SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Nicholas Confessore reports at the New York Times that the Koch Brothers and their political network plan to spend close to $900 million in the 2016 election, an unparalleled effort by coordinated outside groups to shape a presidential election that is already on track to be the most expensive in history. The group’s budget reflects the rising ambition and expanded reach of the Koch operation, which has sought to distinguish itself from other outside groups by emphasizing the role of donors over consultants and political operatives. Hundreds of conservative donors recruited by the Kochs gathered over the weekend for three days of issue seminars, strategy sessions, and mingling with rising elected officials. These donors represent the largest concentration of political money outside the party establishment, one that has achieved enormous power in Republican circles in recent years. “It’s no wonder the candidates show up when the Koch brothers call,” says David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to Mr. Obama. “That’s exponentially more money than any party organization will spend. In many ways, they have superseded the party.”
Espousing a political worldview that protects free speech and individual and property rights with equal protection for everyone under the law Koch says: “It is up to us. Making this vision a reality will require more than a financial commitment. It requires making it a central part of our lives.” Told of the $889 million goal, Mark McKinnon, a veteran GOP operative who has worked to rally Republican support to reduce the role of money in politics, quipped: “For that kind of money, you could buy yourself a president. Oh, right. That’s the point.”
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday January 28 2015, @06:48AM
No - you in the US and us in the UK need to push for a change to the system so that political donations are banned. I realise there is some devil in details about how this can be implemented, but it is the only way to free up the political system.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday January 28 2015, @07:41AM
need to push for a change to the system so that political donations are banned. I realise there is some devil in details about how this can be implemented, but it is the only way to free up the political system.
I partly agree. But I wonder How free would it actually be?
If you can't make political donations only the super rich could run a campaign.
I have no problems with small-ish political donations up to a limit that applies to anyone.
I have no problem with candidates accepting small-ish donations from people registered to vote in the district the office serves. No outside money.
I'd look at going the other way, either limiting donations, or limiting spending.
There is always the free speech issue, which, by equating money to speech, makes it hard to stop people spending money the way they see fit.
But, I wonder why you can make it against the law to bribe someone, but you can't make it against the law to donate more than X dollars?
There are lots of things that you are't allowed to spend your own money on. Why should something so corruptive of society be un-limited.
Why should you be allowed to spend more than X (even it it is your own money) on a societal corrupting activity?
Its not that we don't know the corrupting effect of massive money spent in campaigns. We are just addicted to this method, with each side willing to inflict more damage on society because they believe their party is worth the damage, and their ideas are so righteous and good that they make up for any temporary damage they cause in elections.
Well, if you ask me, the damage is cumulative, and not going away.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday January 28 2015, @08:22AM
Fine, all good points. So you and people like you need to agree on a formula and then fight and fight and fight until it is implemented.
(Score: 2, Informative) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday January 28 2015, @09:03AM
All of the political donation limits you described are already in place, and enforced. There is a handy chart on the limits for federal elections at the FEC's website [fec.gov].
So done and done.
But how do you limit what someone spends on, say, creating a website, or producing a movie? If you spend money on that, even if you're not associated with any of the candidates, is it possible to put limits on the money spent? If you do, you have to look at the content of the website or movie or TV ad. If you can show the content is specifically about a candidate, so what? What if you're just listing the voting record of the candidate for two years, or for just one specific issue? Those are just facts. Should you tell people they can't spend money publishing facts?
Then you get into this sticky situation of the 5 media giants that own virtually all the media in the US. When they produce or air something that mentions a candidate, when is it a political contribution and when is it just "news"? What if every news story they write is always positive for one candidate and negative for the other? And how do you objectively quantify that to determine that there is a violation of contribution limits?
Even if you could create such a regulation scheme, it would not only be very complicated (just peruse the rules and filing requirements already in place [fec.gov]), but very much subject to partisan manipulation and biased selective enforcement. That already happens today when regular people try to start true grassroots organizations to challenge corrupt establishment politicians. The establishment guys have a staff of lawyers and easily use the existing campaign finance laws as a bludgeon to shut up these grassroots groups. Just peruse the rules and requirements posted there at the FEC - it's a full-time job. Expanding the rules would just make that situation even worse.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday January 29 2015, @03:04AM
I doubt any amount of spending restriction will make a damn bit of difference until lobbyists cease writing the bills that our congresscritters then sponsor.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.