Campaign Financing Cyber Loophole

goombah99 writes "The Washington Post is criticizing a little-noticed bill wending it's way through congress that would allow unlimited and unreported campaign contributions by corporations and individuals as long as it was confined to internet advertising and publicity buys. While internet spending was only $14 million last year it is growing at a rate of 30 fold over four years poising it to overtake conventional media spending."

Comments

Nooooo......

[dascandy]

Now all of Europe's going to be completely overwhelmed with advertisements for political parties they cannot even vote for.

Does my liberalism require that I reject this?

[ReformedExCon]

I am about as liberal as you can get. I think that the role of the government should be expanded such that it provides a very large safety net for the disadvantaged, and I think that many services that we now pay for ought to be subsidized such that those services (medical, roads, etc) are free/affordable for at least the most disadvantaged and ideally for the whole citizenry.

But I am absolutely against recent "liberal" attempts to stifle Free Speech by restricting campaign contributions. I think it is paramount to a repeal of the First Amendment to say that you cannot use your money in the way that you see fit. If a person wishes to give speeches on the corner in support of his candidate, it is wrong to take away his right to do so. If a person uses his own money to buy a soap box and megaphone to do it more effectively, it is wrong to take away his right to spend that money. If a person gives money to his candidate in order that the candidate can furnish other supporters with soap boxes and megaphones, is it right to take that right away? Where do we draw the line? Why do we draw the line?

It is not anyone's business but the IRS how I spend my money, in my opinion. If I want to blow a million dollars on TV ads for my favored candidate, the government ought not have the right to stop me anymore than they have the right to stop me from buying lollipops for the sick kids in the hospital.

How the "liberals" got caught up in this illiberal crusade is beyond me. It smacks more of anti-Republicanism than anything else. By restricting the campaign contributions of the rich, they effectively limit the amount the Republicans can take in from their supporters. That that crackpot McCain and the worthless Feingold were the people bringing the originally passing bill to the floor is no big surprise, but that we have widespread support of the erosion of our most cherished First Amendment rights among the people sworn to protect and defend our Constitution is abominable.

Good for this current bill. Let's bring back Free Speech to the citizenry.

Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this?

[pintomp3]

this is not about free speech. the problem is politicians will end up only catering to corperations and the wealthy (like they don't already). of course they need the votes of the masses to get into office. but without campaigning, they won't get the votes. without any restrictions, the winner will always be the one who sold out the most. it's one of the loopholes of democracy. it just seems to effect republicans more becuase they are a bit more big business friendly.

Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this?

[gowen]

Well, I think there are two distinct things here:
i) unlimited spending
ii) undisclosed spending

Like you, I'm torn on the former. There's a personal liberty issue, but the consequences of unlimited spending are worse, IMHO. Unlimited spending by the two bug parties acts as an effective barrier to entry to third parties. They can't draw much corporate funding until they have influence, and grass roots funding simply can't compete to obtain that influence. Personally, I'd bar all corporate contributions and allow unlimited personal contributions, from anyone eligible to vote. Control of Government should be left to citizens who have that right... it's what the Founding Fathers wanted.

ii) Undisclosed political contributions (above a very low level) are absolutely inexcusable. Accountability, accountability, accountability. The electorate has the right to know who is financing a candidate. It's a vital piece of information in the democratic process.

Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this?

[AthenianGadfly]

In theory, I think you make a good point. However, there are a couple of things that you don't take into consideration. For example, do we really want our elections to be for sale to the highest bidder (more so than they already are, that is)? An unlimited amount of money poured into a campaign can effectively buy a certain outcome, given how susceptible the general population is to advertising.

Also, consider the nature of most of the "speech" that results from campaign contributions. Have you ever seen a political television advertisement that added anything worthwhile to the discussion - or indeed do anything that wasn't mainly posturing and hand-waving?

I certainly think that individuals should have the right to say what they want about politics (just like anything else), and spend their own money in the process. However, I would draw the line when it comes to giving other people enough money for them to repeat their mantra loudly enough and often enough that it drowns out the dissenting voices.

Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this?

[SQL Error]

You should have the right to protest when you want to.

You do have that right.

You also have the right to be arrested for trespassing or obstructing a public thoroughfare or creating a nuisance. You have lots of rights you don't really want to exercise.

Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this?

[znu]

I think to understand the argument against unlimited campaign contributions, you have to go past the letter of the First Amendment and look at its purpose. Why is it important, from the perspective of society, that we have a right to free speech?

I would argue that it's important because it's essential for democracy. It allows ideas to be introduced and challenged, accepted or rejected, on a level playing field. When you allow unlimited spending on things like political advertising, the playing field is no longer level. It's like having a debate between two sides, where both sides show up with the largest PA systems they can afford and try to drown each other out.

Does it really serve freedom in the larger sense to allow people to act in ways that subvert an essential component of liberal democracy? We don't allow people to tamper with voting machines -- we should not allow them to distort the public discourse either.

Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this?

[nicklott]

I am about as liberal as you can get. I think that the role of the government should be expanded such that it provides a very large safety net for the disadvantaged, and I think that many services that we now pay for ought to be subsidized such that those services (medical, roads, etc) are free/affordable for at least the most disadvantaged and ideally for the whole citizenry.

That's not liberal, that's socialist. Being Liberal means you support people's freedom to do things; socialism means you think society should support its less well off members. The two things are not neccesarily contradictory, but liberalism is usually seen as being against state intervention in any way. The rest of what you say is liberal, but that statement is, while not the exact opposite, pretty close.

OK, I'm just being an arse here, I know that the definition of "liberal" has been warped in the states, but I've never understood how this new political definition came about; socialist things are always attributed to the "liberals". Maybe you're not allowed to say "socialist" in the US? Most liberal ideas chime better with the right than the left anyway, eg smaller government, lower taxes.

Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this?

[Syberghost]

Does it really serve freedom in the larger sense to allow people to act in ways that subvert an essential component of liberal democracy? We don't allow people to tamper with voting machines -- we should not allow them to distort the public discourse either.

Who decides which ideas and expressions contribute to the public discourse, and which distort it?

Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this?

[Azghoul]

"Also, consider the nature of most of the "speech" that results from campaign contributions. Have you ever seen a political television advertisement that added anything worthwhile to the discussion - or indeed do anything that wasn't mainly posturing and hand-waving?"

Disgusting. You have no concept of what "shall make no law" means, do you? Who the hell are you to decide whether or not a particular message is "worthwhile" or not?

Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this?

[Dannon]

I suggest that the cure to "distorted" public discourse is more political speech, not less.

These campaign finance laws are all about limiting the quantity of speech, and your complaint is with the content of it. The people you want to thwart are still going to find ways of getting their message across. They've got the money to buy the lawyers to find the loophoes. And, in the mean time, if way of outside-the-establishment types want to put in our own two bits, we have to prove that we weren't contributing to a party. Heck, I don't even like the two-party system we've got, but if I buy some radio air-time to say so, I've "contributed" to a political party, by these rules! It's ridiculous!

And if we start getting into laws that regulate the content, you can look for even more pro-establishment favoratism.

When it comes to government corruption, more government is not the solution.

Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this?

[PsiPsiStar]

This is kindof like mice voting to put a bell on the cat. It sounded like a great plan, till they tried to implement it.

If someone has money, then that money can be turned into political clout. Period. As long as people can write newspaper columns or own and edit newspapers, they can be paid to support one candidate or another, directly or indirectly. To prevent this from happening would require enormous restrictions on individual liberty. This isn't like with judges, where you can prevent someone from bribing a judge who will rule on their case, or otherwise having a relationship with the judge or jury. Polititians have a relationship with everyone.

Personally, all things being close to equal, I vote for the candidate who has taken the fewest campaign bribes.

But as long as there are inequalities of wealth this will translate into inequalities of political power.
Democracies don't tend to weild power so much as formalize it.

Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this?

[ScentCone]

You forgot one little detail about the freedom of speech, that I think is rather important. You should have the right to protest when you want to. that is speaking.. You should not be sent to a "free speech zone" in a razor wire cage a mile from the event you are protesting.. National Security my ass!

So, if I really can't stand something that Hillary Clinton is sqawking about, can I just get up on the stage next to her and protest? No? How about 10 feet from her? Maybe 20 feet? No? But all I want to do is wave around a giant puppet head of her with horns on it and beat my loud drums! It's freedom of speech, and I demand that my puppet head be visible next to her during while she's talking, since it's my freedom of speech, too.

And if I can't have that, I demand the ability to stand in the public street and block traffic. I don't care about people who are trying to drive to where Hillary is going to be, it's my puppet display that should trump all other forms of expression, even if an ambulance carrying your heart-attack-having grandmother is stopped because of me.

What's that? Maybe there should be a permitting process for the use of public space so that Hillary and her supporters can apply for and get use of it for her rantings, and I can use if for my rantings too, when it's my turn? Oh wait - we already have that system, and it works just fine. That doesn't seem to influence the people that want to smash the windows of a Starbucks store to somehow retaliate against The Man for having a permitting process, but there's no satisfying some freedom-minded people, I suppose (unless they get to smash something owned by millions of people's 401k investments).

Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this?

[RexRhino]

But, by definition, the "level playing field" as you call it will be decided and enforced by the political elite. So essentially, you are putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

Have you ever looked at the disasterous effect campaign finance reform has had on small political parties in the U.S.? It has nearly destroyed them. Small political parties depend on few people giving larger donations. Large political parties depend on more people giving smaller donations. Why do you think the two major parties, and all the mainstream politicians are clammering for campaign finance reform, and the small parties hate it? Because it eliminates anybody but the Republicans and Democrats from the game.

One thing that is hard for most people (like you) to understand nowadays, since the most prevalent religion is state-worship... that the government is not omnipotent and benevolent. If the government says "We are going to regulate campaign finance to level the playing field", that doesn't mean that the government intends to level the playing field, nor that the government is capable of that if it wanted to. What "campaign finance reform" is, is the absolute control over all forms of political speech by the political elite. THAT is what people like you support, even if you don't want to admit it.

Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this?

[ConceptJunkie]

Unlimited spending by the two bug parties acts as an effective barrier to entry to third parties.

I'm sick of bug parties, I think we need scientists to create sterile male politicians with glow-in-the-dark gonads to try to wipe them out.

We need some new parties... ones that represent someone other than money and status quo (i.e., the big two) or crackpots (i.e., most of the rest).

Re:Does my liberalism require that I reject this?

[dajak]

Germany's recent difficulty in choosing a new Chancellor shows the problems with parliamentary systems that give rise to numerous parties.

This problem is an accurate reflection of the outcome of the election. People withdrew support for the left coalition, without giving support to a right one. Therefore they get a center one.

In the American system, there are still numerous parties, it's just that the coalitions are permanent, and you vote for the coalitions.

The problem there is that the American people often seem to vote for a center coalition, but get a left or right one. The outcome of the last two US elections was roughly similar to the outcome of the current German election in my interpretation (accounting for the extremely low turnout in US elections, which is clearly a sign of voter dissatisfaction with the choice they get).

Both the Democrats and the Republicans represent a range of differing views that would be quite unusual in a single European political party, but to get elected in America they must present themselves as a single party. Division pretty much guarantees defeat. This tends to push both parties towards the center, which I personally regard as a good thing.

The push to the center happens everywhere. The difference is that parties being IN the center coalitions for some time tend to alienate their base and ecentually get outflanked and destroyed by a newcomer (Christians, Socialists, Social-Democrats, Greens, Conservative Liberals, Social Liberals, Fascists, etc.). This is why you find few monolithic 'conservative' and 'liberal' parties in Europe, even though they did exist everywhere in the 19th century. They died long ago.

In addition to that you can also get coalitions that are based on commonalities other than being near in the left-right axis. We recently had two left-right coalitions (SocDem, SocLib, ConsLib) excluding the Christian Democrats (moderate right) in the middle. This coalition brought us homosexual marriage, regulated euthanasia, etc. while quarreling on all the time on the economy and social security. It was the first time for us since 1945 that the Christians were ousted from power. If we had two parties, the Christian right would have been in power permanently. Now, for the first time in history, we have a clear leftwing (Soc, Green, SocDem) absolute majority in the polls. They will probably send a 'thank you' telegram to George Bush when they win the election.

This only works as long as both parties have a credible chance of getting elected. If one party becomes weak, the stronger party tends to split along ideological faultlines as the differing groups see a chance to put their own policies into action. (See the Whigs, for example.)

A comparison of political party constellations in different countries will show that replacement of political parties happens more often in countries with proportional voting.

Certainly America is a functioning democracy (and was even during the Civil War), so it has to be said that the system works in that respect. France's democratic history on the other hand is rather patchy - this is, after all, their Fifth Republic.

On the European mainland, France has the most US-like system. Why not compare to the Scandinavian and Benelux monarchies, who have been using a proportional voting system for some time without major problems? Most of them didn't even have civil wars.

The Netherlands-Belgium civil war of 1831, which did lead to successful secession, is an exception, but it is worth noting that Belgium did keep using a very similar organization of the state and the same voting system.

Clumsy way to protect blogs?

[Holmwood]

It's starting to look as though McCain-Feingold will end up hurting larger blogs, as they risk being counted as contributions during an election cycle. Manolo's Shoe Blog is probably pretty safe, but Daily Kos and Instapundit aren't. I'd bet both their bandwidth bills violate the cap, and they both tend to back specific candidates. So, this law is likely simply a clumsy way to protect blogs.

In a way, yes..

[Tracer_Bullet82]

I'm liberal like hell too.

And in principle I agree that an individual AND organization can support political parties or candidates they like, be it orally, physically or financial wise.

What's troubling however is that, this this 'rights' is being literally abused, not to 'support' but rather 'buy' a candidate or party.

Really i can't see how does an organization or business paying, yes paying, 100k to Republican and then another 100k on democrats can signify 'support'. Thats just covering the grounds.

I support the right to support political 'units', I don't support 'legalized bribing'.

C'mon, really?

[svunt]

I can't for for the life of me see the justification for ANY exemptions from campaign financing laws. If copmpany A spends $3.50 on shoelaces for candidate B, then I want to be able to see that, and the same goes for internet advertising. It's unfortunate that whatever justification is being offered for this bill isn't mentioned in TFA. At the end of the day, any off-the-record financing simply adds weight to long-standing suspicions that everyone in Washington is for sale. That being the case, it would be nice to at least know what the going rates are.

Re:The 2000 election?

[Jim_Callahan]

The public isn't supposed to vote in presidential elections. They exercise influence on those elections through their state governments, who select the electors. The electors aren't even really supposed to have their minds made up in advance, either, that's kind of a corruption of the system resulting from the unforseen rise of political parties. It still bothers me that people tend to complain only when there are vague signs of the system working as intended (i.e. when the results don't match public opinion perfectly) and not when political parties twist the system to their own benefit. Oh, well, I guess I'm about 200 years to late to really do anything about it.

Anyhow, these laws apply to congressional elections as well, which are where the money is at in any case.

Re:Maybe not

[prattle]

internet campaigning isn't going to be growing at 30 fold forever.

Well, no, but we can reasonably expect it to replace nearly all other forms of advertising over time. If radio, tv, and newspapers are delivered to a home theatre pc then this would be internet advertising, wouldn't it?

Re:Maybe not

[rtb61]

Just because the the money is claimed for internet advertising does not mean it is actually spent there. Just think of sites owned by the players and charging enourmous amounts for advertising space i.e. payoffs as internet advertising profits.

Basically a less than unfront politician is enabling a new method of illicit campaign financing to get passed what is already a pretty shaky set of legislation. They must have thought the current legislation was just taking too much effort to work around and to be honest the current set arn't the brightest and managed to stuff up every now and then, so there after a much easier system of funding (the republican mantra, eliminate that nightmare of bureaucratic red tape with an aim to maximising productivity and profits togethor with full employment for family members and friends).

MAKE UP YOUR MINDS, PEOPLE!

[wowbagger]

Government: We think we should count blogs as political contributions and regulate them under the existing election laws.
Slashbots: BWAAAAAA! DON'T YOU REGULATE MY BLOGS!

News reporter: Political blogs are big money, and there may be a loophole that will allow massive donations to political parties in the form of Internet advertising that won't be regulated by the election laws.
Slashbots: BWAAAAAA! Meaney politicians will flood the net with ads. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DOOOO SOMETHING!

Make up your minds, people. Either blogs are NOT regulated, and the People With Money And An Agenda will use them, or blogs get regulated. Sauce for the goose, good for the gander.

Re:MAKE UP YOUR MINDS, PEOPLE!

[SQL Error]

Well, that's just it. Convenient blogging software made it easy for people not just to create web sites, but to keep them updated.

So they do.

Now, it's true that some of them shouldn't, and many of them aren't worth reading, and many more are of interest only to a small circle - friends or family or people of common interested (whether that be politics or raising puppies or knitting pullovers).

But some of them really are good.

And remember that those millions in revenues are spread among millions of bloggers, and the average blogger is lucky to cover his bandwidth bill. A few make worthwhile amounts of money; one or two make enough to live on.

What about Ads couched as Entertainment?

[Anonymous Coward]

When are they going to close the campaign contribution loophole introduced by Michael Moore. You know, you release a huge movie that's a major negative campaign ad against Bush, yet it doesn't count because it's making Michael money.

Wrong idea about what it's free FROM

[ScentCone]

I would argue that it's important because it's essential for democracy. It allows ideas to be introduced and challenged, accepted or rejected, on a level playing field.

"Freedom of speech" doesn't mean you're free from me speaking louder than you because I'm persuasive enough to get get several other people to join me (pool funds, whatever). The constitution's guarantee of free speech refers to your freedom from interference by the government. That's why the campaign finance laws limiting speech are such a bad idea - they involve the government judging when and how you can express your opinion about something... something that's exactly contrary to the founder's strong words on the subject.

Does it really serve freedom in the larger sense to allow people to act in ways that subvert an essential component of liberal democracy?

How does two people getting together to say something against what you have to say equal subversion? It's exactly the point - it's free association and speech, exactly as guaranteed under the constitution. If you can't manage to get enough people to see your point, and thus attract the same communications horsepower as the people you oppose, then you need to re-examine the merits of your position. Unpopular, minority opinions do get through the larger noise when they are compelling enough. See voting rights and similar issues as examples.

What is the liberal case that money is speech?

[brokeninside]

If you follow John Locke, you could certainly make a case that money, being an abstracted form of property, is an extension of the individual as all other property is. In this view, the autonomy of the individual is restricted if the way that the individual spends money is restricted. Consequently, one can argue that spending limits on elections is a restriction of the autonomy of the individual and therefore is an illiberal idea.

But if you follow Rousseau you would counter that what is abstract is not real. In this view money, and the other artificial mechanisms that follow money such as inheritance, are really restrictions of the autonomy of other individuals and lead to a world where artificial inequality is far greater than the inequality bestowed on humanity by nature. In this view, spending limits on elections is a very liberal idea.

Liberalism is a very wide movement. Virtually all of American politics fits withing the realm of Liberalism except for those that want to return to a monarchy or impose theocracy. Granted, American liberalism tends to be right of center compared to the rest of the world, but you can find arguments for most American political positions (whether "conservative" or "liberal") in the writings of the great liberal thinkers like Grotius, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and so on.

Politicians are scum and here's what to do....

[Electric Eye]

I'm going to skip my diatribe on how low these fucking scum are. But I think the McCain Feingold Act doesn't go far enough. In order to completely eliminate the $ factor in politics, there should be a strict, equal limit on what a politician can spend on a race. State congressman? $20,000. Gongressman? $50,000. President? $1,000,000. That's it. No loopholes. No third party interest groups.
Of course, this will never, eVAR happen, as these egomaniac dirtbags, like that fucker Tom DeLay who I pray goes to prison for life, will fight to the death over anything like this.
Free Pr0n http://excaliburfilms.com/partner/mainaffiliate.cf m?ID=1765

Re:Politicians are scum and here's what to do....

[zippthorne]

Wait.. you want Tom DeLay to go to prision for life for commiting the crime of:

not violating a law that didn't at the time exist

AND you're shilling free pr0n?
but you think politicians are scum?

Here's a solution....

[hcob$]

Make a law that every Legal Entity (corporations are a legal entity, as are joe, jim, and mike) can contribute a maximum of $20 to each candidate. That way, the single man down on the corner can buy just as much influence as the mega-corp.... at least on paper.

UNREPORTED

[Anonymous Coward]

UNREPORTED.. *SHOULD* be the focus of your attention,.. not UMLIMITED.

Question: Representative democratic government is more successful and less corrupt
                    if all financial contributions are _____ and open for public inspection.
                    a) UNREPORTED
                    b) UNLIMITED
                    c) REPORTED
                    d) LIMITED
                    e) The answer is (c)

I understand all too well

[wowbagger]

I understand the average Slashbot all too well - witness the "Flamebait" moderation on my original post.

I expect several more "Overrateds" and at least one "Troll" before the day is out.

I have had the temerity to point out a logical inconsistency in the slashbot groupthink - this is thoughtcrime and double-plus-ungood and I must be rightmodded.