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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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: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).

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.

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.