their extent to which "a wealthy few control the government."
 
Ted Cruz renews call for unlimited campaign contributions - The Washington Post

I thoroughly support this proposal, as it would eliminate the last of my demonstrably false idea that the non-rich have any voice in our government.

Ultimately the only political speech that matters occurs at the ballot box. If seeing 3 political ads for one candidate for every 1 ad you see of their opponent sways you to vote for them then the problem isn't money in politics, the problem is you.
 
If that same button cost $1,000,000, would you be able to afford it?
If I wanted a button that bad, I would get some friends and we would timeshare it.

The point is to make it affordable for everyone to have a roughly equal opportunity to monetarily engage in political discourse (if we entertain the rather absurd notion that money = speech). By removing any limits to contributions, Mark Cuban can buy off a politician who wouldn't even need to listen to my opposing viewpoint, because I simply don't have enough money to make it worth his time.
you've already believe that speech doesn't equal money, so I don't see why you would think money equals speech.

What you described is called lobbying, which isn't illegal. Unless you are describing where Cuban bribes the politician to do him favors, which is already illegal.

If you don't see how it's a problem to let only a wealthy few control the government, then I'm not sure you really belong in this discussion.


If all campaign contributions are public, then all the information is on the table. If everyone can only donate $50, you MUST put a monetary value on 'in-kind' donations, up to and including my voice, which is a ban on political speech. If you don't, then the wealthy can donate their $50 like everyone else to the campaign, while doing a "friends of X" campaign not in conjunction with the official campaign.

Do I think we need to reform campaign finance? Absolutely, by making all donations reportable and taxable.
 
Ah. You did get it, you are merely being obtuse :).
No, I didn't get why you post such an absurd comment or why you used guns to make the point when we aren't banning speech.

No. My point is that you are expecting an effect (disarmament) which will not occur.
The effect will occur. Your argument that it doesn't is lacking any credibility. Will the law be violated? Sure, just like laws against theft and murder are violated. But it wouldn't change the fact that MOST people would abide by the law, which is the point.

The idea we can't legislate because the law might be violated is absurd.

When you make it more difficult for people to donate to candidates, you do not stop money flowing to support candidates, you merely change how they go about doing it.
I'm not arguing to make it more difficult, I'm arguing to set a limit. Big difference.

That is what you are arguing for.
No, I am not. I find it funny someone who isn't making sense tries to tell me what I'M arguing.

This will achieve neither of the ends that you have described. Firstly, because many people do not have that extra cash to donate, and so by your logic we are still allowing those who are wealthier to speak more than those who are not
Nonsense. It's simple mathematics.

Let's say one family has only $500 they can spend in a year and another family has $20 million they can spend. If there are no limits, the first family's donation is a minute percentage of what is spent between the two families. If the limit is $750, then that $500 is 33% of what is spent.

This creates a far more equal situation of speech.

(which is a ridiculous backwards standard of judging a freedom by whether or not it is used - but it's yours)
Once again, you have misunderstood or blatantly bastardized what I said, and given your history, I'm guess it's the latter.

The ability of a right is not removed if a person chooses not to use it. It IS removed it they are denied using it. And being able to only spend $500 compared to $20 million is, in essence, being denied from using it.

and secondly because many people will donate a variety within that limit, meaning that their speech is still unequal.
Are you really trying to claim my position is faulty because of a 100% equal standard? That's asinine. Not once have I said it has to be 100% the exact same amount of money. I've even said things directly contrary to that.

The point isn't so that everyone spends EXACTLY the same amount of money and for you to build that strawman to knock down is dishonest. The point is that everyone has equal speech, not equal ability to spend. Obviously some people will choose to spend less of the limit, no one argues that. But that doesn't mean they would be denied the opportunity to, which is what currently happens.

Everyone can scrape together a sizeable percentage of $750 (again, just a random number). Not everyone can scrape together a sizable percentage of $200 million. If it comes down to what Mark Cuban wants or what I want, Mark Cuban will always win, regardless of the merits of his position. This is not equal.

Ah, but the law you have described does not, actually, create equal speech. It merely limits speech.
If you're going to continually dishonestly represent my argument, let me know now so I can just write you off as another dishonest poster. It's hardly anything new with you, but I suppose I had hoped you would present arguments honestly in this thread.
 
If I wanted a button that bad, I would get some friends and we would timeshare it.
So one millionaire is worth 10 of you and your friends. And you think that's equal? Why is the millionaire more worthy of governmental representation than you?

you've already believe that speech doesn't equal money, so I don't see why you would think money equals speech.
Because it's the premise of this thread?

What you described is called lobbying, which isn't illegal. Unless you are describing where Cuban bribes the politician to do him favors, which is already illegal.
I would assume you're smart enough to understand lobbying is simply another name for bribing, correct? Oh, I know theoretical differences exist, but if Big Oil has put millions of dollars over the years into your campaign fund, you're going to help them out.

If all campaign contributions are public, then all the information is on the table.
All campaign contributions aren't truly public, but they should be.

If everyone can only donate $50, you MUST put a monetary value on 'in-kind' donations, up to and including my voice, which is a ban on political speech.
No, you don't. Everyone has a voice. Everyone can walk out to their street corner and sing the praises of a candidate. But not everyone can donate millions of dollars to a politician for support on legislation.

Do I think we need to reform campaign finance? Absolutely, by making all donations reportable and taxable.
We need a lot of campaign finance. But it won't happen, as the ones with the power to make it happen have no incentive to do so.
 
The problem is, we have it backward.

As it is, someone with a lot of money and a political ax to grind spends a few bazillion dollars so that I get to view political propaganda. Now, it's not that I don't appreciate the effort on my behalf, you understand, but there is the principle of each individual paying for his own benefits. Therefore, I propose we put all of the political ads on pay per view. If I feel a need to view such, then I'll pay for it myself. No third party will have to pay for my viewing pleasure, personal responsibility will be preserved, and the bazillionaires can keep their political donations.

How's that for a good right wing solution?
 
If more money means more speech, wouldn't equal money mean equal speech?

Seems to me if we had low limits on donations, then everyone could have equal speech. I wonder if Ted Cruz supports equality...


Of course he does: one dollar gets one vote.
 
Back
Top Bottom