Goodbye PACs, Hello JFCs

[boedicca]

Let's see...

Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).

Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Feingold.

Disclose Act.

Several Supreme Court decisions.

All of the campaign finance "reforms" of the past half century have had ZERO impact on the re-election rate of incumbents. The House remains at a nearly 98 percent re-election rate while the Senate hovers around 80 percent.

Meanwhile, during every Presidential election a new record of campaign fundraising is set.


Unchanged in at least half a century.

Thats because the goal of those reforms never included effecting the re-election rate of incumbents.

You are either incredibly dense or incredibly naive (although the two are not mutually exclusive - so you're likely both).

THE PURPOSE of Campaign "Finance Reform" is to rig the game in favor of incumbents.

Period.

End.Of.Story.

 

[g5000]

Let's see...

Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).

Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Feingold.

Disclose Act.

Several Supreme Court decisions.

All of the campaign finance "reforms" of the past half century have had ZERO impact on the re-election rate of incumbents. The House remains at a nearly 98 percent re-election rate while the Senate hovers around 80 percent.

Meanwhile, during every Presidential election a new record of campaign fundraising is set.


Unchanged in at least half a century.

Thats because the goal of those reforms never included effecting the re-election rate of incumbents.

Kee-rect!

One of the first things that was eliminated by the incumbents of Congress in McCain-Feingold was the provision which took away their franking privileges during an election year. I watched it as it progressed step by step through Congress and saw them work carefully to preserve their longevities in office.

The day it was signed, I predicted the rise of the 527 groups on another forum.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Let's see...

Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).

Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Feingold.

Disclose Act.

Several Supreme Court decisions.

All of the campaign finance "reforms" of the past half century have had ZERO impact on the re-election rate of incumbents. The House remains at a nearly 98 percent re-election rate while the Senate hovers around 80 percent.

Meanwhile, during every Presidential election a new record of campaign fundraising is set.


Unchanged in at least half a century.

Thats because the goal of those reforms never included effecting the re-election rate of incumbents.

You are either incredibly dense or incredibly naive (although the two are not mutually exclusive - so you're likely both).

THE PURPOSE of Campaign "Finance Reform" is to rig the game in favor of incumbents.

Period.

End.Of.Story.

Oh that was compelling. Guess that ends it then

 

[bendog]

yeah, I don't think there was ever any notion that special interests wouldn't exert influence. But we'd know who the players were. Further, spending limits actually favored both parties. McCain, for instance, wanted distance from bankers. Trent Lott wanted distance from home insurers. Fundraising has to be the most loathsome part of the job.

I find it odd (and a bit nefarious) that the Roberts wing doesn't even give a nod to a blind horse over the effects on disclosure.

 

[bendog]

Let's see...

Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).

Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Feingold.

Disclose Act.

Several Supreme Court decisions.

All of the campaign finance "reforms" of the past half century have had ZERO impact on the re-election rate of incumbents. The House remains at a nearly 98 percent re-election rate while the Senate hovers around 80 percent.

Meanwhile, during every Presidential election a new record of campaign fundraising is set.


Unchanged in at least half a century.

Thats because the goal of those reforms never included effecting the re-election rate of incumbents.

You are either incredibly dense or incredibly naive (although the two are not mutually exclusive - so you're likely both).

THE PURPOSE of Campaign "Finance Reform" is to rig the game in favor of incumbents.

Period.

End.Of.Story.

Perhaps he should have said the purpose was not to "reduce the relection rate" rather than "not change it."

 

[g5000]

yeah, I don't think there was ever any notion that special interests wouldn't exert influence. But we'd know who the players were. Further, spending limits actually favored both parties. McCain, for instance, wanted distance from bankers. Trent Lott wanted distance from home insurers. Fundraising has to be the most loathsome part of the job.

I find it odd (and a bit nefarious) that the Roberts wing doesn't even give a nod to a blind horse over the effects on disclosure.

The disclosure rules were unaffected by this decision. Who donated what to a JFC will still have to be disclosed.

 

[bendog]

yeah, I don't think there was ever any notion that special interests wouldn't exert influence. But we'd know who the players were. Further, spending limits actually favored both parties. McCain, for instance, wanted distance from bankers. Trent Lott wanted distance from home insurers. Fundraising has to be the most loathsome part of the job.

I find it odd (and a bit nefarious) that the Roberts wing doesn't even give a nod to a blind horse over the effects on disclosure.

The disclosure rules were unaffected by this decision. Who donated what to a JFC will still have to be disclosed.

You are incorrect. All disclosure law prior to CU remain unaffected. However, new money that prior law did not regulate is unregulated.

I've put up two links already, and choose not to waste my time further.

 

[g5000]

yeah, I don't think there was ever any notion that special interests wouldn't exert influence. But we'd know who the players were. Further, spending limits actually favored both parties. McCain, for instance, wanted distance from bankers. Trent Lott wanted distance from home insurers. Fundraising has to be the most loathsome part of the job.

I find it odd (and a bit nefarious) that the Roberts wing doesn't even give a nod to a blind horse over the effects on disclosure.

The disclosure rules were unaffected by this decision. Who donated what to a JFC will still have to be disclosed.

You are incorrect. All disclosure law prior to CU remain unaffected. However, new money that prior law did not regulate is unregulated.

I've put up two links already, and choose not to waste my time further.

None of your posts contain any links whatsoever.

 

[Seawytch]

Last Presidential election, Sheldon Adelson spent AT LEAST $98 million trying to buy himself some politicians...that's like you or I donating $40.

Now they can spend even more to have Scott Walker kiss their ass when they aren't even in the room?!?! Awesome!

 

[Erand7899]

Fast forward 1 year and watch how many "waaaa politicians are corrupt and dont represent us" posts you drum up.

They are corrupt and they don't represent us now... And haven't for years...

Great plan! Theres a hole why not keep digging

You cannot defeat political corruption by going after the buyers or the sellers. This has been proven over and over through centuries of political corruption in every corner of the world.

You have to remove the product that is for sale, and that means limiting political power and spreading it as far and wide as possible. That also means pushing political power back to the states and localities, and away from centralized government.

 

[Sallow]

Donating "Money" is a form of free speech.

Deal with it.

Fast forward 1 year and watch how many "waaaa politicians are corrupt and dont represent us" posts you drum up.

Fast forward?

These guys are already saying that.

Yet they gush over this shit.

 

[g5000]

They are corrupt and they don't represent us now... And haven't for years...

Great plan! Theres a hole why not keep digging

You cannot defeat political corruption by going after the buyers or the sellers. This has been proven over and over through centuries of political corruption in every corner of the world.

You have to remove the product that is for sale, and that means limiting political power and spreading it as far and wide as possible. That also means pushing political power back to the states and localities, and away from centralized government.

I could kiss you. This is exactly right.

 

[g5000]

Damn. That post made my week. I feel less alone than I have felt in a long time.

Thank you, Erand.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It represents ANOTHER opportunity to CONGRATULATE Justice Thomas who addressed this half-a-loaf victory of the First Amendment as follows:

Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits.

“This case represents yet another missed opportunity to right the course of our campaign finance jurisprudence by restoring a standard that is faithful to the First Amendment. Until we undertake that reexamination, we remain in a ‘halfway house’ of our own design,” Thomas wrote.

-- Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits In Law On Overall Campaign Contributions « CBS DC

He is entirely correct.

What a terrific Jurist he is.

 

[Sallow]

They are corrupt and they don't represent us now... And haven't for years...

Great plan! Theres a hole why not keep digging

You cannot defeat political corruption by going after the buyers or the sellers. This has been proven over and over through centuries of political corruption in every corner of the world.

You have to remove the product that is for sale, and that means limiting political power and spreading it as far and wide as possible. That also means pushing political power back to the states and localities, and away from centralized government.

Interesting.

Sounds a little like a Monarchy where you had a King bestow power on Lords and Nobles to run the land just as they wanted to so long as they paid taxes.

Sorta like a Franchise.

To bad this idea keeps getting rejected..eh?

 

[bendog]

This is probably clearer than I was.

The Insiders: On campaign finance, the Supreme Court should do more

 

[Mustang]

Donating "Money" is a form of free speech.

Deal with it.

Since when does something that's free cost money? Paid speech is not free speech.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Donating "Money" is a form of free speech.

Deal with it.

Since when does something that's free cost money? Paid speech is not free speech.

It is the freedom to spend money on speech that makes it free speech. Efforts to deny us that right is what would improperly LIMIT freedom of speech.

 

[ClosedCaption]

They are corrupt and they don't represent us now... And haven't for years...

Great plan! Theres a hole why not keep digging

You cannot defeat political corruption by going after the buyers or the sellers. This has been proven over and over through centuries of political corruption in every corner of the world.

You have to remove the product that is for sale, and that means limiting political power and spreading it as far and wide as possible. That also means pushing political power back to the states and localities, and away from centralized government.

What does something like this look like? It sounds good (except the states rights issue, I'm a little paranoid of that being black and the history) but not sure how this would look.

Any examples at all?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Money is speech, so those with the most money have the loudest voices.

95% of financial gains during the economic recovery went to the richest 1%.

And the mouth-breathing gun owners in this country support the drug war and the police state, so the chance of revolution is nil.

It's kind of funny that these idiots for limited government and guns are the very people that support shit like this. Personal freedom and small government my ass!