This isn't a Conservative case it's the case. Thank you.
8
"In order to achieve the widest possible distribution of political power, financial contributions to political campaigns should be made by individuals and individuals alone. I see no reason for labor unions — or corporations — to participate in politics.”
Wait a second...isn't that a line from Bernie Sanders' stump speech?
Wait a second...isn't that a line from Bernie Sanders' stump speech?
11
Three focused reforms would go a long way toward a fairer system. #1 – Only allow individuals and not corporations or organizations to contribute (Yes do away with “Citizens United”). #2 – Insist on absolute and immediate transparency, who gives to whom and how much.
Finally some candidates stand up and say we need to get back to the constitution – well our constitution calls for a REPRESENTATIVE democracy! Therefore #3 – contributions should be limited solely to voters eligible to vote in a specific election. One should only be able to contribute to the candidate running to be your congressman or senator. This would force candidates to beg money from constituents and not an oligarch (in another state) with a selfish agenda. The author who’s book is entitled “Taxation Only With Representation”, should agree – let’s get back to elected representatives truly representing their congressional district or state.
Finally some candidates stand up and say we need to get back to the constitution – well our constitution calls for a REPRESENTATIVE democracy! Therefore #3 – contributions should be limited solely to voters eligible to vote in a specific election. One should only be able to contribute to the candidate running to be your congressman or senator. This would force candidates to beg money from constituents and not an oligarch (in another state) with a selfish agenda. The author who’s book is entitled “Taxation Only With Representation”, should agree – let’s get back to elected representatives truly representing their congressional district or state.
9
If I thought the Republican candidates were serious about this issue - I would switch parties.
As a liberal, I can't disagree with much in this piece. Beyond limiting the money, we should also simplify the country's seemingly endless political cycle, particularly at the presidential level, by making it shorter, as in Europe. Dark money and the bogus tax-exempt organizations that act as conduits should be outlawed.
17
We are stuck with a money-soaked political system because the republicans still believe that it works to their advantage and to the advantage of their wealthiest constituents who have traditionally controlled the party and set its agenda. The Citizens United decision by the republicans on the supreme court essentially legalized a new form of Super Citizenship for the very rich that enabled them to buy or smear candidates at will and influence election outcomes without limits or accountability. And anyone who thinks foreign interests are not also pouring money into American elections is very naïve. The system is rotten but it won't change until republicans realize it isn't working for them either.
9
The author got it backwards. Big government allocates resources and creates winners and losers, and the more it does so, the more rational it is for private interests to seek to control it.
In other words, if you put out a great big pot of honey in the form of government largesse, you sure will attract a lot of flies!
In other words, if you put out a great big pot of honey in the form of government largesse, you sure will attract a lot of flies!
3
"Why should conservative voters care? First, big money in politics encourages big government."
Big money loves big government, as long as it lines the right pockets. If big money controls much of the political messaging as well as the political process, as the author seems to concede, is it such a big leap to realize that big money indeed controls the conservative anti-government rhetoric? Big money is all too happy to fan the flames and watch libertarian and conservative voters rail against big government, as that ensures that they will vote for the government that lines the right pockets.
Big money loves big government, as long as it lines the right pockets. If big money controls much of the political messaging as well as the political process, as the author seems to concede, is it such a big leap to realize that big money indeed controls the conservative anti-government rhetoric? Big money is all too happy to fan the flames and watch libertarian and conservative voters rail against big government, as that ensures that they will vote for the government that lines the right pockets.
4
Conservatives have long giving up on small government as witnessed by the G.W . Bush administration. So called conservatives are ok with big government as long as their programs are getting the largess. All spending is taxation.
4
In WA State, we were able to collect 337,263 signatures on an initiative to put on November’s ballot an opportunity to vote on an amendment to overturn decisions by SCOTUS that extended U.S. Constitutional rights to corporations and other artificial legal entities as well as those decisions equating the spending of money with free speech. This amendment would also provide for the regulation and disclosure of political contributions and spending. It will be interesting to see how the voting splits geographically. (Western half of the state liberal and better educated. Eastern half conservative, not highly educated.)
I also posted a link to this op-ed on LinkedIn. Most of my contacts have advanced degrees. I am wondering how many will read it and comment. Many work in businesses influenced, mostly adversely, by big money in politics.
I also posted a link to this op-ed on LinkedIn. Most of my contacts have advanced degrees. I am wondering how many will read it and comment. Many work in businesses influenced, mostly adversely, by big money in politics.
Conservative means that government revenues come to me. Liberal means that government revenues go to some one else. Conservatives loves health care spending -- it goes to health care corporations and health care professionals. And that would mean doctors and administrators. Conservatives loves charter schools and that means public money to for-profit education corporations. In our environment, big government means big privatization and that means profit potential.
3
Yes, but what about the Supreme Court? Now that the Supreme Court has decided that money is speech and can't be restricted, none of this matters.
3
The problem with "conservative philosophy" is that it has always existed mainly to serve the interests of big business and big money. The moment the philosophy diverges from those interests, its principles are jettisoned and expedience rules. "Conservatives" now promote policies that are radically unconservative -- dangerously short-sighted and destructive to the common good.
You may be a principled conservative, Mr. Painter, but you should not expect any sort of philosophic consistency from so-called conservative politicians or think tanks. They gave up their principles long ago in the quest for money and power, and the patronage of plutocrats.
You may be a principled conservative, Mr. Painter, but you should not expect any sort of philosophic consistency from so-called conservative politicians or think tanks. They gave up their principles long ago in the quest for money and power, and the patronage of plutocrats.
7
This is an excellent Op Ed piece. There are many good points made here that should unite citizens of either political party. Unfortunately those of us who agree are probably not among the small number of elite individuals who benefit from the current arrangement and those privileged few are holding all the cards. I would encourage the author to present his ideas to the Koch Brothers or Sheldon Adelson and see how enthusiastic they are about backing his cause. Nevertheless it was a revelation to discover I agree with Barry Goldwater about something. Strange days indeed...
8
Why is it that the American conservative movement, which is usually hostile to foreign influence, has been so blind to the obvious foreign influence flooding into our political system? Painter's statement below ought to be obvious, and ought to provoke outrage:
"American companies are owned by, borrow money from, and do business with foreign governments, companies, sovereign wealth funds and oligarchs. Equating corporate wealth with free political speech, as the Supreme Court did in its 2010 Citizens United decision, means that global economic power will help choose our government."
The utter lack of concern about facts in today's conservatives is ominous. From the dismissal of foreign influence, to things like global warming, means that they have become utterly unmoored from reality, and could easily lead us off a cliff into yet another war, or just really bad domestic policy. The Bundy Militia is perhaps just the tip of a coming iceberg of crazy "conservative" ideas.
"American companies are owned by, borrow money from, and do business with foreign governments, companies, sovereign wealth funds and oligarchs. Equating corporate wealth with free political speech, as the Supreme Court did in its 2010 Citizens United decision, means that global economic power will help choose our government."
The utter lack of concern about facts in today's conservatives is ominous. From the dismissal of foreign influence, to things like global warming, means that they have become utterly unmoored from reality, and could easily lead us off a cliff into yet another war, or just really bad domestic policy. The Bundy Militia is perhaps just the tip of a coming iceberg of crazy "conservative" ideas.
8
Maybe because the GOP ultimately doesn't care about the principle of big government vs small government. What they ultimately care about is lowering taxes for the wealthy. *Everything* else they do is geared towards that one goal, including their lip service to smaller government.
9
Though I am a progressive, I found this to a briliant and insightful piece. Perhaps that is because most of these solutions are neither liberal or conservative. They are just good for America.
I was listening to the Trump press conference briefly yesterday and he was whining about how he didn't think voters properly appreciated that he was self-funding his campaign. I am sure this is all lost on the Donald but if this is what is required for a presidential candidate to avoid being "bought" by interest groups, then it means only billionaires can run for office. Somehow I am not convinced that is good for America any more than the money grubbing legalized by Citizen's United is.
Next I was watching a political show and the host reached the conclusion that as bizarre as it may sound, Ted Cruz did something politcally heroic by not supporting ethanol subsidies in Iowa. Doing the obvious right thing is never heroic. Beyond that, however, it is not particulalrly heroic for a Senator from the state of Texas to not support a policy that directly attacks the source of his number one campaign finance group - Big Oil.
Our system is being destroyed by money. It has always been a problem but it has never been codified as is the case now by the Supreme Court. We have reached a tipping point. Perhas we are past it. All politicians know what is going on. Will any politicans have the courage to fight?
I was listening to the Trump press conference briefly yesterday and he was whining about how he didn't think voters properly appreciated that he was self-funding his campaign. I am sure this is all lost on the Donald but if this is what is required for a presidential candidate to avoid being "bought" by interest groups, then it means only billionaires can run for office. Somehow I am not convinced that is good for America any more than the money grubbing legalized by Citizen's United is.
Next I was watching a political show and the host reached the conclusion that as bizarre as it may sound, Ted Cruz did something politcally heroic by not supporting ethanol subsidies in Iowa. Doing the obvious right thing is never heroic. Beyond that, however, it is not particulalrly heroic for a Senator from the state of Texas to not support a policy that directly attacks the source of his number one campaign finance group - Big Oil.
Our system is being destroyed by money. It has always been a problem but it has never been codified as is the case now by the Supreme Court. We have reached a tipping point. Perhas we are past it. All politicians know what is going on. Will any politicans have the courage to fight?
13
Our campaign system, including its funding, has developed through two forms of competition among the contenders. The first form is competition to win according to whatever rules are in place at the time. The second form is competition to change the rules to give one's side an advantage; frequently these changes have unpredictable effects and sometimes damage the fortunes of those who fought for them.
In these competitions, whatever works is good. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are widely used, for example, and those who benefit from them develop and believe lies (sales pitches) about their fairness, thereby rewarding and promoting dishonest and illogical thinking and perception. Two examples are racial segregation and the ways whites developed to feel good about it, and voter fraud and IDs.
This is a conservative and free enterprise way to run our democracy. Other countries are socialistic, developing government regulations and designing the process to make it a fair competition of alternative ideas and goals. Spending and campaign length are strictly regulated, and sometimes news, political advertising, and polling are limited so that voters will focus on positions rather than electoral tactics and who is winning (politics as sport).
Our competitive free enterprise system is what it is, and noble goals to make it fairer usually hide attempts to gain an advantage. Since conservatives have more money, they should love money's effects on politics.
In these competitions, whatever works is good. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are widely used, for example, and those who benefit from them develop and believe lies (sales pitches) about their fairness, thereby rewarding and promoting dishonest and illogical thinking and perception. Two examples are racial segregation and the ways whites developed to feel good about it, and voter fraud and IDs.
This is a conservative and free enterprise way to run our democracy. Other countries are socialistic, developing government regulations and designing the process to make it a fair competition of alternative ideas and goals. Spending and campaign length are strictly regulated, and sometimes news, political advertising, and polling are limited so that voters will focus on positions rather than electoral tactics and who is winning (politics as sport).
Our competitive free enterprise system is what it is, and noble goals to make it fairer usually hide attempts to gain an advantage. Since conservatives have more money, they should love money's effects on politics.
2
Thank you, Richard Painter. Absolutely. The corruption of our democracy is a crisis that crosses the aisles. So . . . I have just one question: Why a guest constributor? Why hasn't the NYT given this issue the focus it deserves, given that this same issue is driving Trump on the right and Sanders on the left.
Or does the NYT think (certain) special interests deserve a special seat at the table?
Or does the NYT think (certain) special interests deserve a special seat at the table?
4
Big money is a function of big government. If government wasn't always micro regulating, changing the rules, and changing taxes and subsidies, there would be no reason for big money to lobby the government. Studies also show that money doesn't determine who wins (or Jeb would be the nominee), but rather follow winners in a band wagon effect. Other studies show that campaign finance reform essentially protects incumbents from competition, so it's no surprise that so many pols favor it.
4
Great article but you missed the reality that Conservatives are the biggest backers of the corporate state that sees Dark Money as the basis for their continuing control of politics, policy and the economy. American transnational corporations are a specific species as powerful member of the corporate state supporting "free trade" as a way to reduce the influence of the electorate.
8
As a Conservative, Mr. Painter, maybe you should save your breath. "Conservative" these days is just a hodgepodge of inconsistencies, designed to inflame the worst instincts of the uneducated under a cloak of sanctity.
7
Is today April 1?
9
Although I totally agree with you............Good luck with that!
3
How about a progressive fee (no one likes a tax) to assure that the 'free speech' large donors are buying is heard, and heard accurately?
It could work like this: Any individual donation less than $5000 made within a home election district would have no fee. Individuals could contribute to their local, state, and finally, national candidates. There is no change for the average citizen who wants to contribute to candidates or issues affecting them locally.
Donations above the limit, or out of district donations would face progressive fees, paid by the recipient candidates or issues. Out-of-state interest groups and large donors would still be able to donate, paying the requisite progressive fees.
All fees would be used in two ways: facilitate voting (registration, extended poll hours, etc.) and support independent analysis of the candidate's positions.
Large money donors who buy a loud voice in the election will be assured of having more and better informed voters to listen to their messages. Media channels would still see the frenzy of ad buying, with additional time being acquired to distribute the independent analyses. It would be a win-win.
It could work like this: Any individual donation less than $5000 made within a home election district would have no fee. Individuals could contribute to their local, state, and finally, national candidates. There is no change for the average citizen who wants to contribute to candidates or issues affecting them locally.
Donations above the limit, or out of district donations would face progressive fees, paid by the recipient candidates or issues. Out-of-state interest groups and large donors would still be able to donate, paying the requisite progressive fees.
All fees would be used in two ways: facilitate voting (registration, extended poll hours, etc.) and support independent analysis of the candidate's positions.
Large money donors who buy a loud voice in the election will be assured of having more and better informed voters to listen to their messages. Media channels would still see the frenzy of ad buying, with additional time being acquired to distribute the independent analyses. It would be a win-win.
1
The GOP-controlled Congress doing something about the moral obscenity that is our political system, shot through with filthy special-interest money? In what universe? The ultimate fox/henhouse status quo. And some ships get to be too big to turn around, America's never-ending bleat of "exceptionalism" aside. This column depicts a pipe dream.
3
I appreciate this thoughtful article, and would add that Mr. Painter is far from the first conservative to recognize that campaign finance reform is common ground across the political spectrum. One survey conducted back in 2013 indicated that 97.3% of **all** Americans want to see tough anti-corruption legislation to regulate politicians, lobbyists, and Super PACs. The grassroots movement, Represent.US, has brought together concerned citizens from Occupy to the Tea Party, all working together in support of the American Anti-Corruption Act. Readers can learn more at https://represent.us and www.anticorruptionact.org -- "Fight corruption, not one another."
3
Since the Supremes have gone with Citizen's United, why not a Constitutional Amendment that covers what needs to be done? We get nowhere through congress.
There's little question as to what the CITIZENS want.
There's little question as to what the CITIZENS want.
2
Conservatives see big government as one which controls peoples' lives. Under Obama such control has been increased immensily. Big money is not a factor since both parties are helping themselves to all the cash they need.
It's one thing to waste money and build a bridge to nowhere. It's something else indeed to pass Obamacare which threatens my choice of doctors, and often costs me more to get less. The later affects people daily lives - every day. It's one thing again to overspend on military or welfare, and something else to be afraid of terrorists which the government is so freely letting into our country.
Campaign contributions do not breed more regulation. The money mens' primary interest is not to control our lives; rather, they want to acculumate more money. While the government isn't there to make more money, but to accumulate more power over people.
People see this, get angry, and now even liberal press realizes how such anger can lead to campaigns like Trump; as if only a Trump can stop a corrupt politician like Hillary. Their bet on Trump may be misplaced, but what other hope do they have at the moment?
Big money doesn't drown their voices. On the contrary, big money allows them to be informed on the distortions of the liberal press (which isn't happy about the faith-based voters anyway) and lies of the government. The press and government have money; the people don't. Only the rich can equalize this.
It's one thing to waste money and build a bridge to nowhere. It's something else indeed to pass Obamacare which threatens my choice of doctors, and often costs me more to get less. The later affects people daily lives - every day. It's one thing again to overspend on military or welfare, and something else to be afraid of terrorists which the government is so freely letting into our country.
Campaign contributions do not breed more regulation. The money mens' primary interest is not to control our lives; rather, they want to acculumate more money. While the government isn't there to make more money, but to accumulate more power over people.
People see this, get angry, and now even liberal press realizes how such anger can lead to campaigns like Trump; as if only a Trump can stop a corrupt politician like Hillary. Their bet on Trump may be misplaced, but what other hope do they have at the moment?
Big money doesn't drown their voices. On the contrary, big money allows them to be informed on the distortions of the liberal press (which isn't happy about the faith-based voters anyway) and lies of the government. The press and government have money; the people don't. Only the rich can equalize this.
" It's one thing to waste money and build a bridge to nowhere. It's something else indeed to pass Obamacare which threatens my choice of doctors,"....According to the nonpartisan CBO Obamacare will reduce the deficit by $10 billion dollars over the next 10 years. Do facts matter?
3
Exactly how has "Obamacare threatened your choice of doctors"? Do you have insurance through an employer? If so, you don't have "Obamacare" and your beef is with the insurance companies, not the ACA.
As a self-employed business owner who has to buy an individual private policy, I found the ACA marketplace increased my choices and lowered my costs.
I take it your insurance premiums weren't increasing before the ACA was implemented? Right.
As a self-employed business owner who has to buy an individual private policy, I found the ACA marketplace increased my choices and lowered my costs.
I take it your insurance premiums weren't increasing before the ACA was implemented? Right.
3
Two partial solutions are:
1. reasonable term limits- The amassing of power and money occurs over time. Don't give politicians the time.
2. It should be illegal to go from elected official to a Lobby group, and visa versa.
Of course repeal of citizens united, too
1. reasonable term limits- The amassing of power and money occurs over time. Don't give politicians the time.
2. It should be illegal to go from elected official to a Lobby group, and visa versa.
Of course repeal of citizens united, too
4
"Taxation in the United States should be conditioned on every individual taxpayer's being allowed to designate the first $200 of his or her taxes to support a political candidate."
So, None of the Above is gonna be flush with cash, right? I guess I'm OK with that.
So, None of the Above is gonna be flush with cash, right? I guess I'm OK with that.
3
One central issue that always seems to get overlooked, is requiring media companies in every format to make free campaign air time available as a requirement for holding a broadcast license. This would probably help in reducing the cost of political campaigns.
By the way, has anyone noticed how much of the campaigning is moving on-line through low cost social media? Both advocacy and find-raising on-line have played and will play an increasingly important role in politics, as with everything else.
By the way, has anyone noticed how much of the campaigning is moving on-line through low cost social media? Both advocacy and find-raising on-line have played and will play an increasingly important role in politics, as with everything else.
2
Hmm...so, in ruling as they did on Citizens United, would the implication be that the SCOTUS is guilty of treason because they aided and abetted foreign actors' influence on our political process? Of course, this charge would be confined to those justices who voted in favor.
3
Mr. Painter:
Thank you for writing a spot-on Op-Ed. Your understanding of the problem, effects, and solutions have been lacking a key factor. The conservative perspective and the morality of silence on the matter. Kudos and please continue to be a loud and constant bell ringer.
Thanks, David
Thank you for writing a spot-on Op-Ed. Your understanding of the problem, effects, and solutions have been lacking a key factor. The conservative perspective and the morality of silence on the matter. Kudos and please continue to be a loud and constant bell ringer.
Thanks, David
1
The problem is not the advertising, it's the fact that people whose votes are influenced or even dictated by political advertising are allowed to vote. Bring back literacy tests -- racially neutral this time -- and the problem of Big Money in politics disappears, doesn't it?
We may need another tweak, like summary execution of any politician or bureaucrat who can't PROVE that he granted equal access to advocates on all sides of issues covered by proposed laws or regulations.
We may need another tweak, like summary execution of any politician or bureaucrat who can't PROVE that he granted equal access to advocates on all sides of issues covered by proposed laws or regulations.
Lobbyists, in my view, bribe. Pure and simple. They could easily be substituted for the neighborhood loan shark. They give you an offer you can't refuse. Shower you with money and then break you if you don't comply.
And our congress is not corrupt? They are being bought lock, stock & barrel. Doesn't matter from what state or political party, from the most evangelical to the atheist, they all beat to the same tune.
The staunch conservatives on the SCOTUS did the American people a grave disservice when they allowed Citizens United to be expanded.
How an entity could be considered with the same rights as an individual is beyond me? With truckloads of cash behind them and the 1% in power, how is the individual able to compete with that consolidation of wealth and power? They can't.
What we have now are Super PACs, more lobbyists than grains of sand on a beach and those with the most cash buying whatever congressperson they can for whatever product and law they want changed, passed or done away with.
And we talk about Russia, China, etc and how corrupt their political system is? We should hide in shame.
Until Citizens United gets overturned, it will get worse. But don't tell that to the Republicans running for president. The biggest hypocrites I've ever seen and not truthful to many Americans still reeling from the financial collapse 8 years ago.
And our congress is not corrupt? They are being bought lock, stock & barrel. Doesn't matter from what state or political party, from the most evangelical to the atheist, they all beat to the same tune.
The staunch conservatives on the SCOTUS did the American people a grave disservice when they allowed Citizens United to be expanded.
How an entity could be considered with the same rights as an individual is beyond me? With truckloads of cash behind them and the 1% in power, how is the individual able to compete with that consolidation of wealth and power? They can't.
What we have now are Super PACs, more lobbyists than grains of sand on a beach and those with the most cash buying whatever congressperson they can for whatever product and law they want changed, passed or done away with.
And we talk about Russia, China, etc and how corrupt their political system is? We should hide in shame.
Until Citizens United gets overturned, it will get worse. But don't tell that to the Republicans running for president. The biggest hypocrites I've ever seen and not truthful to many Americans still reeling from the financial collapse 8 years ago.
6
Money is the antithesis of democracy. What more needs to be said except that under the John Roberts court, we are every day less and less of a democracy and more and more of an oligarchy.
3
They're not talking about it because so-called conservatives have never been against big-government. When these so-called conservatives rail against "big-government" what they really are complaining about is their tax dollars being spent on poor minorities. They'd much rather see those tax dollars used to subsidize American businesses, particularly defense and agriculture. It's a case of Orwellian double-speak in action.
2
The opinion piece on campaign finance reform is based on blatant a lie: "Why should conservative voters care? First, big money in politics encourages big government." The Heritage Foundation and the CATO institute does not agree - neither does Grover Norquist. Most of us knows that money is not free speech. Any meaningful campaign reform must start there.
1
And I suppose it was a Liberal Supreme Court that equated free speech with money?
1
"Big money encourages big government. So why aren’t the Republican candidates talking about it?"
Oh come now! This is a nice article but its precis is trivial. The leadership of the GOP is most concerned with big money, as it has been since even the time of Lincoln. The libertarian, movement conservative, and economic left-behind (e.g., Reagan Democrat) fellow travelers are just being taken for a ride to nowhere.
The GOP's opposition to "big gub'mint" is coincidental, and remarkably inconsistent, too. Consider the MIC, which the GOP adores.
Oh come now! This is a nice article but its precis is trivial. The leadership of the GOP is most concerned with big money, as it has been since even the time of Lincoln. The libertarian, movement conservative, and economic left-behind (e.g., Reagan Democrat) fellow travelers are just being taken for a ride to nowhere.
The GOP's opposition to "big gub'mint" is coincidental, and remarkably inconsistent, too. Consider the MIC, which the GOP adores.
3
The GOP is to policy as Professional Wrestling is to the Olympics. So while you may be able to make a good argument as to why conservative policy would make a good fit with campaign finance reform, the GOP just doesn't care about policy. Meanwhile, they certainly do care about money. Just like pro wrestling, right?
1
"Americans should be alarmed about the effects of money in politics. But it is conservatives who should be leading the fight for campaign-finance reform. Unfortunately, none of the Republican candidates for president have taken on this issue."
Maybe, just maybe, hypocrisy is not solely the province nor the provenance of Democrats/liberal/progressives?
Just askin'...
Maybe, just maybe, hypocrisy is not solely the province nor the provenance of Democrats/liberal/progressives?
Just askin'...
1
All funding laws should show consistency throughout the States and be run by Central Government; that's the problem in the USA, inconsistent laws in the various States on election funding. See Wikipedia - do this web search: Political funding in United States - Then compare with this Wikipedia web search: Political funding in New Zealand - In New Zealand the central government sets the laws for ALL over the nation on political funding. Also, in NZ our laws for the media are not as restricted as in the USA as we have the Official Information Act. There have been cases where the media in NZ has exposed corruption where the various politicans have abused the laws and they have had to resign. You need a USA Official Information Act to keep your politicans honest.
Finally, someone acknowledges the foreign money in our corrupt political system. Ever wonder why the Saudis got away with 9/11 ? Just look at the US politicians that take Saudi money. And, there's alot of them. They owe more allegiance to the powers brokers in Riyadh than everyday Americans. Something is very very wrong here. The US Government is for sale.
3
"Big money encourages big government. So why aren’t the Republican candidates talking about it?"
Because Republicans do not oppose big government, as long as it serves the rich. When they say "big government", they mean "government which helps the poor", which they oppose.
Because Republicans do not oppose big government, as long as it serves the rich. When they say "big government", they mean "government which helps the poor", which they oppose.
8
The conservatives in the GOP are NOT true conservatives. They do not look at things to see what is worth keeping or how to improve them. Their version of being conservative is to tear down what they don't like, tell people who need help that they don't deserve it, cut taxes in an attempt to cripple the government while giving handouts to their rich donors or the corporations that support them in their runs for office. They want to be the center of power, not a center for supporting what this country needs.
Thanks to our conservatives we're going backwards on voting, medical care, education, the middle class, our infrastructure, our public works, everything. The GOP is not conservative: it's selfish and it encourages selfishness of sort that one expects in children, not adults. Our "non-activist" conservative wing of the Supreme Court has encouraged some of this destruction as well. Citizens United is a perfect example. Corporations are not good citizens. They hide behind the citizen designation to get away with doing things good citizens don't do. It's a shame our conservatives aren't forced to deal with the problems they've created for the rest of us. Their privileges prevent them from understanding the wreck they've made of our lives.
Thanks to our conservatives we're going backwards on voting, medical care, education, the middle class, our infrastructure, our public works, everything. The GOP is not conservative: it's selfish and it encourages selfishness of sort that one expects in children, not adults. Our "non-activist" conservative wing of the Supreme Court has encouraged some of this destruction as well. Citizens United is a perfect example. Corporations are not good citizens. They hide behind the citizen designation to get away with doing things good citizens don't do. It's a shame our conservatives aren't forced to deal with the problems they've created for the rest of us. Their privileges prevent them from understanding the wreck they've made of our lives.
3
You can make a logical, conservative case for election reform. You can make a logical, conservative case for same-sex marriage. You can make a logical, conservative, Christian case for universal health care. But none of this matters. The current conservative mind-set, or what passes for it, is so tangled in internal contradictions, so far from the supposedly "Christian" ideology it pays lip service to, that it is logically, theologically and morally bankrupt. Do they care? Do they even know? When profit and power come in at the front door, morality, logic and charity all go out by the back door.
40
The biggest problem with big money occurs in primary elections in gerrymandered House districts. Because of greater exposure, money has less influence on Presidential elections and is even limited on State wide elections. But in primary elections for the House it is easy to coerce an incumbent. Either vote my way or you will have a well financed opponent in your next primary election. In an election that is out of sight and with fewer voters a big dump of money can have a huge effect on the outcome, and especially so in a gerrymandered district where the winner of the primary is guaranteed a victory in the fall. The disfunction in the present House is evidence of a very major problem.
5
There is only one person running for President who rejects the corrupt campaign finance system and has issued a call to all Americans to join in reclaiming democracy- Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. He is running for the Democratic nomination only because barriers erected by both parties make it almost impossible for a 3rd party run.
His challenge is not to Democrats, but to all Americans. Our Democracy needs rational conservatives to retake control of the Republican Party just as Progressives must retake the Democratic Party from Corporate Democrats like Hillary Clinton.
That may be blunt, but it is also true.
His challenge is not to Democrats, but to all Americans. Our Democracy needs rational conservatives to retake control of the Republican Party just as Progressives must retake the Democratic Party from Corporate Democrats like Hillary Clinton.
That may be blunt, but it is also true.
4
The terms rational conservative, and rational progressive are oxymorons.
This piece suggests that "conservative" have an impact on this issue. What Kennedy's monumentally bad decision in Citizens United did to politics was sell it to the wealthy. The "common folk" don't have the staying power to advocate this issue against the loud bullhorn of the wealthy.
If we really want to recapture the country, we will need to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting non-individuals (corporations, unions, and other special interests) from contributing, limit the amount contributed to a low number, provide better/greater public election funding, and prohibit contributions from out of the geography (e.g., senators could only get money from in-state, congressmen from within their district). We ought to couple such an approach with objective third party drawing of districts like other enlightened countries, too.
If we really want to recapture the country, we will need to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting non-individuals (corporations, unions, and other special interests) from contributing, limit the amount contributed to a low number, provide better/greater public election funding, and prohibit contributions from out of the geography (e.g., senators could only get money from in-state, congressmen from within their district). We ought to couple such an approach with objective third party drawing of districts like other enlightened countries, too.
Thank you!
I eagerly await Mr. Painter's endorsement of Senator Sanders.
I eagerly await Mr. Painter's endorsement of Senator Sanders.
4
Talk about irony---a conservative's argument made by a conservative having to publish in the New York Times just to find an audience. Sounds like a Brooks editorial, "The case I'm making is rational, reasonable and ethical---why can't you all be nicer to one another?"
God save us from America's public figures who let themselves be bought by corporate money.
Go Bernie: Go Bernie
God save us from America's public figures who let themselves be bought by corporate money.
Go Bernie: Go Bernie
5
Frankly, when I read a column like this which is one of many that has been written on the subject, one has to wonder where the writer has been the last 20-30 years? This is like asking why wasn't the barn door locked long after the horses have been stolen? The cancer of out of control campaign financing and the futility of changing the system permeates both parties and it infects ALL levels of government. It is just a matter of degree.
In a recent documentary, it showed quite unequivocally, how the current money set-up is so entrenched within the political system, it would, sadly, be almost impossible to make any meaningful changes. When asked, politicians just come up with the usual half-baked excuse, "I have to do it because my competitor is doing it".
Bottom line, the most money gets face time with the politician, hence, the best chance of influencing the political/legislative agenda while "Joe average citizen" is on the outside looking in. Big money, for the most part, also determines who can run for office and who doesn't. Like it or not, from where I sit, America is no longer democracy and really hasn't been for some time.
In a recent documentary, it showed quite unequivocally, how the current money set-up is so entrenched within the political system, it would, sadly, be almost impossible to make any meaningful changes. When asked, politicians just come up with the usual half-baked excuse, "I have to do it because my competitor is doing it".
Bottom line, the most money gets face time with the politician, hence, the best chance of influencing the political/legislative agenda while "Joe average citizen" is on the outside looking in. Big money, for the most part, also determines who can run for office and who doesn't. Like it or not, from where I sit, America is no longer democracy and really hasn't been for some time.
4
The modern American political movement which describes itself as 'conservative' is anything but. It is a radical agenda formed of a jumble of different ideologies. Corporatism, apocalyptic Evangelical Christianity, latent racism and extreme free-market Capitalism have combined into a juggernaut which would see no benefit in reforming the campaign finance system.
Corey Robin's excellent book 'The Reactionary Mind' may provide an explanation to those wondering why today's conservatives behave nothing like the Burkean ideal.
Corey Robin's excellent book 'The Reactionary Mind' may provide an explanation to those wondering why today's conservatives behave nothing like the Burkean ideal.
4
Let's go one step farther...All funding should come from taxes and none of it should come from anybody else. Until we remove money form the election process, it will find a way in - just like water. Commercial media should broadcast for free as a stipulation of their licenses. All candidates who can get a reasonable number of signatures should be given a platform. Signature gatherers should no be paid. The fees for filing should be very reasonable if not free. Media should be responsible for vetting all claims made by candidates in their arena (broadcast, article etc...) and making them openly available to the public in a way that is convenient and obvious.
This would be a combination of wild west and boring but nobody ever promised participatory democracy to be obtained by osmosis.
This would be a combination of wild west and boring but nobody ever promised participatory democracy to be obtained by osmosis.
4
Excellent points: the gap between traditional conservatives and progressives is nothing compared to the gap between us and our would-be corporate overlords.
One additional point you missed: the corporate democracy argument. Who is dictating the political agenda of large publicly-held corporations? Not the great mass of shareholders--when are we ever asked for our permission to spend our share of profits on lobbying and outright bribery? The managerial class and the large investors steer those decisions with no pretense of interest in the interests of the majority of shareholders. If union beneficiaries have a right to "opt out" of "political activities", then why don't shareholders?
One additional point you missed: the corporate democracy argument. Who is dictating the political agenda of large publicly-held corporations? Not the great mass of shareholders--when are we ever asked for our permission to spend our share of profits on lobbying and outright bribery? The managerial class and the large investors steer those decisions with no pretense of interest in the interests of the majority of shareholders. If union beneficiaries have a right to "opt out" of "political activities", then why don't shareholders?
2
Shareholders don't speak for a corporation, the corporation does.
A corporation is presumed to be working in the interest of its shareholders, and the interest is to increase long-term shareholder value, in other words to maximize the shareholders' return on their investment in the corporation. That's it.
The agent of this shareholder interest is management. Management in its role as agent for shareholders is overseen by the board of directors, appointed by the very same shareholders.
It is the duty of management (as overseen by the board) to make speech, including "political" speech, that will lead to an increase in shareholder value. If an increase cannot be reasonably foreseen, then spending on such speech is a waste of money and destroys shareholder value.
Shareholders control the corporation through the election of the board of directors, which appoints management. Shareholders who do not believe the corporate agents to be acting in their best interest (increase in shareholder value), including funding or making speech, can vote a new board, change articles and by-laws or sell their investment.
This is very basic, and works well in theory. In practice, when it doesn't work well, the reason is weak management, a weak board, or weak shareholders. Sometimes all three in one convenient package. In a free market, this is generally a temporary condition, as long as corporate shares and corporate assets can be freely bought and sold.
A corporation is presumed to be working in the interest of its shareholders, and the interest is to increase long-term shareholder value, in other words to maximize the shareholders' return on their investment in the corporation. That's it.
The agent of this shareholder interest is management. Management in its role as agent for shareholders is overseen by the board of directors, appointed by the very same shareholders.
It is the duty of management (as overseen by the board) to make speech, including "political" speech, that will lead to an increase in shareholder value. If an increase cannot be reasonably foreseen, then spending on such speech is a waste of money and destroys shareholder value.
Shareholders control the corporation through the election of the board of directors, which appoints management. Shareholders who do not believe the corporate agents to be acting in their best interest (increase in shareholder value), including funding or making speech, can vote a new board, change articles and by-laws or sell their investment.
This is very basic, and works well in theory. In practice, when it doesn't work well, the reason is weak management, a weak board, or weak shareholders. Sometimes all three in one convenient package. In a free market, this is generally a temporary condition, as long as corporate shares and corporate assets can be freely bought and sold.
Right, global economic power will help choose govt policies, indirectly
At least the congress and candidates can’t go beyond the boundaries corporations set. TPP, Mr. Obama?
In countries with public funding of elections, there is more protection of their national sovereignity for the benefit of their citizens. Public funding lets countervailing power have some leverage. Without public funding, mass voting can be just a formality.
At least the congress and candidates can’t go beyond the boundaries corporations set. TPP, Mr. Obama?
In countries with public funding of elections, there is more protection of their national sovereignity for the benefit of their citizens. Public funding lets countervailing power have some leverage. Without public funding, mass voting can be just a formality.
Next please write an article titled: The Conservative Case for Shutting Down the Republican Party.
11
As things are going right now, W.F. Buckley conservatives are being ejected from the Republican party.
2
The other conservative reason for taking money out of politics is: we pay our elected officials to solve problems and make our life easier. If they spend a large fraction of their time talking to big donors, they are wasting time we are paying for, not to speak of the fact that they are listening to big donors rather than the average business-person, white collar or blue collar person.
16
Great points, all. One small argument: the "tax rebate for democracy" excludes those who pay no taxes. While it seems at first blush to be a perfectly egalitarian way to broadly and evenly politically empower citizens, in fact it disenfranchises the less fortunate/affluent. It is analogous to only giving property-owners voting privileges. Perhaps a similar approach could work where a $200 dollar donation is made available to all citizens, regardless of their tax liability. That would be more democratic.
11
@ Erik - very well put. Methinks the only answer is
1.free airtime for candidates (as a fee for use of the airwaves by networks),
2. a much shorter election cycle,
3. Mandatory voting ala Australia,
4. national primary days - IA & NH having this much influence is absurd.
1.free airtime for candidates (as a fee for use of the airwaves by networks),
2. a much shorter election cycle,
3. Mandatory voting ala Australia,
4. national primary days - IA & NH having this much influence is absurd.
4
"Remember the poor widow in the Gospel of Luke who contributed coins to the temple treasury? She is the values voter of today. "
Her vote will be influenced by the Negative Campaign message, financed by the Big Corporation!
Her vote will be influenced by the Negative Campaign message, financed by the Big Corporation!
To quote from the second paragraph:
"big money in politics encourages big government."
This is so backwards and none of the comments I read seem to recognize this.
It should read...
"Big government encourages big money in politics."
As Willie Sutton said about robbing banks, the lobbyists and campaign contributors go where the money is... Washington DC and the federal government.
If you want less money in politics, then downsize (rightsize) government and the regulatory state.
"big money in politics encourages big government."
This is so backwards and none of the comments I read seem to recognize this.
It should read...
"Big government encourages big money in politics."
As Willie Sutton said about robbing banks, the lobbyists and campaign contributors go where the money is... Washington DC and the federal government.
If you want less money in politics, then downsize (rightsize) government and the regulatory state.
2
This is a nice theory that falls apart as soon as you start trying to decide what to spend less on. Your priorities might not be the same as mine.
No, just have the right people in government who want to do the right thing and eliminate the bribery.
Conservatives should join the march on DC April 16-18 Democracy Awakening and demand Campaign Finance Reform!
Better late than never for conservatives.
Seems like a very reasonable argument to me. I would tweak it a tiny bit: the failure of a solar company with public investment is a good example of dynamic capitalism, in which failure has to be an option. The alternative would be a planned economy with state-owned industries--or, if everything is left up to the market and there is no public investment, an economy unprepared for the future. The Office for Technology Commercialization at Professor Painter's University of Minnesota is presumably a successful example of public investment that stimulates innovation and in turn benefits from the companies it hatches into the marketplace.
But on all the other points, this article is good advice for lawmakers.
But on all the other points, this article is good advice for lawmakers.
2
I do think that a better way for government to support desire able enterprises is to buy their products. That builds a certain market and attracts private investors.
Common Cause has joined Rich Hasen and Justice Scalia in opposing a Constitutional Convention to overturn the Citizens United decision. There is too much potential for unintended consequences.
Overturning C.U. won't fund campaigns or change who chooses candidates. Fundraising will still be necessary, consuming an inordinate amount of a candidate's time and integrity. Current alternative campaign funding proposals still involve public monies supplementing private sources of campaign funds.
These private funding sources increase our taxes because campaign expenditures get rolled into the cost of goods sold, making procurement contracts more costly. So our taxes become corporate "Free Speech."
I realize getting Congress to do anything, much less anything for the electorate, is difficult now. But many Members have expressed disgust with the status quo. My effort, www.thefairelectionsfund.com, is legislation that gives them an opportunity to represent We, the People. We defaulted when we let others fund campaigns. Is your government worth $7.00 a year to you?
Another factor is that the monthly expense reports make candidates demonstrate proficiency in managing their campaign budget before we let them loose with the government's budget. I'm only saying federal budgets need to be balanced in terms of real needs snd effective governance.
This is my gratis effort to build a real representative democracy. I cannot idly witness the harm being done to so many by so few.
Overturning C.U. won't fund campaigns or change who chooses candidates. Fundraising will still be necessary, consuming an inordinate amount of a candidate's time and integrity. Current alternative campaign funding proposals still involve public monies supplementing private sources of campaign funds.
These private funding sources increase our taxes because campaign expenditures get rolled into the cost of goods sold, making procurement contracts more costly. So our taxes become corporate "Free Speech."
I realize getting Congress to do anything, much less anything for the electorate, is difficult now. But many Members have expressed disgust with the status quo. My effort, www.thefairelectionsfund.com, is legislation that gives them an opportunity to represent We, the People. We defaulted when we let others fund campaigns. Is your government worth $7.00 a year to you?
Another factor is that the monthly expense reports make candidates demonstrate proficiency in managing their campaign budget before we let them loose with the government's budget. I'm only saying federal budgets need to be balanced in terms of real needs snd effective governance.
This is my gratis effort to build a real representative democracy. I cannot idly witness the harm being done to so many by so few.
2
It seems to me money has less of an effect on national elections that one might expect. Obviously, money matters. It's expensive to run in a national race. But does it influence outcomes? Underdog candidates often do well against better-funded rivals, and Jeb!'s wealthy campaign is foundering. Having the backing of a rich sugar daddy didn't make Newt Gingrich a more appealing candidate.
The real problem is money's effect on what happens once a politician is in office. That's where the Kochs and ALEC and other such outfits get the most bang for their buck. That's where they can secure friendly regulation and favorable legislation.
For now, rich people can't necessarily buy elections. But they can buy goodies from sitting politicians.
The real problem is money's effect on what happens once a politician is in office. That's where the Kochs and ALEC and other such outfits get the most bang for their buck. That's where they can secure friendly regulation and favorable legislation.
For now, rich people can't necessarily buy elections. But they can buy goodies from sitting politicians.
Conservatives seem incapable of asking whether something is good or bad, or beneficial or harmful. All they want to know is how conservative it is.
This article follows the National Review/establishment backlash against Trump in this regard. In that case, they lamented Trump's rise not because of the way he toyed with the latent (often explicit) racism of his followers or his insubstantial policies. No. They decided he was bad because he didn't fit in the little box that holds all of conservatives' ideas.
So it goes with the degrading influence of cash on our politics. Conservatives could simply join the rest of us in proclaiming the corrosive effect money has on how laws and regulations are conceived and enforced. How it poisons our courts. How it enables the rise of ghoulish for-profit prisons. How public officials outsource the writing of laws to vampirish organizations like ALEC. Conservatives could acknowledge these problems as they are.
So now we're treated to the spectacle of a conservative intellectual (truly a minority in the movement) trying to squeeze another issue into the box (corruption leads to big government, guys!).
The problem is conservatives created this problem, and many of them seem to think their work is unfinished. And do other conservatives really even believe these "xxx is a conservative issue" articles? If it's not already in the box, are they really that interested?
This article follows the National Review/establishment backlash against Trump in this regard. In that case, they lamented Trump's rise not because of the way he toyed with the latent (often explicit) racism of his followers or his insubstantial policies. No. They decided he was bad because he didn't fit in the little box that holds all of conservatives' ideas.
So it goes with the degrading influence of cash on our politics. Conservatives could simply join the rest of us in proclaiming the corrosive effect money has on how laws and regulations are conceived and enforced. How it poisons our courts. How it enables the rise of ghoulish for-profit prisons. How public officials outsource the writing of laws to vampirish organizations like ALEC. Conservatives could acknowledge these problems as they are.
So now we're treated to the spectacle of a conservative intellectual (truly a minority in the movement) trying to squeeze another issue into the box (corruption leads to big government, guys!).
The problem is conservatives created this problem, and many of them seem to think their work is unfinished. And do other conservatives really even believe these "xxx is a conservative issue" articles? If it's not already in the box, are they really that interested?
3
Sorry, but no. Elections corrupted by big money do not offend conservatives in the way they offend other citizens.
Reason: Big money in politics - the legalized buying of elected politicians by billionaires - does not necessarily lead to the "Big Government" bogeyman American conservatives obsess about endlessly.
Increases in no-bid, wasteful contracts to corporate cronies - (recall the US government contracts to rebuild infrastructure destroyed by American bombing) - are offset by deep cuts in spending on poor and middle class Americans.
For the last 30+ years, elected politicians have been passing laws written by corporate lobbyists, to slash taxes on the wealthy, and throw out regulations that protect consumers, workers, and the environment from excessive corporate greed. At the same time, to better serve their billionaire masters, these same politicians have often decimated public services essential for everyone but the super-rich: public education, health care, infrastructure in all but the wealthiest areas (think "Flint, MI"), and help for the poor and unemployed.
So, unfortunately, there might not be much to unite conservatives and progressives in the fight against big money in politics.
Reason: Big money in politics - the legalized buying of elected politicians by billionaires - does not necessarily lead to the "Big Government" bogeyman American conservatives obsess about endlessly.
Increases in no-bid, wasteful contracts to corporate cronies - (recall the US government contracts to rebuild infrastructure destroyed by American bombing) - are offset by deep cuts in spending on poor and middle class Americans.
For the last 30+ years, elected politicians have been passing laws written by corporate lobbyists, to slash taxes on the wealthy, and throw out regulations that protect consumers, workers, and the environment from excessive corporate greed. At the same time, to better serve their billionaire masters, these same politicians have often decimated public services essential for everyone but the super-rich: public education, health care, infrastructure in all but the wealthiest areas (think "Flint, MI"), and help for the poor and unemployed.
So, unfortunately, there might not be much to unite conservatives and progressives in the fight against big money in politics.
4
When Citizens United returns to the Supreme Court, Richard Painter should speak on behalf of all Americans for its overturning
5
Churches and charitable groups are rightfully prohibited from endorsing candidates - they survive based on the generosity of government made up of the same elected candidates. The same is true for corporations, unions, and other groups. They should also not have a voice.
That Republicans are loathe to take this view shows once again that few conservatives can be found in that party.
That Republicans are loathe to take this view shows once again that few conservatives can be found in that party.
2
*The MONEY is not the problem. Its the POWER.**
LOOK...the only reason its worth so much money to lobby congress and spend so much money on them, and on their campaigns is because they have basically unlimited power. Unlimited power IS worth unlimited money.
Take away their power, and you will have few people that will want to waste their money spending it trying to lobby someone who can't do them any special favors because they don't have the power to do so.
I just don't get why this is so hard for people to understand.
LOOK...the only reason its worth so much money to lobby congress and spend so much money on them, and on their campaigns is because they have basically unlimited power. Unlimited power IS worth unlimited money.
Take away their power, and you will have few people that will want to waste their money spending it trying to lobby someone who can't do them any special favors because they don't have the power to do so.
I just don't get why this is so hard for people to understand.
2
Han Solo, I'd understand it better if you offered some details:
What Congressional power(s) would you take away?
And HOW would you take away their power, much of which is written into the Constitution?
What Congressional power(s) would you take away?
And HOW would you take away their power, much of which is written into the Constitution?
1
Years ago we candidates had an IRS tax credit for campaign contributors. It was a 50% credit up to $250. It was eliminated. Skinny cats gave more than they have since. The candidates at the bottom are still struggling.
2
Conservatives know this. But much like redistricting, it must apply equally to all sides. Note Goldwater said "I see no reason for labor unions — or corporations — to participate in politics.” Prior days saw little money from corporations, but vast sums spent by unions both directly and indirectly. And the media continues to be in the bag for the Left, though the New media is slicing away at their influence.
It can not work if its unilateral disarmament. First step is to let individuals contribute as much as they want, but also make it a crime to threaten and intimidate contributors, just like it supposedly is for voters.
It can not work if its unilateral disarmament. First step is to let individuals contribute as much as they want, but also make it a crime to threaten and intimidate contributors, just like it supposedly is for voters.
Good grief. This is the kind of thinking that says the solution to rampant gun violence is to arm everyone. Giving billionaires free rein isn't a step in the right direction.
1
Regardless of whether I accept the analogy, I guess I just have more faith in an truly informed public to make their own decisions.
he objective is to get the money out of politics, then get the power out of Washington, but I realize that's a non-starter for this crowd.
he objective is to get the money out of politics, then get the power out of Washington, but I realize that's a non-starter for this crowd.
The only thing new about "new media" is that it is not fact based. Allowing unlimited contributions by individuals does little to address the corrupting influence of big money on our democracy. A couple of billionaires can out spend hundreds of thousands of other individuals. Contrary to what the republican majority on the Supreme Court says, money is not speech--it is money. I've never heard a dollar bill speak--it is an inanimate object. The First Amendment was not written by or for dollar bills. Money only speaks figuratively and in the sense that a human being holding a dollar bill can speak "louder" than one without a dollar by spending his dollar to buy a flyer, etc.. The first amendment does not guarantee that I get to speak as loudly as I want--only that I can speak.
1
The Republican establishment may not have taken on this issue, but conservative voters have. In places like Tallahassee, Florida, and Seattle, Washington, conservatives have joined their liberal counterparts in voting for anti-corruption acts that end secret money, dismantle legalized bribery, give voters a real voice in their elections through small-donor systems, and enforce the ethics rules on the books. National polls show that conservatives support anti-corruption reforms just as much as their counterparts on the left. We don't need to convince conservative voters to care; they already do. We need to convince their leaders – and given that the current system has worked well for them thus far, that's a far tougher battle to win.
10
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." – John Kenneth Galbraith
9
The devil, as always, is in the details. Even assuming a radical change in the Supreme Court's outlook, money always seems to find a way. Would a Donald Trump be prohibited from spending his own big bucks on his own campaign? If not, shouldn't less-wealthy candidates be allowed to take big donations from contributors in order to compete with rich candidates? What about gifts to advocacy organizations not directly supporting a particular candidate? Would public funding be limited to approved candidates? Approved by whom? Or would anyone be eligible? How much would that cost? As with guns in our society, the toothpaste is out of the tube, and it's hard to see how it can be put back.
12
"Would public funding be limited to approved candidates? Approved by whom? Or would anyone be eligible? How much would that cost?"
It would cost less than we're paying now if you consider the externalities (the resulting costs of lobbying efforts).
It would cost less than we're paying now if you consider the externalities (the resulting costs of lobbying efforts).
Easy, other countries can do it, check it out, why not you? Cut down on the long and drawn out primary debacle(which essentially drives this ridiculous money loaded system) and put a cap on the amount of money spent. In that way, perhaps candidates will devote their time(and money)talking about REAL ISSUES and how they are going to deal with them rather than spending millions on attack ads attempting to denigrate their opposition.
2
Yet there is one presidential candidate who has been vociferous on this issue - Bernie Sanders.
2
"...wasteful programs —bridges to nowhere, contracts for equipment the military does not need, solar energy companies that go bankrupt on the government’s dime and for-profit educational institutions that don’t educate..."
Um, are you including the energy company and the for-profit education examples in order to be "balanced"? Doing that undermines your argument. In trying to create an entirely new sector for our economy (renewable energy resources), our government should be willing to let some companies that get its money go bankrupt. In trying to get more people access to an education, our government should understand that there will be institutions that do a worse job at it than others. But, to call these programs earmarks and "wasteful" does a disservice to your other examples: the bridge to nowhere and absurd military equipment. The first two are obvious to everyone while the second two have done a lot of good generally but had failures in specific cases. Getting rid of the second two programs would harm the US more than it would help solve wasteful spending. Trying to better assess the finances of a company or what an educational institution is doing are the obvious responses, but calling them "wasteful programs" pretty much closes off that as an option. The same might be true of the military procurement, but the useful side of that spending is not as clear as it is in the other two programs.
Um, are you including the energy company and the for-profit education examples in order to be "balanced"? Doing that undermines your argument. In trying to create an entirely new sector for our economy (renewable energy resources), our government should be willing to let some companies that get its money go bankrupt. In trying to get more people access to an education, our government should understand that there will be institutions that do a worse job at it than others. But, to call these programs earmarks and "wasteful" does a disservice to your other examples: the bridge to nowhere and absurd military equipment. The first two are obvious to everyone while the second two have done a lot of good generally but had failures in specific cases. Getting rid of the second two programs would harm the US more than it would help solve wasteful spending. Trying to better assess the finances of a company or what an educational institution is doing are the obvious responses, but calling them "wasteful programs" pretty much closes off that as an option. The same might be true of the military procurement, but the useful side of that spending is not as clear as it is in the other two programs.
The politicians composing the nations legal code love the feel of cold cash in their pockets.
Their efforts at campaign reform mimic the efforts of the Walrus and the Carpenter to save the poor oysters!
Jabberwocky. That's all Campaign Reform is.
Ya want real campaign finance reform?
Easy.
TAX CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS 50%.
Problem solved.
Their efforts at campaign reform mimic the efforts of the Walrus and the Carpenter to save the poor oysters!
Jabberwocky. That's all Campaign Reform is.
Ya want real campaign finance reform?
Easy.
TAX CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS 50%.
Problem solved.
2
"Unfortunately, none of the Republican candidates for president have taken on this issue." Actually, no republican, period, is taking on this issue. John McCain has abandoned it in search of more wars to start and no other republican has dared to speak of it.
Mr. Painter, you sound like a liberal in your yearning for a more sane, more practical government. Personally, I am a liberal because it is much for efficient and frugal to give someone an education today that it is to imprison them later. Today, though, the system is perverse in that we see more profits to be made in prison construction and maintenance than in schools and our children. And profit is all most republicans think of.
When your party thinks the only solution to every problem is to turn everything over to profit motivated private industries we will never see any reform. Only when the modern republican party is completely shunned by the voters of this Nation will be see any chance of reform. To this problem and to most of the other problems that plague US.
Mr. Painter, you sound like a liberal in your yearning for a more sane, more practical government. Personally, I am a liberal because it is much for efficient and frugal to give someone an education today that it is to imprison them later. Today, though, the system is perverse in that we see more profits to be made in prison construction and maintenance than in schools and our children. And profit is all most republicans think of.
When your party thinks the only solution to every problem is to turn everything over to profit motivated private industries we will never see any reform. Only when the modern republican party is completely shunned by the voters of this Nation will be see any chance of reform. To this problem and to most of the other problems that plague US.
3
We need federal financing of elections and changes as to how they are held and promoted. In France only a poster with a pictures is allowed in designated spots. Realize that FOR EVERY DOLLAR SPENT ON A LOBBYIST, 467 DOLLARS ARE RETURNED.That money comes out of the average Americans' pocket. We all know why the GOP does not want reform.It use to be called bribes, now it is just contributions.
3
You cling the old conservative value of personal freedom. Welcome to the new conservative world of Medom.
1
While I would prefer to see Citizens United overturned, strong transparency laws enacted and large contributions from any entity or individual banned, it remains to be seen how much influence all this money has, at least in presidential elections. For example, Jeb Bush's Super Pac, Right to Rise USA, has spent around $60 million with very little to show for it. If he comes in below third in New Hampshire, his run may be over despite having over $40 million on hand. By contrast, Bernie Sanders has no Super Pac and still tied Hillary Clinton in Iowa and likely will win New Hampshire. Maybe the best thing about the result of Citizens United is that it may be showing that money can't buy you everything.
15
What you forget, is that someone like Bernie Sanders is an "Independent"(in more ways than one) in the U.S. political system who has stuck to his guns and political ideology and is now making considerable headway with many citizens who understand what Bernie is logically exposing in the current corrupt system while remaining uninfluenced by the big money oligarchs. He is, however, still a "lone wolf" in his quest and despite your comments about super pacs and their questionable influence, big money, ultimately, still, for the most part, will determine right from the outset, who will run and who will not.
I am sure there are many potential quality alternative candidates whom, over the years, chose not to run for office because of the amount of money required "just to get in to the game".
I am sure there are many potential quality alternative candidates whom, over the years, chose not to run for office because of the amount of money required "just to get in to the game".
1
Jeb Bush, despite all his dough is far from leading the pack. Many candidates with big backing fail. Yes, indeed, but one should not naively or disingenuously conclude that money fails.
Some money can beat other money. Money wins by setting the terms of debate and framing the questions. Congress has made so much of the National Debt, when the people don't, poverty and labor issues hardly get the time of day, domestic terrorism, not guns without controls is the number one media topic when there is no comparison in Americans killed between terrorism and gun violence even if you include 9/11.
We get daily even up-to-the-minute market reports on general media, but no daily analysis of employment and wage statistics.
"The Evening News Brought to you by The Teamsters of America" Not bloody likely. And so forth.
Some money can beat other money. Money wins by setting the terms of debate and framing the questions. Congress has made so much of the National Debt, when the people don't, poverty and labor issues hardly get the time of day, domestic terrorism, not guns without controls is the number one media topic when there is no comparison in Americans killed between terrorism and gun violence even if you include 9/11.
We get daily even up-to-the-minute market reports on general media, but no daily analysis of employment and wage statistics.
"The Evening News Brought to you by The Teamsters of America" Not bloody likely. And so forth.
1
The place to look for the influence of dark money in politics is not in who gets elected, but in the actions they do or don't take regarding their donors' interest once they are in office. You're correct that the tens of millions donated to Jeb Bush don't appear likely to elect him. However, as his chances wane, watch the large donations go to Rubio, or Cruz, or however seems to have the inside track on the nomination. They will also go to whoever gets the Democratic nomination. The first goal of much dark money is not to get a specific candidate elected; that's the second goal. The first goal is to be in the pocket of whoever gets elected, and influence how they treat the interests of their donors. This is why many large organizations give to candidates of both parties.
2
AS a Progressive, it pains me every time I have to say this-- which I have to say more often than I would have ever guessed: Goldwater was spot in.
For the umpteenth time:
Money = speech
Speech = money.
Money is shorthand for resources in the form of assets. Speech (i.e. any expression of thought) is the result of a person's free allocation of resources.
The logical conclusion is that those denigrating Citizens United and the 1st Amendment believe:
1. Persons are not free to allocate their own resources as they see fit;
2. The fact that some persons have more resources than others is wrong and must be controlled - i.e. via various forms of redistribution (taxes, limits on allocation of resources to speech, etc.)
Any government or laws not bound by the principles clearly and lucidly stated in the 1st Amendment, a government whose political underpinnings are 1 and 2 above, is a tyranny.
Money = speech
Speech = money.
Money is shorthand for resources in the form of assets. Speech (i.e. any expression of thought) is the result of a person's free allocation of resources.
The logical conclusion is that those denigrating Citizens United and the 1st Amendment believe:
1. Persons are not free to allocate their own resources as they see fit;
2. The fact that some persons have more resources than others is wrong and must be controlled - i.e. via various forms of redistribution (taxes, limits on allocation of resources to speech, etc.)
Any government or laws not bound by the principles clearly and lucidly stated in the 1st Amendment, a government whose political underpinnings are 1 and 2 above, is a tyranny.
1
So, let me see if I follow you:
All of literature is "just money" because it is allocation of resources. The bible is just money. All of science is "just money." The constitution is just money. Justice is just money.
Just money is all principles, including the principles that you espouse that make just money all principles.
Your "logical conclusion" is nuts. Corporations are NOT people too, my friend. If they were they'd pay the personal income tax.
All of literature is "just money" because it is allocation of resources. The bible is just money. All of science is "just money." The constitution is just money. Justice is just money.
Just money is all principles, including the principles that you espouse that make just money all principles.
Your "logical conclusion" is nuts. Corporations are NOT people too, my friend. If they were they'd pay the personal income tax.
Wow, so in your view if the wealthy don't have the right to buy their very own Congressman, Senator, Governor, etc, that is tyranny? I think the complete opposite. Free Speech is the right to freely express your ideas as an individual, not the freedom to buy off a politician, that creates the tyranny you speak of.
You start with abstract assumptions not everyone accepts.
Money = Power -- not speech.
(1) Is true. If you live in a civilized society, you do not have unlimited freedom to allocate your resources.
(2) Is mostly true. A civilized society can't exist without some mechanism for redistribution, so that the "have mores" don't become "have alls" while the rest are "have nothings," which is a recipe for violence and revolution.
My definition of tyranny is having no say in your own government. In your definition, virtually every successful democracy is a "tyranny."
Pure libertarianism is as unworkable in real life as pure communism.
Money = Power -- not speech.
(1) Is true. If you live in a civilized society, you do not have unlimited freedom to allocate your resources.
(2) Is mostly true. A civilized society can't exist without some mechanism for redistribution, so that the "have mores" don't become "have alls" while the rest are "have nothings," which is a recipe for violence and revolution.
My definition of tyranny is having no say in your own government. In your definition, virtually every successful democracy is a "tyranny."
Pure libertarianism is as unworkable in real life as pure communism.
Oligarchy is bad for everyone.
2
Very rarely am I considered a conservative, yet I find myself in agreement with much of what Prof. Painter says. I would state it slightly differently, however. Big money in politics makes it nearly impossible to simplify regulation, because the goal of moneyed interest is to tailor regulations to their ability to engage in what economists call "rent seeking." It's not even a left or right, but a "who do I know" and how can I get that person into a place where s/he can help me? I hope Prof. Painter's thoughts aren't simply a trojan horse to carry out what too many "conservatives" want, which is to destroy the regulatory infrastructure necessary to maintain the rule of law in a complex 21st-century economy and society.
1
Let's be careful to distinguish the ideas and actions of Republican officials, and especially those running for President, from normal people. I have quite conservative Republican friends, but they do not want total gridlock in congress, religious tests, carpet bombing of other countries, persecution of refugees, etc. So please don;t just say all "Republicans are greedy or Democrats just want to take away everyone's guns" or such.
3
Agree that traditional conservatives should be leading the fight on campaign finance. Sady, today's conservatives that dominate the Republican party were the one's that created the monster we now have for campaign finance.
1
The 28th Amendment:
Only Individuals who are registered to vote may contribute money to any political campaign for public office or contribute money for any law, statute, regulation, or issue placed before the voters.
In any and all cases the total amount of money allowed to be contributed by an individual allowed to contribute shall be $100 for any individual candidate or issue and shall have a combined maximum of $400 per a four year Presidential Election cycle. Amounts will be indexed to inflation/deflation.
Only Individuals who are registered to vote may contribute money to any political campaign for public office or contribute money for any law, statute, regulation, or issue placed before the voters.
In any and all cases the total amount of money allowed to be contributed by an individual allowed to contribute shall be $100 for any individual candidate or issue and shall have a combined maximum of $400 per a four year Presidential Election cycle. Amounts will be indexed to inflation/deflation.
1
Thanks, Big Bro.
This article is timely and correct. I have always leaned Republican on fiscal, tax and economic issues. For the past 10-15 years it is hard to recognise the Republican party. It has given up entirely on its low government spending ideal by supporting endless massive increases in defence spending. It has given up on its libertarian ideals by blocking campaign reform (with the help of democrats) and allowing mobilised single issue special interest groups, not to mention a dozen or so billionaire Oligarchs to hijack our government's policies on guns, health care, and banking to name a few. I do hope conservatives will reclaim their party and ideals from the crazies. Campaign finance reform is a great way to start.
47
Progressive Republicans are now with Bernie.
1
Surely you jest. The Republicans' ceaseless tirade against "big government" is empty rhetoric intended to appeal to voters who haven't figured out who the real enemy is, not an indication that they actually want to cut it. Grover Norquist is probably the only conservative who really wants to "drown government in the bathtub." Republican politicians are only too happy to see its reach expand in the service of favored interests, provided they get something in return. And since the majority of corporate campaign contributions go to Republicans, they'd be depriving themselves of the chief source of their electoral success and the driving reason behind the hammerlock they now have on many state capitols if campaign finance were ever "reformed." Far from showing any interest in curtailing the influence of big money, they're working to tear down the few remaining barriers to total corporate control of our democracy.
64
Cogently put. Thank you.
"Big Money, Big Government". I kid you not, my very first conservative idea I can agree with since Reagan raised the social security tax! Well said, well done Mr. Painter.
6
Why does it always take so long for "the conservative mind" to figure this stuff out? Or is it some odd capitulation to the obvious? There are social constants in life. Children will abuse candy privileges. Teens will abuse sex privileges. College students will abuse alcohol privileges. And yes, the rich and powerful will abuse political privileges. This has been going on for a while now. Still, thanks for noticing and voicing your opinion. Welcome to the club.
17
Those presidential candidates who call themselves conservatives embrace big money in politics, and it is affecting our foreign policy. Most of the Conservative Republican candidates have promised to tear up the Iran nuclear agreement should they become president. The reason is not that they necessarily hate Iran or think the deal is so bad. It is that billionaire gambling promoter Sheldon Adelson has promised to spend hundreds of millions on the campaigns of his favored candidates. Sheldon Adelson strongly supports Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who strongly opposes the Iran deal. Therefore, any candidate who wants his campaign cash must oppose the Iran deal.
23
I have another reason to delete the effects of big $ on our election process. It appears that the barrage of intense broadcast TV ads supplant and replace the thinking process which voters need to carry out . Sound byte explanations insufficiently describe complex issues, pollute voters brains and have a secondary message ; you don't need to know anymore than this to make a correct vote. A good citizen votes after a careful consideration of the issues. This is why we herald a "free press" , broadcast TV is not a "free press".
13
The answer to his question is a simple one. If Republicans supported campaign-finance reform it would be unilateral disarmament for the party. The Democrats get a lot more small contributions than Republicans. The Republicans would be at a huge disadvantage.
4
Thank you! Well written and thought inducing, offering ideas for discussion. We need much more of this. The infiltration of foreign money into our election process is a real issue. Corporations are not citizens, Business is not governance and might does not make right. Thank you for taking a turn to "We the people..." I believe we can have open discussions and give rise to new forms of Democracy and drop the Oligarchy that is currently strangling our nation.
2
Big government comes into existence because of "free market" failures caused by unbridled greed and unethical/immoral behavior.. Government regulation is an inefficient and corruptible solution, but is the lesser of evils.
When a financial market creates worthless high risk mortgage investment products and sells them like snake oil, bring a financial collapse, government regulation is necessary to prevent a reoccurrence. Consumer gouging by big Pharma's constant prices increases in the US requires regulation which brings big government and corruption/bribery.
It is said that "the sword comes into the world because of justice delayed and justice denied". The same can be said of big government and the corruption of government.
When a financial market creates worthless high risk mortgage investment products and sells them like snake oil, bring a financial collapse, government regulation is necessary to prevent a reoccurrence. Consumer gouging by big Pharma's constant prices increases in the US requires regulation which brings big government and corruption/bribery.
It is said that "the sword comes into the world because of justice delayed and justice denied". The same can be said of big government and the corruption of government.
14
You have it backwards: big money does not produce big government. Big government draws big money. And, from the perspective of business, it’s usually self-defense: trying to prevent Big Government from putting you out of business or pillaging your bottom line. It’s almost inevitably leftist Big Money organizations, like unions, which use their resources to secure policies which dig deeper into other people’s pockets.
The real problem with “money in politics” is using the Treasury as a campaign tool: “vote for me and I will shower you with lots of other people’s money”. Such is the very basis of the modern Democratic Party, exemplified by Bernie Sanders and his naked, vote-buying promises to provide massive handouts of taxpayer-funded “free” things if elected. THAT represents an existential threat to a (truly) free nation.
Consider: abolish the corporate income tax, and, instantly, businesses lose any incentive to attempt to secure sweetheart deals (like “green” subsidies). Shrink government and there’s no incentive to use the political system to secure governmental favor (or deflect its malignant intentions).
Big government is the problem. Scale it back and, voila, the problem of “money in politics” instantly disappears.
The real problem with “money in politics” is using the Treasury as a campaign tool: “vote for me and I will shower you with lots of other people’s money”. Such is the very basis of the modern Democratic Party, exemplified by Bernie Sanders and his naked, vote-buying promises to provide massive handouts of taxpayer-funded “free” things if elected. THAT represents an existential threat to a (truly) free nation.
Consider: abolish the corporate income tax, and, instantly, businesses lose any incentive to attempt to secure sweetheart deals (like “green” subsidies). Shrink government and there’s no incentive to use the political system to secure governmental favor (or deflect its malignant intentions).
Big government is the problem. Scale it back and, voila, the problem of “money in politics” instantly disappears.
1
Michael: It's obvious that Big Government and Big Money feed on each other. You need to recognize that. The lying greedheads amongst the Big Money crowd would be quite happy to have smaller government. Then they could get what they want for less money and they always like that equation. Smaller government has already lead to an EPA that can't do it's job. The same is true at the Department of Health and Human Services.
Big Money wants fewer regulations: Just imagine the Koch Brothers.
Big Money wants fewer regulations: Just imagine the Koch Brothers.
So silly. Nobody runs for office to "serve the people," anymore. When being elected stops being personally profitable, maybe we can get some truly able people to volunteer to serve.
4
Wrong. Sanders is, and has been, running to serve the people his entire career.
2
The Roberts SCOTUS will always be remembered for its Citizens United decision . This largely Republican nominated court threw any hope of election reform into a black hole. Until this disastrous decision is overturned, there can be no accounting for the sources of the corporate money buying our elections and the elected.
7
Not sure why the focus on conservatives in the article.
The establishment candidates on both sides have not said too much about campaign finance reform and whatever they have said should be taken with a large grain of salt.
The only ones that seem to walk the talk are Bernie and Trump.
Not only do we need to prevent new money from buying politicians, we need to completely toss out the existing tax code and start with something much simpler that cannot be tinkered with to undo the buying of politicians past. Similarly, excessive government regulation that primarily erects anti-competition barriers that donors have purchased must be undone.
The establishment candidates on both sides have not said too much about campaign finance reform and whatever they have said should be taken with a large grain of salt.
The only ones that seem to walk the talk are Bernie and Trump.
Not only do we need to prevent new money from buying politicians, we need to completely toss out the existing tax code and start with something much simpler that cannot be tinkered with to undo the buying of politicians past. Similarly, excessive government regulation that primarily erects anti-competition barriers that donors have purchased must be undone.
3
Giving credit to Trump for not taking money from OTHER billionaires is delusional.
Sanders is the only candidate who deserves credit for integrity on this issue.
Sanders is the only candidate who deserves credit for integrity on this issue.
2
Republicans don't want to get rid of big corporate money because they are getting the most of it. Remember the article about there being 158 billionaire families who have put in 75% of campaign money? The article pointed out that this money is going overwhelmingly to republicans.
12
Of course, like all the politicians, they "don't want to bite the hand that feeds them".
At least sixteen state legislatures have passed legislation supporting the Constitutional repeal of CU. The New York legislature is one vote short (Rep.) of doing so. In Washington State an initiative to do so will be on the ballot in November. This is one avenue to achieve change. Legislation enabling public financing of elections is another. Retiring Rep. Steve Israel has eloquently written about the job description required of a member of Congress: untold hours begging and pleading for money, with some time for legislative business thrown in.
The, in my opinion, naive paradox here Mr. Painter glosses over is that the "social conservatives and faith-based voters" can not connect the dots from a $900 million dollar pile of money, the Koch brothers who control that money, the extraction based industries they own which make that money, and the utter denial of scientific consensus regarding the effects of those industries on the people who inhabit this planet by hirelings like Sen. Snowball. This while supporting ever more retributive control and punishment of free, private, individual behaviors(requiring body cavity searches?) with which they disagree.
Orwell would smile. What's conservative is authoritarian-oligarchic. What's liberal is radically ideal.
The, in my opinion, naive paradox here Mr. Painter glosses over is that the "social conservatives and faith-based voters" can not connect the dots from a $900 million dollar pile of money, the Koch brothers who control that money, the extraction based industries they own which make that money, and the utter denial of scientific consensus regarding the effects of those industries on the people who inhabit this planet by hirelings like Sen. Snowball. This while supporting ever more retributive control and punishment of free, private, individual behaviors(requiring body cavity searches?) with which they disagree.
Orwell would smile. What's conservative is authoritarian-oligarchic. What's liberal is radically ideal.
9
We should consider term limits along with limiting political contributions.
If the people who are being influenced by money are removed from power periodically we can accomplish the same goals as this article seeks.
There could be loopholes in financial limits,however,cleaning house every six years and ending gerrymandering may be more effective
If the people who are being influenced by money are removed from power periodically we can accomplish the same goals as this article seeks.
There could be loopholes in financial limits,however,cleaning house every six years and ending gerrymandering may be more effective
3
And why wouldn't these regulations be bent back upon themselves like all the others?
Big money in politics isn't the cause of big government...it's the other way around. The money is there to buy power. The more power accumulated in one place (like DC), the more money will show up to chase the power.
Big money in politics isn't the cause of big government...it's the other way around. The money is there to buy power. The more power accumulated in one place (like DC), the more money will show up to chase the power.
3
Perhaps it is because so called conservatives don't really hate big government, they just don't want tax dollars to go to 'those people'. The states with the largest imbalance of payments; taxes to Washington vs. taxes to the state, are red states.
The whole 'we hate big government' game is just a scam. Call me when Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell reduce Kentucky's $1.50+ for every $1.00 they send to Washington. Alabama and Mississippi are practically wards of the state. Likewise Sarah Palin's Alaska and much of the Republican southwest supplied with federal subsidized water.
The whole 'we hate big government' game is just a scam. Call me when Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell reduce Kentucky's $1.50+ for every $1.00 they send to Washington. Alabama and Mississippi are practically wards of the state. Likewise Sarah Palin's Alaska and much of the Republican southwest supplied with federal subsidized water.
6
The analysis is not linked to the solution. A Democracy tax would put government into the process (not very Conservative) - and while it would generate campaign funds, it does not limit other donations nor their influence.
A cap is needed - on individual contributions - to be applied to rich and poor alike, human and corporations.
Free-speech would s be protected by giving all an equal voice - rather than allowing some to turn the volume control to 11 (or 111).
A cap is needed - on individual contributions - to be applied to rich and poor alike, human and corporations.
Free-speech would s be protected by giving all an equal voice - rather than allowing some to turn the volume control to 11 (or 111).
1
@Gerard,
Democracy tax? That's a new term for me. Could you explain what you mean, please?
2-3-16@11:37 am et
Democracy tax? That's a new term for me. Could you explain what you mean, please?
2-3-16@11:37 am et
2
Certainly - if the first $200 dollars of your taxes (as suggested in this article) are diverted to funding a political candidate ... then the total revenue to the government for other purposes will decline and have to be raised by other means. Basically, this "tax rebate for democracy" will be funded by raising taxes to cover it - hence a portion of the general tax revenue set aside to fund the rebate: a Democracy tax. And in terms of the "Conservative" case for reform - it seems a very odd suggestion since it both raises taxes and has the government administer its distribution.
Currently Bernie is picking up lots of little donations - that is the better model: direct contributions. What is needed is a cap.
Currently Bernie is picking up lots of little donations - that is the better model: direct contributions. What is needed is a cap.
1
When responding to this Op-Ed piece those on the left won't mention the millions of dollars currently pouring into the Clinton Foundation from foreign nationals. They'll rant instead in about the Kochs. The sorry fact is that both conservatives and progressives alike are wallowing in the dung heap of money from wealthy organizations and oligarchs. No sitting politician (except Bernie) wants the tap to be shutoff.
3
Consider it mentioned. Hilary is in Wall Street's hip pocket. Bernie takes no bsnkster money.
1
As far as I know the Clinton Global Initiative is a world wide charitable organization that receives money from people all over the world. The reason is is that it is a global initiative to fight the worlds problems. The US shouldn't have to do it alone. CGI hasn't nor will they ever give money for political purposes. However the Koch's have said they will give almost $1 Billion dollars during this election cycle so they can buy the best candidate.
2
Ok, I will say it, I don't want the wealthy buying any politician regardless of party affiliation - feel better.
1
Wonderful question but for one thing: Republican preach about small government, but do not mean most of it. Most talk about small government is about less regulation and lower taxes, both of which would promote big, or at least bigger, government. But the willingness to have government making specific medical decisions and the history of expanding government under Republican administrations demonstrate a propensity to big government. Finally, the Republicans on the Supreme Court are Big Business advocates. Why else would they equate money to speech? Because, in the Republican world, money talks.
3
This high-minded essay has a major problem. Citizens United is a Constitutional decision interpreting the meaning of the First Amendment. Unbridled campaign spending may be regulated. But it can be meaningfully modified only by repeal of Citizens United, which is out of our power, or by a Constitutional amendment. Wording of such an amendment would be a dicey matter. Some spending, like the proposed $200 contributions, should be First Amendment protected. Reform may be appealing, but it may well be beyond our reach.
3
Why does the author confuse modern Republicans with actual conservatives?
4
Why would Republicans want campaign money reform? Without the Super Pacs, they couldn't get a dime from every day Americans.
4
Republicans have raised blindness to their own hypocrisy to an art form, well beyond the possibility of enlightenment.
5
DID professor Painter ever read "DARK MONEY"?
3
well said. and it should be argued for the safety, security, protection and defense of this country that 40% of all good consumed in this country must be made here. it's not safe for our country when everything is made overseas. in addition our economy and it's health and strength are key to providing the wealth that arms our military: no economy no military. right now we are letting the rich, large global foreign and domestic corporations and foreigners consume our wealth, the wealth that is necessary for the military protection of our country. in addition to the economic damage of wealth transfer there is the loss of a manufacturing base and attendant human capital skills and jobs. it's much more expensive to learn manufacturing skills from scratch than to teach them by transfer. real conservatives are against excessive globalization and angainst anything that damages our defensive readiness.
1
The author makes a case but his 'solutions' don't wash.
The divide in America right now is not necessarily liberal vs conservative or right vs left or even Republican vs Democrat; it is the cronies vs the non cronies.
Big business on the right and big labor on the left raise huge sums and dispense it to politicians who then do their bidding. The non cronies in the middle - the vast majority - the rest of us - pay the bills and bear the brunt of the problems that result.
It shows up in everything we do and pay for. We pay more for banking because there is not enough competition - big banks love regulation because it limits competition from smaller banks. Same with insurance, utilities, energy etc.
Health care costs more for the same reason. Government can't lower the cost; it can subsidize some at the expense of others. The best way to lower health care costs is more competition.
The problem with his solutions are they won't work. The only way to really reform the system is to take away the NEED for campaign funding. You do that by reducing the size of districts so money isn't needed.
When campaigns are tiny, they will be decided by issues and character, not funding from either business or labor.
To get this reform - called the Neighborhood Legislature - we must first highlight the absurdity of the current system.
That's why we have launched www.californiaisnotforsale.com. It would require pols to wear their sponsors logos. Check it out.
The divide in America right now is not necessarily liberal vs conservative or right vs left or even Republican vs Democrat; it is the cronies vs the non cronies.
Big business on the right and big labor on the left raise huge sums and dispense it to politicians who then do their bidding. The non cronies in the middle - the vast majority - the rest of us - pay the bills and bear the brunt of the problems that result.
It shows up in everything we do and pay for. We pay more for banking because there is not enough competition - big banks love regulation because it limits competition from smaller banks. Same with insurance, utilities, energy etc.
Health care costs more for the same reason. Government can't lower the cost; it can subsidize some at the expense of others. The best way to lower health care costs is more competition.
The problem with his solutions are they won't work. The only way to really reform the system is to take away the NEED for campaign funding. You do that by reducing the size of districts so money isn't needed.
When campaigns are tiny, they will be decided by issues and character, not funding from either business or labor.
To get this reform - called the Neighborhood Legislature - we must first highlight the absurdity of the current system.
That's why we have launched www.californiaisnotforsale.com. It would require pols to wear their sponsors logos. Check it out.
1
In theory, that sounds good.
On the other hand, all the other industrialized countries have some form of government health care at 40% to 50% less expensive than the US.
And they have universal health care and we do not.
And our health care is not better and is some cases worse. In fact, we rank 27 for infant mortality and Alabama ranks about the same as Botswana.
On the other hand, all the other industrialized countries have some form of government health care at 40% to 50% less expensive than the US.
And they have universal health care and we do not.
And our health care is not better and is some cases worse. In fact, we rank 27 for infant mortality and Alabama ranks about the same as Botswana.
1
The "smaller government", "less regulation", "balance budget" memes of conservatives are canards. These "values" are only important to the extent that serve their political interests. Supporting the interests of minorities, the poor and the working class do not enhance their political needs, thus their effort to undermine the safety net, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc to finance the feeding of their benefactors through low taxes and giveaways to the wealthy and corporations. Today's so called conservative politicians have been able to maintain this ruse by subtle and sometimes not so subtle formentation of discord through racial and class prejudice. This article begins to expose the truth of this hipocrisy.
58
NY Times Editorial Staff; can your readership receive a serious page one center series addressing this with an occasional(weekly)headline? Soon! before reasonable minds are further compromised. Please do it! Thank you.
2
As Robert Reich says, no progress on anything is possible until Citizens United is reversed.
Our highest court claimed limiting big money in elections stifles 1st amendment free speech. So the very thing that undermines our democratic tradition, our high court claims upholds it. This is truly Alice in Wonderland reasoning.
Even when there’s no quid pro quo, our legalized corruption has lowered the standards of what our government owes its citizens. Not even clean water—in the 21st C. That’s how we reached this new low in Flint.
I saw on cspan that John Nichols of “The Nation” Magazine says that 15 states and 600 cities have moved to reverse Citizens United. See his book 'Dollarocracy'. I’ve not seen any of this in the media. If news media keeps this dark, how can pressure build to restore representation for the majority of citizens?
The big money supporting the rw is very organized. The opposition is individualized, weak, and intimidated.
The main block to democracy, Citizens United, is hardly discussed on the op ed page of our most important newspaper, even as the columnists discuss the 2016 campaign cast of characters, and neglect the issues. Two separate realities.
At least the Times did have a page 1 article on the 158 super rich families that put the most money into the campaign. But this was not translated into issue and policy talk by NYT columnists. They mostly steer clear, and instead talk personalities and horse race, to our detriment.
Our highest court claimed limiting big money in elections stifles 1st amendment free speech. So the very thing that undermines our democratic tradition, our high court claims upholds it. This is truly Alice in Wonderland reasoning.
Even when there’s no quid pro quo, our legalized corruption has lowered the standards of what our government owes its citizens. Not even clean water—in the 21st C. That’s how we reached this new low in Flint.
I saw on cspan that John Nichols of “The Nation” Magazine says that 15 states and 600 cities have moved to reverse Citizens United. See his book 'Dollarocracy'. I’ve not seen any of this in the media. If news media keeps this dark, how can pressure build to restore representation for the majority of citizens?
The big money supporting the rw is very organized. The opposition is individualized, weak, and intimidated.
The main block to democracy, Citizens United, is hardly discussed on the op ed page of our most important newspaper, even as the columnists discuss the 2016 campaign cast of characters, and neglect the issues. Two separate realities.
At least the Times did have a page 1 article on the 158 super rich families that put the most money into the campaign. But this was not translated into issue and policy talk by NYT columnists. They mostly steer clear, and instead talk personalities and horse race, to our detriment.
74
Campaign finance reform is undergirded not only by where the money comes from, but who the money goes to. While campaign organizations require financing, an enormous amount of that money these days appears to go to the media. The media are complicit in the process. How does one not permit ads any time, all the time, without hearing that it would be a limitation of free speech? In an Orwellian sense, free speech ain't free and that's just fine with the media and anyone making bucks off the system. We sure have our work cut out for us--and we can't even count on the media for their wholehearted support.
What’s combined to badly weaken democracy is the repeal of anti monopoly laws for media, and the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. Smaller, broken up media, presenting both sides in news shows, would have to compete and is more protected from the pressure of conformity to the prevailing political culture.
Citizens United also shovels more profits to media companies in huge fees for political ads. Political campaigns are media’s xmas season for revenue. So which side are they on?
Thus the huge Fox conglomerate dominates the country, and the other media monopolies are drawn into their pull. To take a strong stand against Fox is to be labeled left wing. The centrists don’t serve our democracy—whether on TV or at the NY Times. The US voters hardly know what their govt owes them, and most mainstream media isn’t about to tell them.
Citizens United also shovels more profits to media companies in huge fees for political ads. Political campaigns are media’s xmas season for revenue. So which side are they on?
Thus the huge Fox conglomerate dominates the country, and the other media monopolies are drawn into their pull. To take a strong stand against Fox is to be labeled left wing. The centrists don’t serve our democracy—whether on TV or at the NY Times. The US voters hardly know what their govt owes them, and most mainstream media isn’t about to tell them.
1
The answer of course is that the Cons are just fine with big government as long as they are in charge and get the spoils.
3
$200 tax for a candidate? Who decides what constitutes a candidate? Can I designate my husband and him me? Then decided to run for local mayor and only make 10 fliers? Pocket the rest? What a huge government program to run!
2
I knew that Mr. Painter was a professor before I read to the bottom of his column because I can't imagine a better example of Ivory Tower thinking.
Mr. Painter: Without the tens of billions shoveled into the trough by the Kochs and their ilk for the delectation of their ravenous obedient oinking servants, no so-called conservatives (actually radical reactionaries) would stand a chance of election.
Dan Kravitz
Mr. Painter: Without the tens of billions shoveled into the trough by the Kochs and their ilk for the delectation of their ravenous obedient oinking servants, no so-called conservatives (actually radical reactionaries) would stand a chance of election.
Dan Kravitz
1
Dan Kravitz - "...by the Kochs and their ilk"
How about the Clintons and their ilk?
How about the Clintons and their ilk?
The Clintons and their ilk
a) spend peanuts compared to the Kochs, and
b) do not spend it to elect radical reactionaries
a) spend peanuts compared to the Kochs, and
b) do not spend it to elect radical reactionaries
1
Dan Kravitz - "spend peanuts compared to the Kochs,"
You know this how?
You know this how?
I didn't see any mention of union contributions or government unions corrupting the process. Guess those don't count for the professor.
2
kwb - Of course not since most if not all unions, especially government unions, contribute to the "good" side, the Democratic Party.
From the Bureau of labor statistics :
The union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of unions--was 11.1 percent in 2015, unchanged from 2014, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The number of wage and salary workers belonging to unions, at 14.8 million in 2015, was little different from 2014. In 1983, the first year for which
comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent, and there were 17.7 million union workers.
The number of people in unions has declined since 1983. Of the approximately 135 million workers only 14.8 million are union members today. Only in the Republican mind do unions hold so much sway in politics.
The union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of unions--was 11.1 percent in 2015, unchanged from 2014, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The number of wage and salary workers belonging to unions, at 14.8 million in 2015, was little different from 2014. In 1983, the first year for which
comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent, and there were 17.7 million union workers.
The number of people in unions has declined since 1983. Of the approximately 135 million workers only 14.8 million are union members today. Only in the Republican mind do unions hold so much sway in politics.
1
Professor Painter touches on many points explored in more detail in my book, Grand Collusion. Both parties benefit by having a large government. The two parties are primarily focused on power. To have power you need candidates to win. To win, you need money, and lots of it. There is no better place to get the money than industries that are impacted by government regulations or have the government as a customer. So, both parties share many of the same sources of money. The result is that the mainstream candidates share many of the same economic and foreign policies, even if social policies differ. The surprising performance of outsider candidates is evidence that within the parties people no longer trust the mainstream candidates. While Sanders supporters may revile Trump, and vice-versa, the truth is that they have more in common than they think.
Regan began the age of big-government conservatism. Clinton made the Democratic Party a servant to Wall Street. Thanks to the policies of Reagan and Clinton that were continued by subsequent administrations we continue to get involved in wars that we have little chance of winning and our nation (both public and private sector) is mired in debt and susceptible to financial crises.
In my book, I explore how the parties have been able to get away with this, how serious the problem is, and how we can get our nation back. Some of the figures, data and statistics cited in the book can be found at: grandcollusion.blogspot.com.
Regan began the age of big-government conservatism. Clinton made the Democratic Party a servant to Wall Street. Thanks to the policies of Reagan and Clinton that were continued by subsequent administrations we continue to get involved in wars that we have little chance of winning and our nation (both public and private sector) is mired in debt and susceptible to financial crises.
In my book, I explore how the parties have been able to get away with this, how serious the problem is, and how we can get our nation back. Some of the figures, data and statistics cited in the book can be found at: grandcollusion.blogspot.com.
3
As long as the Supreme Court -- albeit by a one-vote majority -- continues to equate cash with First Amendment free speech, there's no way for Congress to prevent the corruptive flow of Big Money from Big Business to political campaigns. But the political parties, which are not subject to the same constitutional restrictions, could adopt effective restrictions such as requiring party candidates to disclose the names of and amounts contributed by donors and to limit the amount received from each donor and the amount spent on each campaign. The parties could also do what the Federal Election Commission never does: sanction candidates for blatantly false and misleading political ads and speeches. Particularly now, when the political parties may feel threatened by "runaway" candidates proclaiming themselves apostles of the party's gospel, self-regulation by the parties could re-establish their important role in American democracy.
1
How are reducing wasteful earmarks, eliminating corporate written regulations designed to disable competitors, and preventing foreign governments from influencing our elections not centrist values, too, and even liberal ones?
What Mr. Painter thinks of as conservative thinking is mere sensible thinking and has nothing to do with the self-identified conservatives' unending efforts to rig the system for the benefit of those who write them checks.
What Mr. Painter thinks of as conservative thinking is mere sensible thinking and has nothing to do with the self-identified conservatives' unending efforts to rig the system for the benefit of those who write them checks.
4
Green Tea - "How are reducing wasteful earmarks, eliminating corporate written regulations designed to disable competitors, and preventing foreign governments from influencing our elections not centrist values, too, and even liberal ones?"
They all are however because they are used by and help both sides of the political divide they won't be mentioned by either.
They all are however because they are used by and help both sides of the political divide they won't be mentioned by either.
The large establishment big money influence on this presidential election is evidently virtually absent in both primary contests.
Your theory is not supported by facts. In fact it is completely unsupported by facts.
A better theory would be: freedom of expression for everyone (including corporations, unions, papers, two guys who just formed an LLC, and my grandmother - all expressing their views by paying – allocating assets – for their chosen channel or means of expression) leads to a much greater diversity in elections and therefore in the ensuing governance.
Citizens United corrected 200 years of constitutional perversions – 200 years of ignoring the plain words of the 1st Amendment, thoughtfully drafted with a clear purpose, mainly by Mr. Madison, and duly adopted.
The Citizens United decision will never be overturned, because it is correct, unless the Constitution is amended.
Your theory is not supported by facts. In fact it is completely unsupported by facts.
A better theory would be: freedom of expression for everyone (including corporations, unions, papers, two guys who just formed an LLC, and my grandmother - all expressing their views by paying – allocating assets – for their chosen channel or means of expression) leads to a much greater diversity in elections and therefore in the ensuing governance.
Citizens United corrected 200 years of constitutional perversions – 200 years of ignoring the plain words of the 1st Amendment, thoughtfully drafted with a clear purpose, mainly by Mr. Madison, and duly adopted.
The Citizens United decision will never be overturned, because it is correct, unless the Constitution is amended.
4
It’s said the US is as polarized now as the civil war era. But many on all sides agree we need to get the big money out. But how, when congress benefits?
The US contradicts its ideals. The elites who pay the least % of their income in taxes, get by far the most representation by govt. Google Princeton’s Martin Gilens' study for proof.
Economic mobility and m. class security is better realized in countries with public financing for elections, and free media time for all candidates. This saves billions, and frees up lawmakers to represent the majority.
Corporations are unions of money, given special legal protections. The increased profits are then applied to influence govt., which passes laws that further compound profits. the US is stuck.
Labor unions are joining together of otherwise powerless individuals,selling only their labor. They lack collective leverage, and legal protections, which they had more of in past generations.
In other countries govt negotiates h/c prices with insurance and drug co’s instead of taking directions from them. And union reps are on corporate boards. A different civilization.
Our rw uses the freedom from ‘big govt’ slogan to legitimize dominance by the US aristocracy of corporate wealth—the very antithesis of our founders’ who aimed to free the country from Old Europe's elite privilege. The highest Court perverted the 1st amendment to legalize this. Truly a historic distortion of America.
The US contradicts its ideals. The elites who pay the least % of their income in taxes, get by far the most representation by govt. Google Princeton’s Martin Gilens' study for proof.
Economic mobility and m. class security is better realized in countries with public financing for elections, and free media time for all candidates. This saves billions, and frees up lawmakers to represent the majority.
Corporations are unions of money, given special legal protections. The increased profits are then applied to influence govt., which passes laws that further compound profits. the US is stuck.
Labor unions are joining together of otherwise powerless individuals,selling only their labor. They lack collective leverage, and legal protections, which they had more of in past generations.
In other countries govt negotiates h/c prices with insurance and drug co’s instead of taking directions from them. And union reps are on corporate boards. A different civilization.
Our rw uses the freedom from ‘big govt’ slogan to legitimize dominance by the US aristocracy of corporate wealth—the very antithesis of our founders’ who aimed to free the country from Old Europe's elite privilege. The highest Court perverted the 1st amendment to legalize this. Truly a historic distortion of America.
7
"But it is conservatives who should be leading the fight for campaign-finance reform." What a joke! When in the last 40 years or so have conservatives done anything that would help our country, our political system or our people?
12
Richard Painter need only look at the model Bernie Sanders has set. He is proving that one doesn´t need Big Money if he or she tells the unvarnished truth. I will never vote for another politician who takes the payola and, in turn, dances to the pay master´s tune. I believe this is one reason why President Obama fell short of his promises ...the other being, of course, the obstructionist path against his every effort by the Republican Party in Congress.
Bernie 2016!
Bernie 2016!
9
Republicans gain power anyway they can, they don't care if it damages the system, that's just a benefit to them. Everyone says both parties do it, but Republicans have taken gerrymandering to a fine art, they do it in more districts and more thoroughly than the Democrats by a very wide margin. More and more Democrat states are changing redistricting laws and procedures to make the process politics free (as possible) and fair. When citizens of Florida passed a voter referendum to stop gerrymandering Republicans initiated a lawsuit to stop the citizens from exercising their will. Luckily the courts sided with the citizens, but this shows just how little Republicans care about honesty and fair elections, or even what the voter wants, all contrary to the propaganda they constantly spout. This is shown by almost everything they do. Voting machines with no method of auditing results, ID laws that always benefit Republicans. Closing polls.
Republicans don't talk about finance reform because they benefit. They are already bought and paid for by big business in general and the Koch brothers and Murdoch in particular. This is why Republicans on the Supreme court originally struck down finance spending laws.
Republicans gain power through cheating, deception and gaming the rules, even at the expense of the American people overall and the people they are supposed to represent. Republicans will do anything to win, they view it as their right to power.
Republicans don't talk about finance reform because they benefit. They are already bought and paid for by big business in general and the Koch brothers and Murdoch in particular. This is why Republicans on the Supreme court originally struck down finance spending laws.
Republicans gain power through cheating, deception and gaming the rules, even at the expense of the American people overall and the people they are supposed to represent. Republicans will do anything to win, they view it as their right to power.
14
I agree with Mr. Painter when he says, "the system is a betrayal of the vision of participatory democracy embraced by the founders of our country." However, he says, "Churches and other charitable groups are prohibited from contributing to campaigns or even endorsing candidates." Yes, OUR UNITED STATES GUARANTEES SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE but that doesn't stop the catholic church and other BIG religious organizations from openly backing candidates and people like Ted Cruz selling their followers snake oil. Mr. Painter also says, "If religious conservatives want to accomplish their goals, they first need to drive the big spenders out of the temples of our democracy." No, they should have NO GOALS when it comes to OUR governments. They must lose their non-profit status, and pay back all the stolen money from collection plates, property taxes, grants from OUR governments to do their supposed "good works" like trying to control what women do with their own bodies and the myriad other unlawful ways they have raked in the big bucks and meddled in OUR governments. WE must demand they stop fleecing their followers and the rest of us.
13
Would you please cite as evidence that
"Yes, OUR UNITED STATES GUARANTEES SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE but that doesn't stop the catholic church and other BIG religious organizations from openly backing candidates and people like Ted Cruz selling their followers snake oil."
To reduce that number of citations please just give those references for the Catholic Church in your statement.
"Yes, OUR UNITED STATES GUARANTEES SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE but that doesn't stop the catholic church and other BIG religious organizations from openly backing candidates and people like Ted Cruz selling their followers snake oil."
To reduce that number of citations please just give those references for the Catholic Church in your statement.
Mr Painter
Have you read "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer? Do you even care? The greatest threat to our American democracy is the influence of big and dark money on our society. The Koch brothers have founded the Cato Institute and many other institutions which are dedicated to nothing more than to dismantle regulations of any kind, allow big oil free reign, deny man made climate change, etc. These people are totally evil.
Have you read "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer? Do you even care? The greatest threat to our American democracy is the influence of big and dark money on our society. The Koch brothers have founded the Cato Institute and many other institutions which are dedicated to nothing more than to dismantle regulations of any kind, allow big oil free reign, deny man made climate change, etc. These people are totally evil.
20
Right on! Only, the problem is not taxation. It is representation. Check out the Constitution.
The House of Representatives was to be the voice of the people in our republican form of government. The drafters mandated a census so that House membership would grow and change as the country's population increased and spread across the continent. They expected the House to be a large body of citizens with the power to put a brake on runaway government by means of elections every other year. In Federalist 55, Madison posits a House with 400 members within 50 years. Nathaniel Gorham, who had represented Mass at the Philadelphia convention, told that state's ratifying convention there would be 1400 to 1500 members in 100 years.
In 1929, Congress and the President usurped the power of the People by freezing the membership at 435. They did not have the guts to take this fundamental change to the People in the form of an amendment.
Congressional districts have ballooned to over 700,000. They can no longer be fairly allocated among the states. A congressional district in Rhode Island is about half the size of the one in Montana. 700,000 also provides a classic barrier to entry to anyone opposing an incumbent. So we have the situation that 96% of incumbents get reelected when Congress has an approval rating in the low teens. So much for the People's check on runaway government.
http://www.twoyearstodemocracy.com/
The House of Representatives was to be the voice of the people in our republican form of government. The drafters mandated a census so that House membership would grow and change as the country's population increased and spread across the continent. They expected the House to be a large body of citizens with the power to put a brake on runaway government by means of elections every other year. In Federalist 55, Madison posits a House with 400 members within 50 years. Nathaniel Gorham, who had represented Mass at the Philadelphia convention, told that state's ratifying convention there would be 1400 to 1500 members in 100 years.
In 1929, Congress and the President usurped the power of the People by freezing the membership at 435. They did not have the guts to take this fundamental change to the People in the form of an amendment.
Congressional districts have ballooned to over 700,000. They can no longer be fairly allocated among the states. A congressional district in Rhode Island is about half the size of the one in Montana. 700,000 also provides a classic barrier to entry to anyone opposing an incumbent. So we have the situation that 96% of incumbents get reelected when Congress has an approval rating in the low teens. So much for the People's check on runaway government.
http://www.twoyearstodemocracy.com/
1
Citizens United established that groups have the same free speech rights as individuals. Campaign finance laws had made it illegal for you and 1000 like-minded other citizens to join together to make a film, buy some ad time on the radio, or otherwise engage in political speech, with exceptions only for established media like the NYTimes. The problem is that nobody has a way of separating one set of groups from another. If we allow the Sierra Club to be a political advocate (and why not) we must also allow the AFLCIO and Exxon to be political advocates, as they are not distinguishable legally. The focus should be on identifying the source of funding for all political speech, rather than limiting it.
"Taxation in the United States should be conditioned on every individual taxpayer’s being allowed to designate the first $200 of his or her taxes to support a political candidate."
Thus spake today's respectable Conservatism. Now, consider that that same $200 could be refunded with no strings directly to the taxpayer. However, the writer would prefer that money that might otherwise bolster childhood nutrition, repair some of the thousands of bridges that are in dire need, or even be shipped directly to some military contractor who might or might not provide requisite services, be returned to the taxpayer but only if the taxpayer then designates it to support a party or its candidates.
Mr. Painter, what hath Roberts wrought! Please forward any of your essays attacking the Citizens United ruling from, say, 2012, when fat cat-funded Birther smears blanketed the airwaves, and "think tanks" such as AEI and Heritage promulgated their "blame Obama for most everything that's happened since, say, 1981" message to every discontented American.
Now it appears the Rodney Dangerfield big spenders who were supposed to fund the return to Caddyshack have hijacked the party from those wearing the yachting caps. Horrors. Keep in mind that the Koch Brothers' wish list includes in big block letters a repeal of any regulation that tells them they can't despoil the land in search of profit. Hey, they need to make a living, right?
Save your tears, Dr. Frankenstein. There's a monster to catch.
Thus spake today's respectable Conservatism. Now, consider that that same $200 could be refunded with no strings directly to the taxpayer. However, the writer would prefer that money that might otherwise bolster childhood nutrition, repair some of the thousands of bridges that are in dire need, or even be shipped directly to some military contractor who might or might not provide requisite services, be returned to the taxpayer but only if the taxpayer then designates it to support a party or its candidates.
Mr. Painter, what hath Roberts wrought! Please forward any of your essays attacking the Citizens United ruling from, say, 2012, when fat cat-funded Birther smears blanketed the airwaves, and "think tanks" such as AEI and Heritage promulgated their "blame Obama for most everything that's happened since, say, 1981" message to every discontented American.
Now it appears the Rodney Dangerfield big spenders who were supposed to fund the return to Caddyshack have hijacked the party from those wearing the yachting caps. Horrors. Keep in mind that the Koch Brothers' wish list includes in big block letters a repeal of any regulation that tells them they can't despoil the land in search of profit. Hey, they need to make a living, right?
Save your tears, Dr. Frankenstein. There's a monster to catch.
3
Dodd Frank in a terrible law but I'm grateful about one condition, it effectively prevents our firm from giving money to candidates that could have any possible impact on the direction of funds to money managers. As someone who has gotten arm twisted for campaign contributions for years, I love the fact that I can now demure. That said, It's probably unconstitutional to constrain my giving because there may be some possible benefits as government workers, unions, corporations, and others are all allowed to give money and presumably all have a vested interest in the outcome. I would far prefer to take all interested parties out of the market of government including corporations, unions. I'm happy to be constrained if government workers are prevented from giving as well. Finally, the bigger problem is the revolving door of government workers who move from government to industry, association, or organization and leverage their relationships. No lobbying (with a broader definition) should be a 5 year restriction for all appointees or GS-13 or above
2
When religious voters side with the Brothers Koch and work for their causes, they are helping thwart the promises the Son of their God made to all people: that blessed are the poor and that the meek shall inherit the earth.
6
The problem is Conservatism has become many things to many people. It is now such a mishmash of misdirection it doesn't seem to know which way is up.
To be a fiscal or social conservative? Or both? Conservatives at large in Ruby Red States seem confused. They present a paradox. When are the Feds wanted and when are they told to keep out? Sure they will say the dictates of The Almighty Constitution holds the same credibility as the Bible. Their strict interpretation of said two centuries old document and what they perceive to be the only definition belongs to them and them alone. Any variance, any compromise is prohibited.
Well, in the world, and we do live globally, this spinning blue marble we now inhabit has changed dramatically many former strictly held-to beliefs, including the Constitution. But until one can make pliable their rigid minds and wrap it around that concept this nation will remain deeply divided and hopelessly adrift in a sea of confused ideologies.
DD
Manhattan
To be a fiscal or social conservative? Or both? Conservatives at large in Ruby Red States seem confused. They present a paradox. When are the Feds wanted and when are they told to keep out? Sure they will say the dictates of The Almighty Constitution holds the same credibility as the Bible. Their strict interpretation of said two centuries old document and what they perceive to be the only definition belongs to them and them alone. Any variance, any compromise is prohibited.
Well, in the world, and we do live globally, this spinning blue marble we now inhabit has changed dramatically many former strictly held-to beliefs, including the Constitution. But until one can make pliable their rigid minds and wrap it around that concept this nation will remain deeply divided and hopelessly adrift in a sea of confused ideologies.
DD
Manhattan
2
We are profoundly reluctant to say out loud that our democracy is for sale and our elected representatives are engaged in a scam that we wastefully and endlessly fund. No one is willing to pull the plug on these criminals that have created a most disturbing reality. Our founders intentions to frame a representative democracy based on equity has failed under the sway of unlimited self interest. Our governance has been transformed into a system in which our politicians have fashioned lifetime careers and income to their great benefit while our environment is threatened by unlimited exploitation. Cynical unlimited exploitation and its costs are nowhere more gravely evident than in Flint Michigan. There children's' lives are forever distorted by the blatant criminality of its politicians who under the guise of saving money are, in fact, engaged in genocide...yes...here in our beloved democracy. Children's lives are being sacrificed in the name of restricting needed public expenditures on infrastructure. Our National dialogue is suffused with the distracting mantras of conservative principles that have lead to this crime against humanity. We all share in this travesty and must rise up to preserve our fragile democracy. Yes...eternal vigilance is indeed the price of liberty. Speak out America, our children's lives are at stake.
8
Ah, Professor, nice try. But your entire argument collapses in the face of a famous Upton Sinclair quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary (campaign contributions) depends on his not understanding it."
All the politicians running, save Sanders, are all mney junkies, none of whom have hit bottom yet and see the need for rehab.
This essay makes the laughably wrongheaded assumption that politicians of any stripe care one little bit about that "values voter" you cite. Thanks for the morning laugh. Glad my coffee cup wasn't at my lips when I read that.
All the politicians running, save Sanders, are all mney junkies, none of whom have hit bottom yet and see the need for rehab.
This essay makes the laughably wrongheaded assumption that politicians of any stripe care one little bit about that "values voter" you cite. Thanks for the morning laugh. Glad my coffee cup wasn't at my lips when I read that.
3
"Land of the thief, home of the slave."
Conservative values in this age are the values of corporatism. Big government: how bought that defense budget! Ethanol subsidies! And we all can go on and on. Conservative values: obstruction of the common good for the corporate trickle down. Same old, same old stale, authoritarian fear mongering.
Conservative values in this age are the values of corporatism. Big government: how bought that defense budget! Ethanol subsidies! And we all can go on and on. Conservative values: obstruction of the common good for the corporate trickle down. Same old, same old stale, authoritarian fear mongering.
7
Welcome to the world of "conservative" cognitive dissonance. it sounds like you should join David Brooks and Michael Gerson in a support group for republicans who didn't get the memo that they ARE the establishment, and exist to cater to the whims of the .1%. if only there was a group or party that spent the last three decades fighting for campaign finance reforms that you could look to... Mmmm... let's see... OH, I know: they're called Democrats.
2
I don't see anything in the article that implies the Democrasts aren't in favor of campaign finance reform. This article is written specifically to conservatives to argue that they should favor campaign finance reform. That's definitely an argument I would like to see the author be able to to win in at least some conservative minds in order to be able to achieve a national consensus to be able to carry out the reform.
And nowhere in the article does the word "corruption" occur. I guess that is too difficult for a conservative to accept.
7
Politically active conservatives never have been against big government, they have been against any government that they cannot control in their own interests. They have never been against entitlements, they are against entitlements that don't come to their interests. General entitlements tend to make labor less subservient and dependent on owners. Big for whom? For whom entitlements? As in so much else, conservative pretexts parade as policies.
12
While I don't equate campaign finance reform to necessarily helping evangelicals, etc. I do wholeheartedly agree that we need to get money out of politics.
I have always thought publically funded campaigns is the only sensible approach. PACS should be outlawed and all donations should be outlawed.
Congress spends the majority of their time raising money for their re-election instead of doing the people's business.
Every candidate should be given the same amount of money to run their campaign. Not one dime over this allotment should be allowed to be spent- even if it's their own money. It would level the playing field and not limit candidates to the rich and well connected. Candidates could then concentrate on the real issues and not just pandering to rich donors. Money equals corruption. We need to get rid of both.
Finally, we need to shorten the whole election process so that it costs much, much less. Let's start with having a national primary day where all 50 states vote for their candidate on the same day...just think how much money would be saved doing that?
I have always thought publically funded campaigns is the only sensible approach. PACS should be outlawed and all donations should be outlawed.
Congress spends the majority of their time raising money for their re-election instead of doing the people's business.
Every candidate should be given the same amount of money to run their campaign. Not one dime over this allotment should be allowed to be spent- even if it's their own money. It would level the playing field and not limit candidates to the rich and well connected. Candidates could then concentrate on the real issues and not just pandering to rich donors. Money equals corruption. We need to get rid of both.
Finally, we need to shorten the whole election process so that it costs much, much less. Let's start with having a national primary day where all 50 states vote for their candidate on the same day...just think how much money would be saved doing that?
8
Considering that most people are in favor of a woman's right to choose abortion, allowing same sex marriage and freedom of religion, and liberals tend to be better educated and have enough income to be paying federal income tax (the 47% anyone?), I say that this guy is no conservative at all, and that his proposal will only bring more sense into our government.
2
There is no defence of Citizens United....NONE...because
Citizens United has abrogated a citizen's right to have their vote count.
That is simple enough to digest...isn't it ????
How really mired in equivocations can these writers get ???
Citizens United has abrogated a citizen's right to have their vote count.
That is simple enough to digest...isn't it ????
How really mired in equivocations can these writers get ???
4
I hope the author of this piece is at least working with "Move to Amend".
https://movetoamend.org
Beyond that, isn't there some bright legal mind out there who could make a case that big money screams so loudly that it effectively drowns out the freedom of speech of the rest of us? Seems too simple, so I guess not.
https://movetoamend.org
Beyond that, isn't there some bright legal mind out there who could make a case that big money screams so loudly that it effectively drowns out the freedom of speech of the rest of us? Seems too simple, so I guess not.
1
Even the brightest legal minds can be fooled--like Glen Greenwald and Floyd Abrams who support Citizens United, and equate money with speech.
When will the Times op ed page include in all the news that’s fit to print, some discussion of the many groups, like movetoamend, trying to reverse Citizens United?
And CU’s affects should be the 1st question for all candidates, to see where they stand on the basics of democracy, while they ask for the votes of hundreds of millions.
When will the Times op ed page include in all the news that’s fit to print, some discussion of the many groups, like movetoamend, trying to reverse Citizens United?
And CU’s affects should be the 1st question for all candidates, to see where they stand on the basics of democracy, while they ask for the votes of hundreds of millions.
It’s a decidedly curious and unsupported premise that big money in politics encourages big government. Increasingly, money available for earmarks has diminished dramatically by the inexorable rise in the cost of entitlements, and the Sequester has been very effective at keeping down increases in the defense budget.
However, a return to effective curbs in the ability of individuals and corporations to engage in political speech as unions and the MSM do certainly will contribute to big government because these latter influencers support progressive candidates and their whole PURPOSE is robust collectivism via central government. All Citizens United did was give EVERYONE the ability to express himself, removing the artificial levers enjoyed only by champions of the left.
It’s not an “activist” U.S. Supreme Court that declares supreme the First Amendment’s right to freedom of political speech; but it indeed would be an activist Court that limited that freedom because it inconveniences the left.
Prof. Painter might be surprised at how much conservative support would appear for campaign finance reform if it were plain that it limited unions, TV networks and our largest and most influential newspapers, as well as corporations and individuals, from excessive influence through money. As that has yet to be the purpose of efforts to reanimate moribund campaign finance reform efforts, it’s unlikely that the good professor’s arguments will find a receptive audience on the right.
However, a return to effective curbs in the ability of individuals and corporations to engage in political speech as unions and the MSM do certainly will contribute to big government because these latter influencers support progressive candidates and their whole PURPOSE is robust collectivism via central government. All Citizens United did was give EVERYONE the ability to express himself, removing the artificial levers enjoyed only by champions of the left.
It’s not an “activist” U.S. Supreme Court that declares supreme the First Amendment’s right to freedom of political speech; but it indeed would be an activist Court that limited that freedom because it inconveniences the left.
Prof. Painter might be surprised at how much conservative support would appear for campaign finance reform if it were plain that it limited unions, TV networks and our largest and most influential newspapers, as well as corporations and individuals, from excessive influence through money. As that has yet to be the purpose of efforts to reanimate moribund campaign finance reform efforts, it’s unlikely that the good professor’s arguments will find a receptive audience on the right.
5
Well said. Liberals, along with the staff of the NY Times, would love to go back to the days where the big three networks and large print media could control the message. Apparently, "free speech" only applies to them.
1
You must be living in a bubble. MSM is decidedly Conservative. After all they are mostly owned by Ologarchs. For example: Murdoch and WSJ, Fox and Bezos (Amazon) and Washington Post. Who has gotten more free coverage from MSM than the ultimate Oligarch/Authoritarian Donald Trump?
7
There is none so blind as those who will not see. This is just one more example of the fanatical right wing, union bashing, 1% thinking crap that millions of Americans are rejecting with the grass roots movement of Bernie Sanders. The N.Y. Times has it right when they list the myriad forms of abuse to the political system of the U.S. this insane SuperPac money has done for decades now. The fact that the overwhelming Wall Street barons are Republican seems to be just fine for Mr. Luettgen &Co.; as long as it serves his ideology and ensures the status quo. This is a cancer that is killing American democracy; and only the hypocrites on the right are blind to it!
2
One of the worst threats to the modern civilization is a notion that if you are not a lawyer you cannot know what the justice is.
The worst kind of gender, racial, age, religious and political discrimination is to have the Supreme Court packed EXCLUSEVELY WITH THE LAWYERS.
We will not have the campaign finance reform unless we have the regular people serving on the Supreme Court as the Justices.
Why?
The justice comes from our morality and faith, not from the ever-growing number of the laws on the books.
If this statement weren’t truly truthful, the people would not have the overwhelming feeling that the government is not working on their behalf.
Thus the social justice and the laws enacted by the Washington D.C lobbyists are completely unrelated and most probably mutually exclusive.
The worst kind of gender, racial, age, religious and political discrimination is to have the Supreme Court packed EXCLUSEVELY WITH THE LAWYERS.
We will not have the campaign finance reform unless we have the regular people serving on the Supreme Court as the Justices.
Why?
The justice comes from our morality and faith, not from the ever-growing number of the laws on the books.
If this statement weren’t truly truthful, the people would not have the overwhelming feeling that the government is not working on their behalf.
Thus the social justice and the laws enacted by the Washington D.C lobbyists are completely unrelated and most probably mutually exclusive.
3
You're describing the problem with Congress, not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is a legal forum, and if non-lawyers were the justices, they would just ignore the law enacted by the legislature and vote their conscience, instead of whatever it is that the justices are doing now. We should be electing people to congress who represent our interests, as both individuals and citizens, instead of electing a bunch of lawyers, but Lawyers are the only people truly qualified to be judges.
1
Your premise in invalid because it excludes participation by people who do not have "faith". Further, while the SCOTUS seeks justice, the tool they use is the law, not "faith". Therefore, the court must necessarily be comprised of lawyers. You are living in a dream world.
2
"Campaign finance reform" is just another way of saying "controlling political speech." Think of it as safe zones for elected politicians. That's why the Republicans are against it.
3
Just to reiterate the obvious (what most comments are already saying): the unifying principle of the Republican Party is subsidies for corporations. All other internal disagreements are a side show. So of course the Republican Party opposes campaign finance reform. It's not a mystery at all.
47
Of course there is a strong conservative case to be made for campaign finance reform. Of course the present system of oligarchy/plutocracy is a betrayal of conservative values. Those two points are obvious, even to liberals like myself.
So, why is campaign finance reform rabidly resisted by almost every politician in the Republican Party?
Because today's Republican Party (And, I think to a lesser extent, the Democratic Party, but that's another column.) is not about "principles", but about winning. How else to explain this opposition? How else to explain the widely documented gerrymandering in various Republican-controlled states across the country? How else to explain ALEC? How else to explain a pro-business SCOTUS majority that was put there after two stolen presidential elections? (Extensive documentation proves this, by the way. For a taste, see "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" and "What Went Wrong in Ohio".)
Today's conservatives, as represented by the GOP, have clearly lost the battle of ideas, in addition to rejecting science and American history. But it's still all about winning. Principles? They don't need no stinking principles!
So, why is campaign finance reform rabidly resisted by almost every politician in the Republican Party?
Because today's Republican Party (And, I think to a lesser extent, the Democratic Party, but that's another column.) is not about "principles", but about winning. How else to explain this opposition? How else to explain the widely documented gerrymandering in various Republican-controlled states across the country? How else to explain ALEC? How else to explain a pro-business SCOTUS majority that was put there after two stolen presidential elections? (Extensive documentation proves this, by the way. For a taste, see "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" and "What Went Wrong in Ohio".)
Today's conservatives, as represented by the GOP, have clearly lost the battle of ideas, in addition to rejecting science and American history. But it's still all about winning. Principles? They don't need no stinking principles!
82
The GOP likes big government that benefits their constituents, especially big defense.
The current GOP bears no resemblance to that of Mr. Goldwater and General Eisenhower. The current GOP prioritizes filling the coffers of contractors, providing welfare to irresponsible banks, limiting the ability of non-GOP citizens to vote and restricting the freedoms of people who are not wealthy.
The current GOP bears no resemblance to that of Mr. Goldwater and General Eisenhower. The current GOP prioritizes filling the coffers of contractors, providing welfare to irresponsible banks, limiting the ability of non-GOP citizens to vote and restricting the freedoms of people who are not wealthy.
42
This is wishful thinking. It will never happen. The Kochs and their ilk will continue to donate millions to conservatives. The conservative cause is too dependent on big individual and corporate money.
11
Mr. Painter apparently fails to realize the guiding principles of conservative thinking have evolved since the Goldwater days and can be reduced now to 3 words: I, me, mine. I don't necessarily condemn that viewpoint per se, but I do fail to see how it could underpin a viable way forward for this nation.
19
What do the politicians, the lawyers and the clergy have in common?
They have created so many additional unnecessary rules, laws and customs that only they understand.
Now they claim that without them we cannot have freedom, democracy, justice, peace and faith...
Truly shameful behavior!
For example, in the Koran there are no Hadith and the Sharia Law, no Sunnis and no Shiites, no veils, no clergy, no mosques and no minarets.
Tragically, our leading presidential candidates believe they can defeat the ISIS with the carpet bombings and deploying “the boots on the ground”.
What is more tragic, branding our kids that volunteered to defend this country as mere “boots on the ground” or not understanding that the easiest way to defeat the ISIS is by destroying the theoretical justification for their behavior and tyranny...
See, every politician depicts self as the savior capable of protecting our country. That’s the worst insult ever thrown at our homeland. Our strength is coming from all the people, not from any individual.
What is the worst?
A religious politician and lawyer claiming that only he or she can save us.
The smart leaders know that only the great principles can protect us. Share those principles with everybody to make the country stronger! Every individual is replaceable and irrelevant from the large perspective.
Only the countries with the dozens thousands individuals capable of serving as the presidents have the right to be called the great countries!
They have created so many additional unnecessary rules, laws and customs that only they understand.
Now they claim that without them we cannot have freedom, democracy, justice, peace and faith...
Truly shameful behavior!
For example, in the Koran there are no Hadith and the Sharia Law, no Sunnis and no Shiites, no veils, no clergy, no mosques and no minarets.
Tragically, our leading presidential candidates believe they can defeat the ISIS with the carpet bombings and deploying “the boots on the ground”.
What is more tragic, branding our kids that volunteered to defend this country as mere “boots on the ground” or not understanding that the easiest way to defeat the ISIS is by destroying the theoretical justification for their behavior and tyranny...
See, every politician depicts self as the savior capable of protecting our country. That’s the worst insult ever thrown at our homeland. Our strength is coming from all the people, not from any individual.
What is the worst?
A religious politician and lawyer claiming that only he or she can save us.
The smart leaders know that only the great principles can protect us. Share those principles with everybody to make the country stronger! Every individual is replaceable and irrelevant from the large perspective.
Only the countries with the dozens thousands individuals capable of serving as the presidents have the right to be called the great countries!
2
Both conservatives and liberals have no interest in reigning in big money's influence on politics. They merely pay lip service.
Politicians become quite wealthy from peddling influence. Clintons are one of the richest families in the U.S. Bushes aren't that far behind. http://tinyurl.com/hj7prh5
So, conservative or liberal, it's all about making money, often at the expense of those who voted for them. Until the people realize it, things aren't going to change.
Politicians become quite wealthy from peddling influence. Clintons are one of the richest families in the U.S. Bushes aren't that far behind. http://tinyurl.com/hj7prh5
So, conservative or liberal, it's all about making money, often at the expense of those who voted for them. Until the people realize it, things aren't going to change.
8
The Bushes had lots of money for generations before they had a Prez in the family. Check out how they got it
1
Lee....And check out how the Koch father got the start of his fortune working for Stalin as an engineer consultant. That magnified fortune is now used to direct our elections and the writing of our laws with the Koch Brothers, ALEC. What a rich irony after fighting the cold war against the Soviets for decades.
Thanks, Lee.
But entering politics didn't hurt their cause!
Kennedys had money, too, before entering politics. That's not a pretty story, either.
But entering politics didn't hurt their cause!
Kennedys had money, too, before entering politics. That's not a pretty story, either.
Persuasive article that hits at America's perverse about-face on campaign finance reform during recent decades. As with gun control, we tend to find an ever-expanding fundmental right to weapons, as opposed to a limited right to limit a public safety hazard. Balancing tests for human rights are just not popular here.
On this issue, I think you could summon up distinctly American fears about the role of both government power and individual freedom by pointing out that the Roman Empire dissolved as would-be emperors competed for ever-greater sums of money with which to reward the supporters who "elected" them.
On this issue, I think you could summon up distinctly American fears about the role of both government power and individual freedom by pointing out that the Roman Empire dissolved as would-be emperors competed for ever-greater sums of money with which to reward the supporters who "elected" them.
4
At America’s founding, voting was reserved for men of substantial property, not just small property. The founders deemed the mass of citizens not eligible to vote. So small govt was Ok. Just get rid of King George’s rule, and let the American elites basically rule. A great step forward.
Today the mass society has many more rights that need a big govt power to protect against the elites.
Today the owners of ‘substantial property’—billionaires and corporations---are the ones who influence govt policy in their favor. The mass of citizens can vote, but have little input into the laws that affect them the most—on taxes, jobs, education, health care, retirement.
We have all these rights, but we’re on our own to fulfill them. And Equal Protection of the Laws is just a phrase
Today the mass society has many more rights that need a big govt power to protect against the elites.
Today the owners of ‘substantial property’—billionaires and corporations---are the ones who influence govt policy in their favor. The mass of citizens can vote, but have little input into the laws that affect them the most—on taxes, jobs, education, health care, retirement.
We have all these rights, but we’re on our own to fulfill them. And Equal Protection of the Laws is just a phrase
Ted Cruz did mention in his Iowa celebration speech that he was chosen by the people and not the media or Wall Street types. I forgot, where does his wife work and who lent him millions?
72
Excuse me, Dennis, his loan for his senate campaign from GS was between $250k and $500k. There seems to have been a second loan from Citibank (where his wife does NOT work) for up to $500k. The loans are reported to have been secured by personal assets. (He failed to disclose both at the time).
If you add up to $500k to up to $500k, you get at most a million. One million. Not millions. Millions could be twenty. That would be a lie.
Facts seem to play no role for you. Of course you can bother to look them up, something called "Google" .... probably too much effort. Easier to post untruths.
If you add up to $500k to up to $500k, you get at most a million. One million. Not millions. Millions could be twenty. That would be a lie.
Facts seem to play no role for you. Of course you can bother to look them up, something called "Google" .... probably too much effort. Easier to post untruths.
1
Too bad you can't just tell conservatives to take money out of our elections because not doing so is just corrupt and violates everything America stands for.
How sad that we have to provide the arguments in this piece to try to convince conservatives (many of whom identify as "Christian"--yeah, right). Take money out of politics not because it's corrupt and greedy and diminishes the value of the vote of the individual but because money in politics increases the size of government (mankind's finest institution, and our best hope of assuring fairness and safety for all). Ugh.
How sad that we have to provide the arguments in this piece to try to convince conservatives (many of whom identify as "Christian"--yeah, right). Take money out of politics not because it's corrupt and greedy and diminishes the value of the vote of the individual but because money in politics increases the size of government (mankind's finest institution, and our best hope of assuring fairness and safety for all). Ugh.
5
Money = Free Speech! And as long as republican candidates have upper hand in getting more money (directly and thru superpacs), they will not agree to change the rules. If democrats start getting more money than kochs can offer, republicans wont even blink to change the rules..
7
Thank you for a cogent conservative argument. It's too bad none of your GOP cohorts will be swayed by it.
When the travesty of Citizens United came crashing down on us, Republicans were initially in dudgeon. Now, both House and Senate leadership won't let ANY rollback of CU even reach the floor for debate. Meanwhile, at least 6 of the Supremes are also in thrall of Big Business.
I am deeply, deeply pessimistic that the beneficiaries of the current system will vote to change it. Only a Bernie style pitchfork and torch revolution has a chance.
When the travesty of Citizens United came crashing down on us, Republicans were initially in dudgeon. Now, both House and Senate leadership won't let ANY rollback of CU even reach the floor for debate. Meanwhile, at least 6 of the Supremes are also in thrall of Big Business.
I am deeply, deeply pessimistic that the beneficiaries of the current system will vote to change it. Only a Bernie style pitchfork and torch revolution has a chance.
195
Bernie approach will only FEEL like pitchfork revolution but it will really be revitalization of our liberty and equality.
Let them FEEL THE BERN!
I'm ready for it!
1
This plutocracy has been headed down this road since the first greedy white man stepped foot on this continent. It most likely won't change anytime soon. Greed is the American way, as money blinds everyone to everything real about human life. Just put down that iPhone and open you eyes and mind. Social security, medicare, medicaid, the military, highway system, schools, public land and parks are all socialists programs. Ah yes let us not forgot, denying reality and the truth are also white man traits.
18
"Unfortunately, none of the Republican candidates for president have taken on this issue."
Of course they haven't. Why? Because none of the Republican candidates believes they could raise money the way Senator Sanders has. Why? Because every one of them knows that they are not offering platforms that broadly address people's need the Senator Sanders does. People who are not rich are donating to Sanders in the millions, because they know they are actually serving their own best interests.
Further, most of the Republican Presidential candidates are nothing but craven careerists. What ends are Trump, Cruz and Rubio serving but their own? The only way they can run for President is to serve big donors with special interest agendas. Literally, they have to sell out to compete. And that's exactly what they have done. Does anyone paying attention believe that Marco Rubio hasn't already sold out the State and Defense Departments to private, even foreign interests? Does anyone paying attention have any doubt about who he's already sold out to? Follow the money, if you still don't know. (For that matter, follow the money fueling Clinton's campaign.)
If there is a conservative case for campaign finance reform, and there is (There is also the same liberal case for reform.), then you've identified the problem, Mr. Painter:
There are no honest and true conservative Republicans running for President. Ironically, Senator Sanders is the only conservative running for President.
Of course they haven't. Why? Because none of the Republican candidates believes they could raise money the way Senator Sanders has. Why? Because every one of them knows that they are not offering platforms that broadly address people's need the Senator Sanders does. People who are not rich are donating to Sanders in the millions, because they know they are actually serving their own best interests.
Further, most of the Republican Presidential candidates are nothing but craven careerists. What ends are Trump, Cruz and Rubio serving but their own? The only way they can run for President is to serve big donors with special interest agendas. Literally, they have to sell out to compete. And that's exactly what they have done. Does anyone paying attention believe that Marco Rubio hasn't already sold out the State and Defense Departments to private, even foreign interests? Does anyone paying attention have any doubt about who he's already sold out to? Follow the money, if you still don't know. (For that matter, follow the money fueling Clinton's campaign.)
If there is a conservative case for campaign finance reform, and there is (There is also the same liberal case for reform.), then you've identified the problem, Mr. Painter:
There are no honest and true conservative Republicans running for President. Ironically, Senator Sanders is the only conservative running for President.
21
I consider myself a liberal so I would probably not align with most of Mr. Panter's views, but he makes very strong arguments for campaign finance reform! Hope someone listens....
The other "elephant in the room" is the fact that the political parties have lost control of their members, especially on the right. The emasculation of the GOP leadership by the Tea Party is a direct result of the fact that big donors call the shots. McConnell should send the Roberts court a thank you card for the Citizens United decision that cut him off at the knees. It was the unintended consequence of their decision, but the Kochs gave Scalia and Thomas big speaker fees for the favor.
5
The assumption that those who finance Republicans promote interests contrary to the Republican agenda is counterintuitive. I would think that Republican donors would champion Republican causes. Logic suggests that corporate money going to Republicans is, in fact, designed to oppose regulation rather than to seek favorable regulation. Similarly, I would think that Republican corporate donations are designed, not to expand government, but to limit government and set corporate avarice free. Also, the fact that churches can't donate doesn't mean that there is any shortage of money designed in to promote the agenda of the religious right. Essentially, the argument here is that corporate donors give to the Republicans for the same reasons that they give to the Democrats. Perhaps Starbucks money is designed to promote the same sort of agenda as investment banker money. Perhaps not. If all corporate money were the same, donors would give to whichever candidate was most likely to win. While that does happen, I believe most donors favor one party over the other. If that is wrong, a theoretical argument like this is not the way to prove the point. Rather, the writer needs to cite empirical evidence regarding donor spending habits.
Just curious. How much did George Soros just give to Hillary?
2
George Soros is every republicans kicking boy. Hey, lets limit campaign contributions to $200/person max including George Soros. Happy now?
8
He hasn't given anything to Sanders and Sanders wouldn't take it if offered.
1
$6,000,000, raised from hedge funds and currency manipulation. Given to the richest and most obscenely financed politician in political history - Hillary Clinton. More coming later, if needed. He can easily afford it, since Mr. Soros recently executed a restructure of his personal business, which will save him billions in legitimate taxes. He's the classic representation of the old liberal adage: Taxes? Good for thee, not for me...
Professor Painter has confused cause with effect. Before the Civil War, the federal government performed few functions that affected citizens or companies, and this reality weakened incentives to try to influence elections through donations of money. The imperatives of war, however, converted the government into a major force in the economy, with lucrative contracts to grant, especially the one to build a transcontinental railroad.
Later in the century, the Progressive policy of economic regulation provided corporate leaders reasons to seek a different kind of relationship with officials in Washington. The rise of the activist state in the 20th century, marked by sharp increases in military spending and government involvement in both the economy and society, accelerated the creation of a large lobbying industry, including not only corporate members but also labor unions and so-called public interest organizations.
While the influence of lobbyists may have helped to shape certain specific features of the activist state, the industry itself represented a response of private interest groups to the emergence of that state. A decrease in campaign spending might shift the priorities of elected officials, but it would not encourage them to dismantle the bureaucracy.
The new regime, despite a mixed record, performs vital functions for the country. And its origins are far more complex than Professor Painter suggests.
Later in the century, the Progressive policy of economic regulation provided corporate leaders reasons to seek a different kind of relationship with officials in Washington. The rise of the activist state in the 20th century, marked by sharp increases in military spending and government involvement in both the economy and society, accelerated the creation of a large lobbying industry, including not only corporate members but also labor unions and so-called public interest organizations.
While the influence of lobbyists may have helped to shape certain specific features of the activist state, the industry itself represented a response of private interest groups to the emergence of that state. A decrease in campaign spending might shift the priorities of elected officials, but it would not encourage them to dismantle the bureaucracy.
The new regime, despite a mixed record, performs vital functions for the country. And its origins are far more complex than Professor Painter suggests.
Our elections should be publicly financed (solely). But not for the conservative reasons given. Mr. Painter wants to halt a few tax dollars from supporting solar, but fails to mention the billions of our dollars given to the oil barons. But no surprise, Mr. Painter, as most conservatives, denies anthropogenic climate change as well......the NYT used to brag about it's paper being objective, but having a liberal opinion page. They must omit that page from the edition we get here in Oklahoma. The conservatives here just think they don't like your paper--they should reread it now.
1
Without campaign finance reform we're going to lose whatever is left of our democracy. We need not be divided into liberals and conservatives to understand how corrupt our system has become.
The Clinton's have shown everyone how both sides can game the system in their favor. Indeed, on many issues there really aren't two sides any more. With a Clinton v Cruz election, Goldman Sachs wins either way.
The Clinton's have shown everyone how both sides can game the system in their favor. Indeed, on many issues there really aren't two sides any more. With a Clinton v Cruz election, Goldman Sachs wins either way.
3
I think the vast majority of Americans, left & right, Independent, Democrat & Republican, agree that democracy has been corrupted by money. The problem is how to reform it. Unless you can afford to buy a Congress, a Supreme Court, and a few media empires, nothing will change.
6
Wow, who knew that campaign spending was another part of the liberal conspiracy to under mine our nation. Next thing you know we'll have a president who wasn't born in the US.
1
Heard it all before. Money talks and politicians hear it and respond. We are in need of the mythical ultimate candidate, that rare breed that will "do the right thing." SCOTUS has shut the door on any chance of reform for years to come and these little $3 petition donations to help defeat Citizens United define pointlessness.
Let's face it, there will need to be a defeat of major proportion to turn around Congress and then turn around the SCOTUS decision. We are looking at years and years of hard political bargaining and effort and you guessed it, the voters will pay for that too.
This is defined as “being down on the system.”
Let's face it, there will need to be a defeat of major proportion to turn around Congress and then turn around the SCOTUS decision. We are looking at years and years of hard political bargaining and effort and you guessed it, the voters will pay for that too.
This is defined as “being down on the system.”
2
"But it is conservatives who should be leading the fight for campaign reform. " Thanks to the author for trying to make the case,but it is the right wing that has done the most to corrupt our democracy and that profits the most from this corruption. The author wants the right to endorse democratic principles, but the right will do nothing that inhibits the flow of money to its coffers and will do anything to secure and maintain power.
1
I have read this article before ... many times. Every time the writer talks of small contributions eliminating the need for large donations. Until there is a mechanism to limit the huge sums given by a few, why wouldn't a politician accept both? The diffuse views of millions of small contributors will not outshine the specific goals of the few large contributors. The small contributors will fund the campaign's back office and the big contributors still steer the post election legislation. SCOTUS has ruled, you may not like it, but it is the law of the land.
I think there are two key objectives to deal with this issue. First, give the public the tools to follow the money. Then, look into today's gerrymandered district and make every vote really count. Then, let the voters give the boot to the pols who still wallow at the gilded trough of government largess. Publicize who benefits, who receives the swag, and how much is their take. Conservatives and liberals alike hate anyone who is screwing them. Reduce the benefits of big money, not big money. Then the well will eventually evaporate.
I think there are two key objectives to deal with this issue. First, give the public the tools to follow the money. Then, look into today's gerrymandered district and make every vote really count. Then, let the voters give the boot to the pols who still wallow at the gilded trough of government largess. Publicize who benefits, who receives the swag, and how much is their take. Conservatives and liberals alike hate anyone who is screwing them. Reduce the benefits of big money, not big money. Then the well will eventually evaporate.
3
This is why we need a free press. Amen to your simple but daunting remedy for what ails our governance.
If you are going to limit money in political campaigns, you'd also have to limit the ability of the media to cover and endorse candidates. The NYT, by their news coverage and endorsement, gets a free pass to sway elections. Money = speech equals money. Or, to put it in a way that readers might understand: Fox News reports a controversial story about Hillary; she shouldn't be allowed to produce commercials rebutting those claims?
Dear Professor Painter,
The picture you paint pains me greatly. It's entire premise is based on sound logic and facts.
How ludicrous.
Next you'll be espousing such nonsense that gun owners should be members of "A Well Regulated Militia."
Go Bernie
The picture you paint pains me greatly. It's entire premise is based on sound logic and facts.
How ludicrous.
Next you'll be espousing such nonsense that gun owners should be members of "A Well Regulated Militia."
Go Bernie
11
Very true. Here's an in-depth look at exactly where we are, how we got here, and what we Americans, right & left, must do to push back on our oligarchic system.
https://youtu.be/1k5Mio8FXd4
https://youtu.be/1k5Mio8FXd4
Mr. Painter laments the corrupting influence of big, corporate money in our politics, which I wholeheartedly agree with him, but for all his lamentation and dismay it means nothing without addressing the case of Citizens United. Citizens United opened the door to unlimited dark money into our political process. I am sure Mr. Painter would agree with me that we need to elect a president who will appoint US Supreme Court justices who will overturn that atrocious decision. If not, he is all talk and not serious about campaign finance reform. This dark money is a cancer on our system that must be excised.
157
The money is a symptom of the real problem, lack of term limits. A 30 year Congressional member has run 15 campaigns. An 18 year Senator, three campaigns. This President never really stopped campaigning.
What did he say to Putin?
It is very difficult to unseat an incumbent for a lot of reasons, and a big war chest is just one of them.
As much as the Republicans don't talk about campaign finance reform, the Democrats refuse to talk about term limits.
What did he say to Putin?
It is very difficult to unseat an incumbent for a lot of reasons, and a big war chest is just one of them.
As much as the Republicans don't talk about campaign finance reform, the Democrats refuse to talk about term limits.
What is often left out in these discussion of the influence of money on politics, is an acknowledgement that any interest of a big-money entity will also be shared by some ordinary citizens, and that seems very democratic.
When Congress, at the behest of big donors, spends money on "bridges to nowhere", is that really a waste of tax dollars? Building bridges creates jobs across the economy, and few would argue that job creation is intrinsically a bad thing.
Certainly, some say that the way to end "wasteful" spending is to reduce the amount of money Congress has to spend, and that is achievable by reducing taxes. The dollars that would have been used to build "bridges to nowhere" will be left in the pockets of taxpayers, who we believe, are wiser stewards of those dollars.
It is not altogether clear that big-money interests have any significant impact on how lawmakers vote on big policy issues. Ultimately, voters decide who represent them, and if those voters are not happy with their representatives, no amount of fat-cat contributions will keep those representatives in office.
When Congress, at the behest of big donors, spends money on "bridges to nowhere", is that really a waste of tax dollars? Building bridges creates jobs across the economy, and few would argue that job creation is intrinsically a bad thing.
Certainly, some say that the way to end "wasteful" spending is to reduce the amount of money Congress has to spend, and that is achievable by reducing taxes. The dollars that would have been used to build "bridges to nowhere" will be left in the pockets of taxpayers, who we believe, are wiser stewards of those dollars.
It is not altogether clear that big-money interests have any significant impact on how lawmakers vote on big policy issues. Ultimately, voters decide who represent them, and if those voters are not happy with their representatives, no amount of fat-cat contributions will keep those representatives in office.
"It is not altogether clear that big-money interests have any significant impact on how lawmakers vote..." Say what? I've read that big-money interests actually write the bills that "lawmakers" vote on. Why would the Koch brothers invest millions of dollars in candidates without getting a return on their money? That isn't how they got to be billionaires in the first place.
20
"It is not altogether clear that big-money interests have any significant impact on how lawmakers vote on big policy issues." It is thoroughly, utterly, and totally proven that Big Money buys votes. Votes to protect Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Smith and Wesson, more war....!
As for the democracy of having my decisions made for me by a "big money entity...?" Why not abolish Congress and let Davos make our laws? Since that is pretty much what happens now, we'd save a lot of money wasted on Congress.
As for the democracy of having my decisions made for me by a "big money entity...?" Why not abolish Congress and let Davos make our laws? Since that is pretty much what happens now, we'd save a lot of money wasted on Congress.
6
Mr. Clark, I did not say "no impact" but I said "significant" impact". And you said you have read that "big money interests write bills....". This is doubtful, but it is true that anyone can ask that something be included in a larger bill, for example, having a provision in a farm bill related to depreciation of farm equipment.
So, Painter is a professor. I thought he might be a striving, bright student. The topic is central to the survival of democracy and of the republic, but when he refers to Burke and McCain as political leaders, I balk. Burke was never elected--he was granted a place in parliament by Lord Fermanagh, in them bad old days. McCain has led an interesting life, but has led little else. Burke was a philosopher, writer, and rhetorician. Let's not demean him by putting him in the same sentence as McCain or calling him a conservative political leader.
1
The real leaders in the United States opted for a cage as a conscientious objector rather than murder civilians in an unjust war. McCain was a spoiled daddy's boy made famous by being a POW--then married into the richest family in Arizona to begin his political climb.
3
Forget the GOP of today, abandon the natural cynicism about campaign finance reform. Liberal and progressives can support Painter's argument. Campaign finance reform is key to the healthy functioning of US democracy. This is urgent, bi partisan and should not be sidelined by old political cynicism
Hugh Faulkner
switzerland
Hugh Faulkner
switzerland
13
I hope Brooks reads this column. The author is absolutely correct. Getting money out of politics is vital to reclaiming democracy in America.
22
I suspect Brooks doesn't even read what he writes himself.
4
It may already be too late to 'rescue' whats left of Democracy. We already have an Oligarchy, and we're out-bound to Anarchy!
Because all republicans want money there isn't one same true with Hillary.
1
Convincing Conservatives to champion limits on campaign spending???...yeah, good luck with that! What a disingenuous and cynical idea. Why would Conservatives want to revert to the previous condition--which put Liberals at an advantage? Answer...they don't. Things are just fine now.
After decades of wielding a monopoly in political messaging, Liberals have lost their grip--and are angry and desperate. After all, the Left is accustomed to having TV and radio networks, major newspapers (including this one), all pressing a progressive agenda. In addition, they've had the support of the education mafia--teachers and professors brainwashing our young for the past 3 generations--preaching the virtues of Socialism. As well, Hollywood's influence in sculpting popular culture--along with hundreds of millions of union dollars pouring into Democrat campaigns has also served Liberals.
Things were beginning to change before Citizens United, with the freedom of the internet, the rising popularity of talk radio, and then Fox--which predictably lead Liberals to concoct the "Fairness Act--in an attempt at censorship.
At the heart of the matter is a Liberal belief that most citizens are stupid--sheep to be herded, manipulated and controlled. With the advent of Citizens United, Conservative philosophy is on equal footing with Liberalism--and since Liberalism is an inferior philosophy, it is losing the debate. So...overturn C. U.? No thanks--Conservatism is winning now.
After decades of wielding a monopoly in political messaging, Liberals have lost their grip--and are angry and desperate. After all, the Left is accustomed to having TV and radio networks, major newspapers (including this one), all pressing a progressive agenda. In addition, they've had the support of the education mafia--teachers and professors brainwashing our young for the past 3 generations--preaching the virtues of Socialism. As well, Hollywood's influence in sculpting popular culture--along with hundreds of millions of union dollars pouring into Democrat campaigns has also served Liberals.
Things were beginning to change before Citizens United, with the freedom of the internet, the rising popularity of talk radio, and then Fox--which predictably lead Liberals to concoct the "Fairness Act--in an attempt at censorship.
At the heart of the matter is a Liberal belief that most citizens are stupid--sheep to be herded, manipulated and controlled. With the advent of Citizens United, Conservative philosophy is on equal footing with Liberalism--and since Liberalism is an inferior philosophy, it is losing the debate. So...overturn C. U.? No thanks--Conservatism is winning now.
7
Yes, only change the rules when my guy is losing, the rules are only unfair when you are down. Does this mean that your chosen political philosophy cannot prevail on its own merits?
How does unlimited spending by wealthy people and corporations help conservatism? A dollar has no conscience, corporations only value profit not "values", wealthy donors finance campaigns for their own economic interests not for the benefit of the nation at large.
If it takes unlimited campaign contributions from corporations to put conservative philosophy on equal footing with liberal philosophy then conservative philosophy may be suspect.
How does unlimited spending by wealthy people and corporations help conservatism? A dollar has no conscience, corporations only value profit not "values", wealthy donors finance campaigns for their own economic interests not for the benefit of the nation at large.
If it takes unlimited campaign contributions from corporations to put conservative philosophy on equal footing with liberal philosophy then conservative philosophy may be suspect.
18
Let me translate. Find that it is so unfair that people are not persuaded by their ideas, "conservatives" decide to withdraw from political discourse and start their own evangelical tent city where they will speak only to themselves. Because their ideas are unpopular they decide it is necessary to mount an enormous, and enormously expensive misinformation campaign. Things are fine right now is really about the success they have had distorting the truth. Obamacare is unpopular because of their huge propaganda campaign. They have been less that truthful at every turn. Not just Obamacare, the deficit, the Iran nuke deal, the government shut down, the Iraq war, the origins of Isis, not to mention Benghazi or what about gun control. The right wing has become so dishonest that after one recent debate all of the candidates were called as for their divorce from reality. The first amendment was not intended to as a cover for misinformation and yet it is. Under Bush the golden age of political corruption descended and yes, thanks to Fox, a majority don't know where the President was born or if Saddam had WMD's. Nice way to help democracy flourish.
21
Well said!
1
For once, this Liberal completely agrees with this Conservative. On this issue, we should all find common ground.
18
Though I think he stretches his assumption about what a conservative his, you cannot argue with his outcome.
3
You are giving people who vote republican too much credit, they don't care and they would not understand if they did.
Republican voters are very shallow, very simple minded and they only vote when they think that it will hurt some group that they hate.
These are people who are literally dying from lack of healthcare but they vote republican to make sure than no Mexicans or black people get so much as an aspirin.
You cannot reason with people who will allow their own children's schools to rot down around their ears just to get a chance to vote to make some gay people's lives miserable.
They get tossed out of their homes by policies that republicans put in place to protect banks but being homeless is not too big a price to pay to be able to ruin some poor young woman's life by forcing her to have a baby that she can't afford.
You journalist are looking at this all wrong, you are assuming that republican voters would care about corruption and graft if they only knew about it...well they know their politicians are owned body and soul by the super rich, they just don't care...as long as they promise to start some more wars to kill Muslims, they will line up at the polls a week before the election.
Make no mistake, this is not good people who are just misinformed, this is really bad people who delight in causing misery for large groups of people.
God, guns and gays, the big 3 issues for republicans but only the Old Testament god mind you.
Republican voters are very shallow, very simple minded and they only vote when they think that it will hurt some group that they hate.
These are people who are literally dying from lack of healthcare but they vote republican to make sure than no Mexicans or black people get so much as an aspirin.
You cannot reason with people who will allow their own children's schools to rot down around their ears just to get a chance to vote to make some gay people's lives miserable.
They get tossed out of their homes by policies that republicans put in place to protect banks but being homeless is not too big a price to pay to be able to ruin some poor young woman's life by forcing her to have a baby that she can't afford.
You journalist are looking at this all wrong, you are assuming that republican voters would care about corruption and graft if they only knew about it...well they know their politicians are owned body and soul by the super rich, they just don't care...as long as they promise to start some more wars to kill Muslims, they will line up at the polls a week before the election.
Make no mistake, this is not good people who are just misinformed, this is really bad people who delight in causing misery for large groups of people.
God, guns and gays, the big 3 issues for republicans but only the Old Testament god mind you.
110
Perhaps the most hateful thing I have ever read
5
The truth is often ugly and hard to accept but as long as people choose to stay in denial, nothing will change.
4
Wow, what an onerous, generalization! It's the same lack of reasoning that lead people to think blacks were inferior to whites. Shame...
For some odd reason the author of this column equates traditional conservatism with Republicans. All of his arguments against the evils of campaign contributions are arguments modern Republicans see as advantageous to themselves. Modern Republicans are reactionaries, only conservative in the sense that they oppose social progress. Republicans today stand for big, powerful, authoritative government because that's what it takes to suppress the growing number of "others" in our society - primarily people of color, not born of wealth or privilege. They support huge government spending for the rich and privileged paid on credit. What about paying this debt? They either don't believe in paying it at all or paying it by squeezing the weak. Wars benefit who? Those who make the weapons of war. Republicans like to talk of government "burdening" society with regulations. Regulations that help save the planet and contribute to the health and safety of the individual citizen. They are quick to regulate the speech and freedom of individuals whose speech or actions may undercut the "rights" of large corporations to run roughshod over the less powerful, ordinary citizens; regulations that would reign in capitalism run amuck. All the evils that arise from our corrupt campaign finance system fall right in line with modern Republican philosophy. Talk of campaign finance reform from a Republican presidential candidate? Not a chance. His campaign would be squeezed like a middle class taxpayer.
229
I agree with Davym, the GOP has little to do with real conservatism. The real values mantle has fallen to the so-called liberal/progressives, and by values I don't mean biblicly constricted opposition to abortion, same sex marriage and other hot button issues (and the do-unto-others-before-they-can-do-unto-you mentality, not to mention a dearth of what I always thought were the Christian virtues), but our idea of the American way of equality of opportunity, equality before the law, inclusion and respect for all our people. The Democratic wing of the Democratic party are the true conservatives now, and democratic socialism, that dreaded European thing, is the path we need to follow to take back that American dream we remember from FDR's presidency onward even up to Reagan's. Even Nixon is looking good in retrospect, having created the EPA, opened relations with China and things beyond his sordid cover up and paranoia.
1
Indeed. The real question is, why do any rational conservatives support the Republican party? Republicans are not conservative any more, they're mostly radicals and extremists. Democrats are now closer to the old Republican party.
Republicans vote in their crazies, Democrats keep the crazies out of office.
Meanwhile the media pretend everything is normal as American politics and government becomes ever more bizarre, dysfunctional and dangerous.
I'll add to your list: Republicans have refused to prosecute or even fine companies that pollute public water supplies and land and worse, blocked the federal government from doing so. Just as GW Bush blocked states from regulating mortgages (including criminal actions) of banks. They could have prevented or at least mitigated the financial crash of 2008. Just like today, their ideology trumps reality and the people suffer for it.
They dumped costs on the taxpayer and consistently offloaded taxes onto the common citizen. This is exactly how ancient Rome fell. Corrupt wealthy politicians took over the system and offloaded all costs to the common folk. When they needed to, Rome couldn't afford to protect itself.
It's insanity that any rational person votes for a single Republican.
The media is culpable as well. Republicans are too far gone to even consider rational articles like this, and NYT knows it. The crazies have taken over the Republican party. The media needs to acknowledge it.
Republicans vote in their crazies, Democrats keep the crazies out of office.
Meanwhile the media pretend everything is normal as American politics and government becomes ever more bizarre, dysfunctional and dangerous.
I'll add to your list: Republicans have refused to prosecute or even fine companies that pollute public water supplies and land and worse, blocked the federal government from doing so. Just as GW Bush blocked states from regulating mortgages (including criminal actions) of banks. They could have prevented or at least mitigated the financial crash of 2008. Just like today, their ideology trumps reality and the people suffer for it.
They dumped costs on the taxpayer and consistently offloaded taxes onto the common citizen. This is exactly how ancient Rome fell. Corrupt wealthy politicians took over the system and offloaded all costs to the common folk. When they needed to, Rome couldn't afford to protect itself.
It's insanity that any rational person votes for a single Republican.
The media is culpable as well. Republicans are too far gone to even consider rational articles like this, and NYT knows it. The crazies have taken over the Republican party. The media needs to acknowledge it.
2
Oh Puh-lease! Conservatives as represented by the GOP are all about Big Government. They ARE the military industrial complex that Sucks up more than half of our tax dollars. They are the Hawks spewing hate and fear so that the huge military engine can keep churning. Lots of high paid lobbyists are required and so are the Super PACS. If you want the money lenders thrown out of the temple, you better look to Bernie Sanders!
66
Excellent ideas. Now, how do we make this happen? I suspect money will fight viciously to maintain the current state of American politics.
10
A Constitutional right of free speech is not a right to anonymous speech. A requirement for full disclosure will clean up much of the mess made by the SCOTUS decision.
35
No, Sumac, WE must demand that the Citizen's United ruling be overturned by the new U.S. Supreme Court justices President Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton will nominate and a socially conscious democrat/independent Congress will approve.
1
"Unfortunately, none of the Republican candidates for president have taken on this issue." Showing once again how little conservative principles, or conservative intellectuals, have to do with Republicans.
138
We have been duped too long.
The "conservatives" supposedly hate "big government" which never includes blank checks to the Pentagon, gratuitous subsidies to big and small business, or the elimination of tax obligations for the 1%.
Even our "conservative" legislators, howling daily about the evil of government, take their government salaries, health care, pensions, and perks without blinking an eye.
The word "hypocrisy" does not appear in their dictionaries or conscience.
The "conservatives" supposedly hate "big government" which never includes blank checks to the Pentagon, gratuitous subsidies to big and small business, or the elimination of tax obligations for the 1%.
Even our "conservative" legislators, howling daily about the evil of government, take their government salaries, health care, pensions, and perks without blinking an eye.
The word "hypocrisy" does not appear in their dictionaries or conscience.
151
"When politicians are dependent on campaign money from contractors and lobbyists, they’re incapable of holding spending programs to account."
This is the assumption made by reformers and I suppose it is possible this is true, but I don't know how these laws change the basic character of the people who seek public office. I'm not sure how they change the corrupt nature of business, regulation, and basic human nature. I suspect the corruption will find another way to influence policy.
The problem is not just the money involved... it is the corrupt character of the entire business, media, and political class. The problem is an economic system that rewards this corruption across nearly all aspects of society. The problem is that power corrupts.
This is the assumption made by reformers and I suppose it is possible this is true, but I don't know how these laws change the basic character of the people who seek public office. I'm not sure how they change the corrupt nature of business, regulation, and basic human nature. I suspect the corruption will find another way to influence policy.
The problem is not just the money involved... it is the corrupt character of the entire business, media, and political class. The problem is an economic system that rewards this corruption across nearly all aspects of society. The problem is that power corrupts.
5
Power corrupts and lax regulation of banking, energy, pharmaceuticals, and big Agra enhances the process. Why do you think people like Cruz want to eliminate the IRS? It's on the Kochs wish list.
2
Fiscal conservatism is good but it has been hijacked by the social conservatives and the oligarchy of greed and power. I don't recognized the republicans of my parents generation. This group now is all crazy and merchants of fear.
44
Gun control and campaign finance have much in common. Conservative Republicans, especially, want an unlimited flow of guns and money. Now add climate change deniers, and you have three ways our society is being sapped, weakened, by the day.
Government campaign financing would be ideal, especially with general guidelines agreed--to the extent possible--by all parties. What we now have, in descending order of decency: lots of participation and small donations (Sanders); PACS and expensive Wall Street speeches with, one hopes, no quid pro quos (Hillary); giant PACS and wealthy donors (Jeb and others); personal billionaire benefactors (Cruz and Rubio); and floating over it all: The Koch brothers with their not-so-hidden agendas and Sheldon Adelson, who "summons" candidates at will to see how far he can bend them to HIS will.
We can, and have, to do better.
Government campaign financing would be ideal, especially with general guidelines agreed--to the extent possible--by all parties. What we now have, in descending order of decency: lots of participation and small donations (Sanders); PACS and expensive Wall Street speeches with, one hopes, no quid pro quos (Hillary); giant PACS and wealthy donors (Jeb and others); personal billionaire benefactors (Cruz and Rubio); and floating over it all: The Koch brothers with their not-so-hidden agendas and Sheldon Adelson, who "summons" candidates at will to see how far he can bend them to HIS will.
We can, and have, to do better.
33
Why not simply argue "The Case for Campaign-Finance Reform"? I mean, we don't see things like "The Liberal Case for Campaign-Finance Reform," do we?
This fascination on the right with doing things according to perceived "conservative" principles has gotten out of hand. It has become an ideological straitjacket akin to religious zealots who think everything must be done according to the tenets of their religion.
Just do what works!
This fascination on the right with doing things according to perceived "conservative" principles has gotten out of hand. It has become an ideological straitjacket akin to religious zealots who think everything must be done according to the tenets of their religion.
Just do what works!
69
I believe this is because in general campaign finance reform is seen as a liberal cause, so this writer is pinting out that it would ALSO be valuable to conservatives.
Our founding fathers embedded state selection of senators and the electoral college so that decisions would be made mainly by the most successful and wisest of the people. The republican government they designed was tilted towards the rich, and these tilts (including slavery, the biggest tilt of all) were embedded in the Constitution.
Small federal government leaves the nation to the mercies of national and international businesses, who can play states and cities against each other so that local governments wind up paying for the arenas of billionaire sports team owners. Oligarchs find it convenient to use government to manage the country, but they can also manage the country directly. They use governments to hide their activities and throw off the voters. A coal baron can lobby the federal government and buy parts of his state government so he can endanger the lives of his miners, but without these entities the miners will not be safer.
If Washington shrinks, the big money party does not stop. It just goes somewhere else. Campaign contributions sometimes buy more regulation and sometimes less. What they always buy is ineffective regulation that fails to make coal mines or food safe and nutritious and markets stable, efficient, and ungamed. Weak or no regulation brings about the same results, which is how the regulations started.
Freedom is freedom from scammers, monopolists, and rigged systems as well as freedom from government regulations.
Small federal government leaves the nation to the mercies of national and international businesses, who can play states and cities against each other so that local governments wind up paying for the arenas of billionaire sports team owners. Oligarchs find it convenient to use government to manage the country, but they can also manage the country directly. They use governments to hide their activities and throw off the voters. A coal baron can lobby the federal government and buy parts of his state government so he can endanger the lives of his miners, but without these entities the miners will not be safer.
If Washington shrinks, the big money party does not stop. It just goes somewhere else. Campaign contributions sometimes buy more regulation and sometimes less. What they always buy is ineffective regulation that fails to make coal mines or food safe and nutritious and markets stable, efficient, and ungamed. Weak or no regulation brings about the same results, which is how the regulations started.
Freedom is freedom from scammers, monopolists, and rigged systems as well as freedom from government regulations.
12
You make some terrific points and you are right. Conservatives ought to fight for campaign finance reform.
However, your notion of empowering every taxpayer "to designate the first $200 of his or her taxes to support a political candidate" seems difficult and costly.
Easy, I suppose, if done on the 1040. Just substitute a write-in blank for the current party designation. But what name would you have written in on April 15, 2015? Scott Walker you say. Well, he dropped out long before Iowa. Would you then have to file an amended return to avoid wasting your donation?
Would Mr. Walker have been able to claim your $200 before he dropped out of the race?
Would I be able to get together with the folks at church and designate our pastor as our favor politician? Would the $200 contributions go directly to our pastor tax free? Would the folks at the mosque down the street be able to get together and donate $200 each to their Imam?
Sounds like early voting with dollars.
However, your notion of empowering every taxpayer "to designate the first $200 of his or her taxes to support a political candidate" seems difficult and costly.
Easy, I suppose, if done on the 1040. Just substitute a write-in blank for the current party designation. But what name would you have written in on April 15, 2015? Scott Walker you say. Well, he dropped out long before Iowa. Would you then have to file an amended return to avoid wasting your donation?
Would Mr. Walker have been able to claim your $200 before he dropped out of the race?
Would I be able to get together with the folks at church and designate our pastor as our favor politician? Would the $200 contributions go directly to our pastor tax free? Would the folks at the mosque down the street be able to get together and donate $200 each to their Imam?
Sounds like early voting with dollars.
13
No, it's simple. Just designate that you want to contribute to federally funded elections, period. The IRS then provides funds equally to all candidates in a federal election.
1
"Why should conservative voters care?"
Sometimes having to ask a question reveals more than the answer.
Perhaps naively, that particular question never occurred to me.
Or that conservatives needed a laundry list of self interest to understand what Citizens United and its progeny hath wrought. That with a stroke of a pen from a conservative Supreme Court, the transformation of corporate wealth to "free speech" - a not just intellectually dishonest, but morally bankrupt judicial act - inevitably turned our political system into a "big money party" to which "we the people" were not invited.
The rest of your arguments truly confound me.
I agree that big money leads to less accountability in spending programs but ask the people of Flint if "big government" is always the hobgoblin - ditto for Federal regulations and oversight.
I agree that big money "drowns out the voices" of the smaller actors on the stage, but you really don't see the hypocrisy in bewailing big government regulation and intervention for corporate America, while insisting on it in our bedrooms, on our deathbeds, and inside our bodies.
You bemoan foreign companies taking part in our political system but that's getting hard to define when American cars are built abroad and "foreign" cars here, when American companies are based in foreign countries to avoid paying our taxes, when their employees live and their help lines are answered continents away.
All voters should care, Mr. Painter, and vote accordingly.
Sometimes having to ask a question reveals more than the answer.
Perhaps naively, that particular question never occurred to me.
Or that conservatives needed a laundry list of self interest to understand what Citizens United and its progeny hath wrought. That with a stroke of a pen from a conservative Supreme Court, the transformation of corporate wealth to "free speech" - a not just intellectually dishonest, but morally bankrupt judicial act - inevitably turned our political system into a "big money party" to which "we the people" were not invited.
The rest of your arguments truly confound me.
I agree that big money leads to less accountability in spending programs but ask the people of Flint if "big government" is always the hobgoblin - ditto for Federal regulations and oversight.
I agree that big money "drowns out the voices" of the smaller actors on the stage, but you really don't see the hypocrisy in bewailing big government regulation and intervention for corporate America, while insisting on it in our bedrooms, on our deathbeds, and inside our bodies.
You bemoan foreign companies taking part in our political system but that's getting hard to define when American cars are built abroad and "foreign" cars here, when American companies are based in foreign countries to avoid paying our taxes, when their employees live and their help lines are answered continents away.
All voters should care, Mr. Painter, and vote accordingly.
100
American corporations that invert should not be allowed to contribute to political parties at all because they are no longer Americans.
2
Flint and the rest of Michigan are the examples of big government hypocrisy inaction. What could be more "big government" in the negative sense that a governor appointing, I repeat appointing, non-elected officials to go into municipalities and start making laws? And then have the chutzpah to pass a law that counters the citizens actions of overturning those non-elected official appointments.
Another case of short sighted republican ideology actually costing more than the problem it was trying to correct.
Another case of short sighted republican ideology actually costing more than the problem it was trying to correct.
2
Although your argumentation is correct, you don't need so many words. The establishment, be it R or D, does no want the system to change: pure and simple. Individual representation is what has made Bernie Sanders a threat to the establishment.
Look no further...
Bernie got 83% of the youth. Like it or not, eventually that's where we are heading.
Look no further...
Bernie got 83% of the youth. Like it or not, eventually that's where we are heading.
45
Does anyone believe that the billionaire class donates billions to campaigns because they believe in a Democratic system, come on. The whole system is completely corrupt and stinks like rotten garbage.
137
Supreme Court justices appointed by so-called conservatives have made the extreme decision to equate money with speech. We need to amend the First Amendment to explicitly rein in that legal sanctification of greed and corruption. Such an amendment has already been introduced in Congress by Representative McGovern and Senator Udall. It is high time for opinion columns, such as this one, to stop ignoring this real solution and start actively supporting it.
171
Conservatism isn't what it used to be. These days it's just a charade. So is the disdain for "big government." The subtitle of Mr. Painter's book, which includes the phrase "The Conservative Conscience," is a sign of delusion. These days the right wing who call themselves conservatives are just greedy free market fundamentalists. Like the evangelicals who are all in for Trump, there is nothing philosophically conservative about today's conservatives. It's a belief system in search of a rationale.
Governor Rick Snyder is the essence of today's conservative values: Reduce government for those you think don't deserve any help because you're a bigot.
Governor Rick Snyder is the essence of today's conservative values: Reduce government for those you think don't deserve any help because you're a bigot.
258
Let's also remember that in the context of the GOP "free market" means free from regulations, not freedom to enter the market.
7
Stuart,
I try very hard to correct what to many of us believe is history. Here in Canada we were taught that our first Prime Minister was our equivalent of George Washington but history paints a different picture.
The emergence of liberal and conservative parties in Britain begins in the middle of the 19th century. It was the government of Robert Peel that divided over whether the starving Irish should be fed. The "let them starve faction" joined Lord John Russell's economy comes first right wing Whigs and one million peasants died of starvation in an economy that continued to export food. Two of Peel's loyal followers Disraeli and Gladstone formed the Conservatives and the Liberals. Here in the Commonwealth most conservatives are what Americans call centrist Democrats or more perversely neo-liberals.
William F Buckley Sr called himself a fascist but Hitler and Mussolini made the word fascist toxic. William F. Buckley Jr remained loyal to Franco's fascism but changed the political philosophy's name to Conservative. Here in Quebec we had fascist governments into the beginning of the 1970s but names are charged with meaning and when I use the word fascist nobody thinks Maurice Duplessis they think Hitler, Mussolini and Pinochet.
I try very hard to correct what to many of us believe is history. Here in Canada we were taught that our first Prime Minister was our equivalent of George Washington but history paints a different picture.
The emergence of liberal and conservative parties in Britain begins in the middle of the 19th century. It was the government of Robert Peel that divided over whether the starving Irish should be fed. The "let them starve faction" joined Lord John Russell's economy comes first right wing Whigs and one million peasants died of starvation in an economy that continued to export food. Two of Peel's loyal followers Disraeli and Gladstone formed the Conservatives and the Liberals. Here in the Commonwealth most conservatives are what Americans call centrist Democrats or more perversely neo-liberals.
William F Buckley Sr called himself a fascist but Hitler and Mussolini made the word fascist toxic. William F. Buckley Jr remained loyal to Franco's fascism but changed the political philosophy's name to Conservative. Here in Quebec we had fascist governments into the beginning of the 1970s but names are charged with meaning and when I use the word fascist nobody thinks Maurice Duplessis they think Hitler, Mussolini and Pinochet.
2
CAMPAIGN Reform from a conservative perspective is an idea that may achieve fruition. But it's a long stretch. Big money donors are not going to give up their power easily. The Gucci gulch of lobbyists in the halls of Congress will still be there. Given the overwhelming amount of information that legislators must digest, it is illogical to assume that anyone sifting through it and addressing the most salient points would be ineffective. Whether legislators' staff members are up to the job of reviewing and interpreting bills introduced is an interesting question. I believe that it is essential to transition to public financing for election campaigns. While not a perfect solution, it eliminates the secret influence of big money (in theory at least). The likelihood of having the tax code changed to make citizens' individual political donation the top item on tax returns is remote at best. But including the option for public campaign donations is doable. It's clear that the invisible hand of the free market place of political ideas has many iterations and has its thumb heavily and constantly on the scale. Making secret political donations by foreign parties is a bad idea. I suspect that the GOP knew what they were doing when the structured things that way. Let's see if they can get us out of that mess.
3
I am in agreement that corporate money must be taken out of government. I am not a conservative but union money must be removed as well.
The disagreement I have is with "conservative" history'. The tea that was dumped into Boston Harbor was East India Company Tea and it was not taxed. The colonists dumping the tea were the merchants who sold the tea that was taxed. No taxation without representation was not about the Crown but the East India Company which was too big to fail and the government imposing a tax to bail out a company that made very poor decisions. It was America 2008 bailing out the auto industry without taking over the board of directors.
Professor Painter's history is Walt Disney history. We socialists don't believe in big government we believe in the government big enough to do the job and we believe in government that attends to the needs of we the people and we believe in taxation that attends to the needs of the future. We need government, some times we need small government and sometimes we need FDR. Right now we need Bernie Sanders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act
I know many conservatives they are mostly very good people but just like liberals they are intellectually lazy and unwilling to challenge their beliefs.
The Tea Act was seen as a way to allow a company that owned over half the world to escape the consequences of its greed and rapaciousness. George was not a tyrant he was weak and mentally ill, he was the government conservatives want. .
The disagreement I have is with "conservative" history'. The tea that was dumped into Boston Harbor was East India Company Tea and it was not taxed. The colonists dumping the tea were the merchants who sold the tea that was taxed. No taxation without representation was not about the Crown but the East India Company which was too big to fail and the government imposing a tax to bail out a company that made very poor decisions. It was America 2008 bailing out the auto industry without taking over the board of directors.
Professor Painter's history is Walt Disney history. We socialists don't believe in big government we believe in the government big enough to do the job and we believe in government that attends to the needs of we the people and we believe in taxation that attends to the needs of the future. We need government, some times we need small government and sometimes we need FDR. Right now we need Bernie Sanders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act
I know many conservatives they are mostly very good people but just like liberals they are intellectually lazy and unwilling to challenge their beliefs.
The Tea Act was seen as a way to allow a company that owned over half the world to escape the consequences of its greed and rapaciousness. George was not a tyrant he was weak and mentally ill, he was the government conservatives want. .
61
Was that George III or George W. Bush?
3
Thank you for reminding us that the common interpretation of our history is dead wrong, right along with the assertion that it was founded on Christian principles. The real Boston tea party did not intend to break with England, either. That came later when George's government proved itself to be tone deaf to the concerns expressed. The founding fathers were in a position similar to ours, and they would support Bernie over Cruz in a heartbeat.
6
RMC,
Perfect!!!
That is why we must go back to knowing our history.
When the revolution took place American conservatives flooded into Canada and others returned to Britain. America was a place where government was close at hand and as we call it in Canada responsible.
I was thinking about George W. a lot during the debates, I was thinking about his being the decider. Poor George had to make a lot of decisions and everyone talks about what the believe were wrong decisions and no one talks about his correct decisions like his decision to pick-up a sketch pad and return to Crawford.
Perfect!!!
That is why we must go back to knowing our history.
When the revolution took place American conservatives flooded into Canada and others returned to Britain. America was a place where government was close at hand and as we call it in Canada responsible.
I was thinking about George W. a lot during the debates, I was thinking about his being the decider. Poor George had to make a lot of decisions and everyone talks about what the believe were wrong decisions and no one talks about his correct decisions like his decision to pick-up a sketch pad and return to Crawford.
2
Love the concept buddie. But you and your party go first. We poor Democrats have been just trying to stay within spitting distance since Nixon's slush fund for the plumbers.
61
Mr. Painter, excellent and well-reasoned points, all. But conservatives, who have long been vocal about activist judges on the federal court circuit and (Democratic) presidential nominees for the Supreme Court, were all-in on Citizens United. The Roberts Court handed the oligarchy the keys to the American tri-partite system of government, perverting "free speech" from a Constitutional guarantee into the obscenity that money equals government. I'm afraid you won't hear very much in the way of agreement from the Right which has pretty much won the day. They don't want campaign reform; they prefer the rigged system they own now. It has nothing to do with ALEC's sly gerrymandered ploy or the voting patterns of the "uninformed"that we progressives so love to mock. No, Republicans are quite comfortable with their own hypocrisy of bewailing big government while benefiting from the trough they're so quick to disparage. Senator Goldwater had one thing right, anyhow, the foresight to perceive the sands thrown into the republic's gears by the malevolently wealthy. And we, the people, react to this outrage much like a whipped cur called to heel by its master. We're more to blame than the thieves of democracy because we return them to office upon demand. Why should they obey our wishes when they know we connive with them to perpetuate a corrupted system?
32
Big money buys government. They mean to won it. Big or small is only a campaign slogan anyway.
They don't shrink government. They loot it.
See the Flint, MI water supply. Looted. They profited from that. They mean to keep on as they have, as in Flint.
They don't shrink government. They loot it.
See the Flint, MI water supply. Looted. They profited from that. They mean to keep on as they have, as in Flint.
160
A good point but don't count on it convincing anyone. As Rand Paul rues, conservative voters are not intellectually consistent. They are in general not intellectually anything but are simply a reactionary aggregate.
The small government argument is illustrative. Marco Rubio would dramatically increase our military to fight an enemy--ISIS, El Queda, the Taliban--that are miniscular in comparison to our current forces. He does not say how he would pay for the increase but realistically he would have to use George Bush's credit card. Most of his GOP competitors-except the intellectual conservative, no-chance Paul--agree with him. If followed Rubio would increase the federal government's size and debt.
We have had a growing national government since the country's founding because we have had a growing nation that needs one. Time, modernity, and necessity have made a Republic of states obsolete. Today the argument of a mythical small state for 330 million is cover for social phobias, misanthropic religions and economic oligarchy. It is anything but intellectually honest, consistent or coherent.
The small government argument is illustrative. Marco Rubio would dramatically increase our military to fight an enemy--ISIS, El Queda, the Taliban--that are miniscular in comparison to our current forces. He does not say how he would pay for the increase but realistically he would have to use George Bush's credit card. Most of his GOP competitors-except the intellectual conservative, no-chance Paul--agree with him. If followed Rubio would increase the federal government's size and debt.
We have had a growing national government since the country's founding because we have had a growing nation that needs one. Time, modernity, and necessity have made a Republic of states obsolete. Today the argument of a mythical small state for 330 million is cover for social phobias, misanthropic religions and economic oligarchy. It is anything but intellectually honest, consistent or coherent.
11
Mark,
When the EPA recently poisoned the water for an area of the southwest many times larger than flint and attempted to cover up their criminal incompetence, it was somehow The fault of "Greedy Conservatives" trying to make money?
Please note that in addition to no one going to jail over the financial meltdown no one at the EPA lost their jobs over the water poisoning or has gone to jail either!
The problem of too much money buying influence when too much power is consolidated in too few hands is a real problem. However it is not just a problem caused by a single group. Every group wishing for an advantage for its members is equally guilty. Including all the public employee unions that spend very large sums to "buy" laws that make it difficult to fire or prosecute their members. Remember, very few have lost their jobs at the VA over the healthcare scandal or the IRS over selective treatment of different political groups either.
The problem won't be solved until everyone agrees that all money is a problem not just the other guys money!
When the EPA recently poisoned the water for an area of the southwest many times larger than flint and attempted to cover up their criminal incompetence, it was somehow The fault of "Greedy Conservatives" trying to make money?
Please note that in addition to no one going to jail over the financial meltdown no one at the EPA lost their jobs over the water poisoning or has gone to jail either!
The problem of too much money buying influence when too much power is consolidated in too few hands is a real problem. However it is not just a problem caused by a single group. Every group wishing for an advantage for its members is equally guilty. Including all the public employee unions that spend very large sums to "buy" laws that make it difficult to fire or prosecute their members. Remember, very few have lost their jobs at the VA over the healthcare scandal or the IRS over selective treatment of different political groups either.
The problem won't be solved until everyone agrees that all money is a problem not just the other guys money!
1
Yup Mark, LOOTED! The rug they pulled on Flint is now in a mansion somewhere and possibly not even in Michigan. They`ll pull the rug on Detroit after they have finished starving the people there. It`s a lot easier to flip the rug on a city the size Detroit when there`s no weight on it.
1