• 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!

Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

Oftencold

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,044
Reaction score
2,202
Location
A small village in Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 19, 2009


The ruling, if it stands, could provide a boost to Republicans and their allies as they try to win back Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012. Outside conservative groups could become particularly important in countering the fundraising juggernaut of President Obama, who shattered past records by raising more than $750 million during his 2008 campaign.

Experts suggested that the court's decision could provide a boon to groups tapping into the fervor of anti-Obama activity and "tea party" events. It will certainly allow groups across the political spectrum to raise and spend money without pause, potentially leading to a more acerbic campaign environment.

ARTICLE: washingtonpost.com

COOL!
 
Do you two think there should be any restrictions on money spent in politics?
 
This is a victory for the First Amendment.
 
What took so long?
 
Couple things:

-It's unclear how this case relates to the Citizens United case currently before the SC. At first glance it seems sort of pointless, but it might deal with different provisions.

-The bias in this article is rather irritating. When explaining the impact of this decision, the author notes:

The ruling, if it stands, could provide a boost to Republicans and their allies as they try to win back Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012. Outside conservative groups could become particularly important in countering the fundraising juggernaut of President Obama, who shattered past records by raising more than $750 million during his 2008 campaign.

Experts suggested that the court's decision could provide a boon to groups tapping into the fervor of anti-Obama activity and "tea party" events.

The obvious implication of this statement is that this decision will somehow disproportionately benefit Republicans, because Republicans are supposedly more likely to use unspecified shady funding methods.

Reality: There's absolutely no evidence to support the claim that this would benefit Republicans more than Democrats. The suit itself was brought by Emily's List, a liberal non-profit group.

-This ruling is more about the flaws inherent in the FEC's terrible regulations than about the notion of "keeping money out of politics." The main impact of the current regulations is not to keep money out of politics, but to limit particular types of speech and reduce accountability.
 
Is this really decided?

I have not heard one word about this?
 
Is this really decided?

I have not heard one word about this?

It' not decided. There is a campaign finance reform case before the SC currently, which will I suspect be much more telling than this one.
 
This is terrific and timely. I would hope the entire original bill be squashed.
 
Not really, no.

I disagree. If people can spend unlimited money, that gives way too much power to very wealthy people, businesses, and unions. It too much shuts out those who don't have much money.
 
I disagree. If people can spend unlimited money, that gives way too much power to very wealthy people, businesses, and unions. It too much shuts out those who don't have much money.

How does our current system prevent this?

If I have a few billion to burn, I create a 501(c)(4) called RightinNYC Solutions. I then give that 501(c)(4) as much as I want, and send it out there to spread my message. All I have to do is couch my message in terms of "voter education" or "issue advocacy."

Come election season, I set up a PAC called RightinNYC Advocacy. Although this one isn't a 501(c)(4), it has the freedom to advocate for actual candidates by name. There are some funding restrictions on it, but I just use the 501(c)(4) to get out the concepts and this one to drive home the points.

If that's not enough, I can just set up a 527 called RightinNYC Principles. I can fund this one as freely as I fund my 501(c)(4), so the donation limits don't come into play. The only restriction on this group is that I don't use a particular set of magic words in my ads. Other than that, I can do whatever I want.

The primary effect of the current campaign finance structure is to mislead the public into believing that we've limited the impact of special interests in politics and to make it difficult for all but the obscenely wealthy to have truly free speech.
 
How does our current system prevent this?

If I have a few billion to burn, I create a 501(c)(4) called RightinNYC Solutions. I then give that 501(c)(4) as much as I want, and send it out there to spread my message. All I have to do is couch my message in terms of "voter education" or "issue advocacy."

Come election season, I set up a PAC called RightinNYC Advocacy. Although this one isn't a 501(c)(4), it has the freedom to advocate for actual candidates by name. There are some funding restrictions on it, but I just use the 501(c)(4) to get out the concepts and this one to drive home the points.

If that's not enough, I can just set up a 527 called RightinNYC Principles. I can fund this one as freely as I fund my 501(c)(4), so the donation limits don't come into play. The only restriction on this group is that I don't use a particular set of magic words in my ads. Other than that, I can do whatever I want.

The primary effect of the current campaign finance structure is to mislead the public into believing that we've limited the impact of special interests in politics and to make it difficult for all but the obscenely wealthy to have truly free speech.

I completely agree, which is why I think loopholes like those you mentioned need to be closed.
 
In the days before the maturation of the World Wide Web, I might have agreed.

But we are fortunate enough to live in an era when getting one's message out is simplicity itself.

In other words, barring outright bribery of the voters, which is already a crime, money only has so much use in political advertising before diminishing returns are encountered.

In the other hands, by Spenglerian fortunes on messages which are rejected by the voters, a defacto financial penalty is created for those messages. Let them waste their money until they get smarter.
 
Last edited:
I completely agree, which is why I think loopholes like those you mentioned need to be closed.

I believe that in order to truly close these loopholes (and not simply have them use another), we would have to infringe on first amendment rights to a degree that I'm not comfortable with.
 
"The obvious implication of this statement is that this decision will somehow disproportionately benefit Republicans, because Republicans are supposedly more likely to use unspecified shady funding methods."

The article implies nothing about shady funding methods.

The reason it benefits the GOP is because the GOP as the bigger donors who were subject to laws limitations regarding contribution amounts.

( To the extent the limitations worked)
 
"The obvious implication of this statement is that this decision will somehow disproportionately benefit Republicans, because Republicans are supposedly more likely to use unspecified shady funding methods."

The article implies nothing about shady funding methods.

The reason it benefits the GOP is because the GOP as the bigger donors who were subject to laws limitations regarding contribution amounts.

( To the extent the limitations worked)

Have any evidence to support this, or are you just making things up like the author of this article?
 
I believe that in order to truly close these loopholes (and not simply have them use another), we would have to infringe on first amendment rights to a degree that I'm not comfortable with.

How is regulating money spent in politics infringing freedom of speech? Money is not speech.
 
Have any evidence to support this, or are you just making things up like the author of this article?

Are you kidding me?

Do you not know that the GOP derives a much larger proportion of their funding from wealthy donors?

I know this does not jive with the right wing storyline that the GOP is for the "common man"....lol.

This may come as a shock to all the right wingers on limited incomes who post here but I would think you are informed enough to know this?

Donor demographics for the last Presidential race...http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.php?sortby=P
 
Last edited:
In the days before the maturation of the World Wide Web, I might have agreed.

But we are fortunate enough to live in an era when getting one's message out is simplicity itself.

In other words, barring outright bribery of the voters, which is already a crime, money only has so much use in political advertising before diminishing returns are encountered.

In the other hands, by Spenglerian fortunes on messages which are rejected by the voters, a defacto financial penalty is created for those messages. Let them waste their money until they get smarter.

I disagree. I think we can agree that Obama is probably the best campaigner in our modern system. How did he win? Firstly he trained an entire army of political organizers. Secondly he set up campaign offices in almost every decently sized city in America. Thirdly he blanketed the airwaves in campaign ads. Fourthly he personally visited every close states dozens and dozens of times. If it wasn't for all of these things, every one of them costing a small fortune, he would have had a lot harder time winning. You can't get the same exposure just by being online.
 
Do you two think there should be any restrictions on money spent in politics?

I do... 1 million dollars per candidate.... period... no exceptions... no wiggle room... no more buying elections.
 
I disagree. I think we can agree that Obama is probably the best campaigner in our modern system. How did he win? Firstly he trained an entire army of political organizers. Secondly he set up campaign offices in almost every decently sized city in America. Thirdly he blanketed the airwaves in campaign ads. Fourthly he personally visited every close states dozens and dozens of times. If it wasn't for all of these things, every one of them costing a small fortune, he would have had a lot harder time winning. You can't get the same exposure just by being online.

You don't really want to talk about the criminal organization ACORN which Obama paid $800K or so do you? Of course McCain/Feingold didn't stop this fraud paid for by all those untraceable donations.
 
This is a victory for the First Amendment.

No it's not because now only the Rich will have voice, something that are Foundiong father were against also it will even make it harder for We The People to break this Monopoly of a Political System called the Two Party System which the United States Supreme Court should rule as a Monopoly like they have in the past on Ma Bell,US Steel,United Aircraft ect. ect.

All this does now stimple We the People from having a 1st Adm Right in Elections.
 
How is regulating money spent in politics infringing freedom of speech? Money is not speech.

Yes it is.

Buckley v. Valeo

Are you kidding me?

Do you not know that the GOP derives a much larger proportion of their funding from wealthy donors?

I know this does not jive with the right wing storyline that the GOP is for the "common man"....lol.

This may come as a shock to all the right wingers on limited incomes who post here but I would think you are informed enough to know this?

Donor demographics for the last Presidential race...Donor Demographics: Contribution Size | OpenSecrets

I know I'm wasting my time, but think about a reason why statistics about donations under the current law (which drastically restrict how and how much people can donate) might not be the best evidence to support a claim about what would happen in a scenario where people were free to give as much as they like.
 
Back
Top Bottom