Will: Cash = speech and Dean is proof
George Will - Dean makes the case
One of my favorite columnists is at it again. George Will has the following opinion on "campaign finance reform" which is pretty much my position on the matter. That is no limits, full disclosure.
We all know Bush has decided to forgo matching funds from the government. He can raise more himself than the government can give him. Likewise the matching funds come with spending limits which can cause candidates not to be able to spend to respond to issues.
The whole column is so awesome I just want to post the whole thing but here are some of the choicest bits.
When both candidates of both parties have to forgo the system meant to reform campaign financing, can there really be an argument that limiting spending isn't limiting speech? I believe this issue is going before the Supreme Court right now and I believe McCain-Feingold will be ruled unconstitutional.
Again the same points... if money is corrupting, then who isn't corrupt? One sides "contributors" are the other sides "special interests." How can you really make a law against "special interests" and limiting their speech when the other side doesn't consider them the same thing.
Likewise the most obvious part of the last reform bill, the limiting of ads and "speech" within certain timeframes will certainly be found unconstitutional. How can someone tell say the ACLU they cannot run ads, or tell NEA, NRA, whomever that they cannot buy TV time because they will run ads questioning the voting records or positions of a certain candidate?
I'm with George on this one. He doesn't restate his position, but I know it because I have read it in the past and it has become mine. No limits, full disclosure.
Nick
One of my favorite columnists is at it again. George Will has the following opinion on "campaign finance reform" which is pretty much my position on the matter. That is no limits, full disclosure.
We all know Bush has decided to forgo matching funds from the government. He can raise more himself than the government can give him. Likewise the matching funds come with spending limits which can cause candidates not to be able to spend to respond to issues.
The whole column is so awesome I just want to post the whole thing but here are some of the choicest bits.
Quote:
So now he says that unless he abandons public financing, his money will be gone when the primaries are over. Then Bush could spend to speak to the nation all summer, while he, Dean, would fall silent until after the Democratic convention, when he would get a fresh infusion of public money.
But notice that Dean?s argument concedes what campaign finance regulators deny -- that money is tantamount to speech, and therefore limits on political money limit political speech. Note also that Dean refuses to limit the spending of his privately raised money in the primaries to the amount that his publicly financed rivals will be spending. Obviously his decision to rely on private money is motivated not just by fear of Bush after the primaries, but also by his desire to outspend his rivals in primaries.
So now he says that unless he abandons public financing, his money will be gone when the primaries are over. Then Bush could spend to speak to the nation all summer, while he, Dean, would fall silent until after the Democratic convention, when he would get a fresh infusion of public money.
But notice that Dean?s argument concedes what campaign finance regulators deny -- that money is tantamount to speech, and therefore limits on political money limit political speech. Note also that Dean refuses to limit the spending of his privately raised money in the primaries to the amount that his publicly financed rivals will be spending. Obviously his decision to rely on private money is motivated not just by fear of Bush after the primaries, but also by his desire to outspend his rivals in primaries.
When both candidates of both parties have to forgo the system meant to reform campaign financing, can there really be an argument that limiting spending isn't limiting speech? I believe this issue is going before the Supreme Court right now and I believe McCain-Feingold will be ruled unconstitutional.
Quote:
Campaign finance reformers have three premises: There is "too much" money in politics. Money is corrupting. And when government limits the amount, timing and content of paid political communication, it does not limit freedom of speech.
Too much money? John Kerry, praising the McCain-Feingold campaign reform, noted with dismay that "$3 billion was spent" on politics in 2000. Actually, that sum was spent on all federal elections in the 1999-2000 election cycle. Which means that in those two years Americans spent about half as much on the selection of a president, 435 members of the House of Representatives and 34 senators -- on democracy, that is -- as they spent on chewing gum.
Campaign finance reformers have three premises: There is "too much" money in politics. Money is corrupting. And when government limits the amount, timing and content of paid political communication, it does not limit freedom of speech.
Too much money? John Kerry, praising the McCain-Feingold campaign reform, noted with dismay that "$3 billion was spent" on politics in 2000. Actually, that sum was spent on all federal elections in the 1999-2000 election cycle. Which means that in those two years Americans spent about half as much on the selection of a president, 435 members of the House of Representatives and 34 senators -- on democracy, that is -- as they spent on chewing gum.
Again the same points... if money is corrupting, then who isn't corrupt? One sides "contributors" are the other sides "special interests." How can you really make a law against "special interests" and limiting their speech when the other side doesn't consider them the same thing.
Likewise the most obvious part of the last reform bill, the limiting of ads and "speech" within certain timeframes will certainly be found unconstitutional. How can someone tell say the ACLU they cannot run ads, or tell NEA, NRA, whomever that they cannot buy TV time because they will run ads questioning the voting records or positions of a certain candidate?
I'm with George on this one. He doesn't restate his position, but I know it because I have read it in the past and it has become mine. No limits, full disclosure.
Nick
Comments
If the matching number was $100 million... then I suspect that the candidate would be more likely to take advantage of it... getting to $100 million is alot easier than getting to $200 million...
BUSH is at a fundraiser seemingly almost everyday... and he has noone running against him in the primary. That's alot of work.
I don't know how you can really argue that all that fundraising doesn't have a negative effect though. There's a whole lot of whoring going on.
oh and... George Will is a punk.
Originally posted by trumptman
No limits, full disclosure.
Tell me more about "full disclosure" because your (and George Will's) arguments for "no limits" suck.
the ads are retarded, tell you nothing, and just annoy the crap out of everyone.
if they weren't horribly misleading maybe they'd be salvagable, but they're never straight forward.
pubic debates. all canidates polling over 1% can be there. everyone gets equal air-time. it'd be a hell of a lot more honest than when they're doing now.
Plus, you could have celebrity or well financed candidates that are running not to win but to be a pain in the ass, who aren't even on enough ballots to take the election, but who through polling flukes still poll at over 1 percent.
And then there's the question of whose poll do you use? Do we waste government dollars polling? Do we go by what Gallup says? Zogby? Those phone in polls to Dateline NBC?
Who do you poll? Registered voters? Likely voters? The cast of Hee Haw?
Originally posted by BRussell
Yes, limits on spending amount to limits on speech. But what Will doesn't say is that the converse is also true: you can't have speech without money in our system. That is the essence of the problem that the campaign finance reformers want to address. They're saying that if everyone speaks a little less, more voices will be heard, not just the ones with the most money.
You make a good point BRussell, however let me ask you this. When discussing the encouragement of more voices, why make it so you need so many small donations from so many people? This, in my opinion limits speech more than anything else to those who can create the best sound bites and say nothing truly provocative.
With no limits on contributions we could have more Perot type candidates. Likewise there would probably be more of a middle ground. Right now you have (or rather had) large soft money contributions to the party and many small contributions to the candidates. This has actually strengthened the grip of the national parties since most candidates now get money from them in the form of "party building" funds that they then campaign with. It leads to a more homogenous candidate who cannot dissent with the party since they need funds from the party "bosses" to get elected.
Unlimited funding might allow a candidate to get large amounts of funds from one or two sources, but that would be documented and known by the voter. Likewise if there was ever a trend I have noticed it is the propensity of people to bite the hand that feeds them after they are established. Thus many big money specialed interests might be amazed to see their candidate less inclined to support only their views after elected and having a voice and power of their own. Even moreso when the candidate knows they only need a few more big money people to replace the old instead of hundreds of little $2000 contributions.
Nick
The problem is not the amount of money spent on campaigns; the problem is that the amount of money that needs to be raised makes our politicians beholden to corporate interests and the wealthy.
Originally posted by BRussell
Yes, limits on spending amount to limits on speech. But what Will doesn't say is that the converse is also true: you can't have speech without money in our system.
Exactly.
You get to hobknob with the Politicians... get the parties paid for... all the perks of donating to a campaign... and all this during the convetion. For a charity set-up just for this purpose.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/14/politics/14DELA.html
G.O.P. Leader Solicits Money for Charity Tied to Convention
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
Published: November 14, 2003
t is an unusual charity brochure: a 13-page document, complete with pictures of fireworks and a golf course, that invites potential donors to give as much as $500,000 to spend time with Tom DeLay during the Republican convention in New York City next summer Ñ and to have part of the money go to help abused and neglected children.
Advertisement
Representative DeLay, who has both done work for troubled children and drawn criticism for his aggressive political fund-raising in his career in Congress, said through his staff that the entire effort was fundamentally intended to help children. But aides to Mr. DeLay, the House majority leader from Texas, acknowledged that part of the money would go to pay for late-night convention parties, a luxury suite during President Bush's speech at Madison Square Garden and yacht cruises.
And so campaign finance watchdogs say Mr. DeLay's effort can be seen as, above all, a creative maneuver around the recently enacted law meant to limit the ability of federal officials to raise large donations known as soft money.
"They are using the idea of helping children as a blatant cover for financing activities in connection with a convention with huge unlimited, undisclosed, unregulated contributions," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a Washington group that helped push through the recent overhaul of the campaign finance laws.
Other lawmakers may well follow Mr. DeLay's lead. Already Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, is planning to hold a concert and a reception in conjunction with the convention as a way of raising money for AIDS charities.
Mr. DeLay's charity, Celebrations for Children Inc., was set up in September and has no track record of work. Mr. DeLay is not a formal official of the charity, but its managers are Mr. DeLay's daughter, Dani DeLay Ferro; Craig Richardson, a longtime adviser; and Rob Jennings, a Republican fund-raiser. Mr. Richardson said the managers would be paid by the new charity.
Mr. Richardson said the goal was to give 75 percent of the money it raised to children's charities, including some in the New York area. He said the charity also planned to hold other events at the Super Bowl.
But because the money collected will go into a nonprofit organization, donors get a tax break. And Mr. DeLay will never have to account publicly for who contributed, which campaign finance experts say shields those who may be trying to win favor with one of the most powerful lawmakers in Washington.
Originally posted by trumptman
You make a good point BRussell, however let me ask you this. When discussing the encouragement of more voices, why make it so you need so many small donations from so many people? This, in my opinion limits speech more than anything else to those who can create the best sound bites and say nothing truly provocative.
I think that does two things:
1. It makes it so that richer people don't have any more influence than poorer people, since they're both limited to relatively small donations.
2. It ensures that in order to raise a lot of money, you need broad support rather than just a few special interests.
With no limits on contributions we could have more Perot type candidates.
Ugh. Now you've firmly cemented my opposition to it.
At this point, it doesn't matter what we do. Politics is only for the rich or those who are willing to whore themselves out to the highest bidder-- be it corporations or labor unions or whoever. I agree with Alcimedes...let's just do debates and drop ads all together.
Originally posted by trumptman
[B That is no limits, full disclosure.
We all know Bush has decided to forgo matching funds from the government. He can raise more himself than the government can give him. Likewise the matching funds come with spending limits which can cause candidates not to be able to spend to respond to issues.
Nick [/B]
An Adminstration bought and paid for by the rich...governing strictly for the benefit of the rich.
Question for Trumptman: How much have the homeless donated to the Bush campaign and when will he invite them to fish with him?
Originally posted by Chinney
An Adminstration bought and paid for by the rich...governing strictly for the benefit of the rich.
Question for Trumptman: How much have the homeless donated to the Bush campaign and when will he invite them to fish with him?
So I suppose now that Dean and Kerry have both bypassed public financing they are bought and paid for by the rich as well. Since they are the top two candidates within the Democratic nominating process right now I would guess you have some equally strong conclusions about who pays for and purchases the Democratic party then, or is that just another one way street.
I'll tell you what, how much have the homeless contributed to ANY campaign. You have an associative fallacy. You associate an action the homeless couldn't take with ANY candidate to just Bush.
How many fundraising dinners did Dean or Kerry have for the homeless there Chinney? Kerry has married into quite a bit of wealth. His haircuts likely cost enough to feed a homeless person for a month. Nice to see you condemning him and the party with which he associates though.
Nick
Originally posted by Naderfan
Heck, we should just go back to making candidates ride around on trains, making speeches as they go. Make sure they're dedicated. I mean, Theodore Roosevelt, while campaigning as a Progressive for President, was shot in the chest and still gave an hour speech before finally going to the hospital. You just don't see that kind of dedication anymore.
At this point, it doesn't matter what we do. Politics is only for the rich or those who are willing to whore themselves out to the highest bidder-- be it corporations or labor unions or whoever. I agree with Alcimedes...let's just do debates and drop ads all together.
Does this mean we get to take potshots at them as well?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
So I suppose now that Dean and Kerry have both bypassed public financing they are bought and paid for by the rich as well. Since they are the top two candidates within the Democratic nominating process right now I would guess you have some equally strong conclusions about who pays for and purchases the Democratic party then, or is that just another one way street.
I'll tell you what, how much have the homeless contributed to ANY campaign. You have an associative fallacy. You associate an action the homeless couldn't take with ANY candidate to just Bush.
How many fundraising dinners did Dean or Kerry have for the homeless there Chinney? Kerry has married into quite a bit of wealth. His haircuts likely cost enough to feed a homeless person for a month. Nice to see you condemning him and the party with which he associates though.
Nick
Not a lot of difference between your two main parties on these points, I agree. That is one of the reason that even more restrictive campaign finance laws are necessary. Disclosure is not enough. We already know who is paying for the government's favours.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Well, if political money = political speech does the fact that the bulk of campaign contributions come from corporations and wealthy individuals mean that only corporations and wealthy individuals should have a voice? Does the fact that I can donate $1,000 to a campaign make my interests more important than the guy who can only give $100?
The problem is not the amount of money spent on campaigns; the problem is that the amount of money that needs to be raised makes our politicians beholden to corporate interests and the wealthy.
Actually since you giving the $1000 and the other person giving the $100 only each have one vote, you both have the same amount of power.
It's pretty clear that money and even the spending of it have limits. There have been several self-financed campaigns in recent years that have gone absolutely nowhere with regard to voters. I remember them saying something like Forbes has spent like $50 per vote he garnered in Iowa and still lost badly.
The real point is that all this fund raising isn't going to go away because you limit contributions. Instead it just makes it so those folks have go to get more donations, fund raise continually, sell out to ever more interests, etc.
Nick
Chinney:
An Adminstration bought and paid for by the rich...governing strictly for the benefit of the rich.
Please. Please, please please tell me you're kididng. Both parties are all about the rich because they have to be. You can't honestly be falling for class warfare shit, can you?
Originally posted by SDW2001
Both parties are all about the rich because they have to be.
I agree. Read my last post. That's why even stricter campaign financing rules are necessary.
And this does apply to both parties. The Democrats may suggest a bit more social responsibility in their promises, but once in power they inevitably tend to "dance with the ones that brought them".
I happen to think that government policy should not be sold to the highest bidder. Do you disagree?
So I suppose now that Dean and Kerry have both bypassed public financing they are bought and paid for by the rich as well. Since they are the top two candidates within the Democratic nominating process right now I would guess you have some equally strong conclusions about who pays for and purchases the Democratic party then, or is that just another one way street.
Kerry has decided to use his wife's money to finance his campaign, something that he was not going to do before. His wife inherited the Heinz ketchup fortune, so they will probably be just about the only 'rich' people that contribute.
Originally posted by Fran441
Kerry has decided to use his wife's money to finance his campaign, something that he was not going to do before. His wife inherited the Heinz ketchup fortune, so they will probably be just about the only 'rich' people that contribute.
Well he did call it a loan that would be paid back with the contributions of others. I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt on that. Don't want to be a cynical Republican just questioning the motives of every Democrats actions.
Nick