Slashdot Mirror
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."
Now all of Europe's going to be completely overwhelmed with advertisements for political parties they cannot even vote for.
I don't think that we're going to find billions dumped into internet advertising, why? Because internet campaigning isn't going to be growing at 30 fold forever.
Campaign 1: $.5 million invested online
Campaign 2: $15 million invested online.
That's 30 fold (and 14.5 million).
Campaign 1: $100 million invested, Campaign 2: $120 million invested.
That's 1.2 fold (and 20 million).
Nobody is going to target the internet with large amounts of money when it's more feasible to target the general public using television/newspaper ads. Nobody is going to say, "Hey! Look! I can donate $100 million in internet advertising" *when the money can be better utilitised somewhere else*.
I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
... if America keeps going along these lines, it won't be long before they elect a completely incompetent President, whose only qualifications are high level connections and the ability to outspend his opponent due to massive corporate contributions.
I don't look forward toward that day, let me tell you.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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.
You have to sympathize with policitians everywhere, forced to lead demeaning lives on the margins of society because such a high proportion of the meagre funds they need to survive have to be concealed and cannot be admitted to. Why, a decent family man cannot even invite his friends to a cocaine and call-girl party without having to pretend that he's paying for it out of his own life savings.
It would be much more dignified if US politicians were allowed to nail a simple "Bill of Fare" to the front door of their office suites. This would itemize the services on offer - "Have your business rivals arrested - $10 million", "Pollute a wilderness area - $67 million", "Hunt and Shoot Wetbacks for Sport - $39 million", etc. - but the quid pro quo is that it would no longer be legal in any way to accept undocumented contributions.
We'd then all know where we stand, and politicians would be given back the one thing they crave above all else - respect.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
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.