Supreme Court strikes down matching funds campaign law

Inigoes · Jun 27, 2011

This ruling potentially has larger ramifications than just to AZ.

No more government cheese to run a campaign on.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/168583-supreme-court-strikes-down-ariz-campaign-finance-law

swinokur · Jun 27, 2011

Goose Guy · Jun 27, 2011

swinokur said:
Good

Bad waste of taxpayer money, IMHO.

yellowfin · Jun 27, 2011

Can that strike down all federal matching, please? I REALLY dislike my tax dollars and my often-would-be (if they hadn't been raided for the $ by gov't first) clients' going to the very problems elections are supposed to rid us of.

pcfixer · Jun 27, 2011

Made my day too!!

MDFF2008 · Jun 27, 2011

I'm going to take the opposite side here. I think all presidential elections should be public funding only.

No one could win by out fund raising the other.

Oreo · Jun 27, 2011

I used to think that way but I think in practice it just doesn't work because it would be unconstitutional to prevent individuals from their freedom of speech. So there's be a million insurmountable loop-holes candidates would use to funnel money around from donors as they needed.

Besides all that, a candidate's ability to raise money speaks directly to their ability to organize & manage a campaign. If a candidate can't get his campaign off the ground by getting monetary support directly from the people by delivering a message they want to hear, and then use that money effectively to further promote him/herself then that person really doesn't have the organizational, managerial, or political skills to be president in the first place. I'm not saying the process guarantees those skills are present, but I do think it sorts the wheat from the chaff.

Dogabutila · Jun 28, 2011

The problem with public funding becomes, how do you decide who is legitimately running for president?

Does third party joe get the same amount of money even if nobody knows who he is?
How bout fourth party sue?
How bout 135th party Arnold? 135 people contested that election that the governator won you know.

I don't think anonymous donation should be allowed though.

yellowfin · Jun 28, 2011

gprimr1 said:
I'm going to take the opposite side here. I think all presidential elections should be public funding only.

No one could win by out fund raising the other.

What form of political speech (i.e. exercise of influence in the process, ergo a means of incentive and punishment) would take its place?

Tootall · Jun 28, 2011

gprimr1 said:
I'm going to take the opposite side here. I think all presidential elections should be public funding only.

No one could win by out fund raising the other.

x2 then it comes down to the message and connection to the people not killing your opponent with a mass of money from a few high power high paying sources

RobMoore · Jun 28, 2011

As soon as the public starts caring about the message, and ignores media blitz, then money wont be such an issue.

yellowfin · Jun 28, 2011

Tootall said:
x2 then it comes down to the message and connection to the people not killing your opponent with a mass of money from a few high power high paying sources

Except that who controls the means by which the message gets to the people and thus which message gets to the people then controls everything.

Ethan83 · Jun 28, 2011

I didn't know that US citizens were so dumb that they vote for whoever's ad they heard last, and thus, whoever has the most ads wins. I thought people actually voted for specific candidates and platforms. I can't believe I didn't vote for Obama even though I saw 10 times more ads and publicity for him than anybody else. What's even more bizarre, is I actually voted for a candidate most people had no idea was even running, and never saw a TV or heard a radio ad for. Crazy, isn't it?

While yes, it's unfortunately true, there are a lot of idiots in this country that just vote for whoever's name they heard the most, I think it's incredibly insulting to insinuate that campaign money decides an election more than any other factor, like, say, party or policies. This is all much ado about very little. The government isn't allowed to suppress free speech, so get over it - money will always be in politics. (Pro Tip - this is why government should be limited and bound by the chains of the Constitution)

EL1227 · Jun 28, 2011

Money is free speech ...

That said, the matching funds program did force Presidential candidates to be more transparent regarding their donors and expenditures. That's the reason that Obamarx reneged on his promise to accept matching funds in 2008, much to the chargrin of John McLame who did accept them.

Can't have those pesky disclosures getting in the way of large corporate donors like Google and big money like Goldman Sachs ... or shadow parties controlled by George Soros' billion$.

yellowfin · Jun 28, 2011

Ethan83 said:
I didn't know that US citizens were so dumb that they vote for whoever's ad they heard last, and thus, whoever has the most ads wins.

If it wasn't at least partially true, then why would they bother running so many of them, then? Why would that be the focus of such a large percentage of the money if that simply wasn't true?

I thought people actually voted for specific candidates and platforms.

Or more likely what they THINK they know. People's time and attention is limited these days more so now than ever. So they take what information they can get easily, and it's a crapshoot at best as to whether the information they get is anywhere near accurate rather than simply what someone else wants them to hear.

I can't believe I didn't vote for Obama even though I saw 10 times more ads and publicity for him than anybody else. What's even more bizarre, is I actually voted for a candidate most people had no idea was even running, and never saw a TV or heard a radio ad for. Crazy, isn't it?

Crazy, no. Atypical, definitely.

While yes, it's unfortunately true, there are a lot of idiots in this country that just vote for whoever's name they heard the most, I think it's incredibly insulting to insinuate that campaign money decides an election more than any other factor, like, say, party or policies.

Insulting to the people? Most of the laws these clowns write and sign are every bit as insulting if not vastly more. Party is an artificial construct that in many states has little correlation to actual results.

This is all much ado about very little. The government isn't allowed to suppress free speech,

Unless they say they can. There's a lot of stuff that on paper they're not allowed to do but they do every day without thinking twice about it.

Supreme Court strikes down matching funds campaign law

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Inigoes

Head'n for the hills

swinokur

In a State of Bliss

Goose Guy

Skooma lord

yellowfin

Pro 2A Gastronome

pcfixer

Ultimate Member

MDFF2008

Ultimate Member

Oreo

Banned

Dogabutila

Ultimate Member

yellowfin

Pro 2A Gastronome

Tootall

Feelings Hurter

RobMoore

The Mad Scientist

yellowfin

Pro 2A Gastronome

Ethan83

Ultimate Member

EL1227

R.I.P.

Attachments

yellowfin

Pro 2A Gastronome

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Share this page