It doesn’t take a genius to inherit vast sums of money, and subsequently use the tools at one’s disposal to turn that fortune into even more money.
It doesn’t take a genius to realize how much damage that well-financed lobbying groups can accomplish in politics, either.
If campaign finance reform isn’t among a politician’s priorities, it’s effectively a statement in solidarity with kleptocracy.
“They have a method that you shut down a truck? Wow.”
Wow, indeed.
5
Very one sided. Does the board read Mr Edsall
Thomas Edsall, NY TImes
"The Changing Shape of the Parties Is Changing Where They Get Their Money"
Trump leads among small donors. Democrats now get plenty of support from the wealthy, with predictable consequences."
NY Time Sept 19, 2019
6
The clear result of too much money from rich Americans is fully viable . The current Impeachment jury is irrefutable proof of the problem and the result of Citizens United. Every Republican except Mitt Romney has been bought off.
2
"Countering private campaign funding with public campaign funding is the most viable way to limit the political influence of the wealthy."
It also means that unmitigated narcissists and mediocrities can jam the works with unviable campaigns.
4
It's not the Russians who are interfering in our elections. It's the American oligarchs, billionaires, corporate titans, and elites. They are using their wealth to stifle the will of the people by financially backing candidates who will do so. There is no reform that will work other than, so many of us believe, the revolution Bernie started, which is simply this: refuse to take their money! Refuse their money and support in every level of elections across the country. Take only the small donations offered by everyday citizens. It works! Bernie is proving that. The squad is proving that. We just want to ask every candidate this simple question: Who is paying your way, Mr. Biden? Who is paying your way, Senator Klobuchar? And on and on. If it's the corporations and the billionaires funding you, you will have to do their bidding, if elected. The will of the people won't matter. So, we ask again: who is paying to get you elected? Please answer! Our future depends on it.
6
We have the best Democracy money can buy.
4
While the Editorial Board has focused on a crucial issue, the inequality of political power between the uber-rich and the poor -- the inequality which deligitimizes government, yet, their proposed remedy shows that they do not appreciate the extent it deligitimizes it, leaving plutocracy in power.
We should notice that the issues the Editorial Board believes would be addressed differently do not include such things as their killings of innocent people, nor global heating which is also killing tens of thousands each year.
On the big issues revealing evil and wickedness of government, the Editorial Board remedies would be ineffective. Would you please come back with a more thorough solution?
2
I like Yang’s Democracy Dollars. But would caution at which point in a campaign the money is allotted to be spent? Half before/half after primaries?
State presidential primaries should all happen within 1-2 weeks in May. Trump filed to run again in 2020 the day he took office in 2017? Limit filing to run to one-two years prior. Endless campaigning is beyond tiresome and extremely unproductive. Nasty and divisive.
There is so much wrong in our fake Democracy now.
At least Trumpism showed us the worst case in a digital era.
His donor meetings are the deepest swamp imaginable.
This Senate BIG fail? The Senate structure is corrupted.
The money flowed to blinded bad guys to buy a verdict. Mitch is evil. There has never been a worse person in a politically powerful position in my 60 years.
It may be time to rewrite the constitution. If we can rewrite and rename treaties why not start at the beginning? It should be actually Democratic and not attempt to appease any factions as were made before civil rights was a speck in some eyes.
Ditch the thoroughly corrupt Citizens United bad. And disable the extremist Senate majority leadership 's unilateral power. It's not working as-is.
Rewrite the constitution.
1
It seems to be apparent throughout history--mostly apparent from the 1800's onward--the greater number of extremely wealthy people you have in your country, the more your country embraces fascism.
I could go on about JP Morgan--he and his cronies attempted coup against FDR, Italy's uber wealthy and their embrace of Mussolini, the German industrialists, today's Russian oligarchs, Robert Mercer, Rupert Murdoch, Mark Zuckerberg, et al...
I don't know how we'll escape becoming a fascist dictatorship in the very near future--especially since we now have an ever expanding surveillance state.
5
The selling of public policy has to stop.
The evil at the top has to be lopped off.
4
No comment about Bloomberg having spent $300 million personally on election ?
Interesting
2
Thanks to the cowards we elected as Senators we're about to become a Banana Republic dictatorship. None of this will matter anymore.
2
More money will not cure Democratic Party stupidity. No matter how loud the bullhorn is that argues for trans bathrooms, the message is a national loser. The message of gun control is an even bigger loser. The hopeless recent Democrats have never won on their own merits but only when the people wanted to throw the Republicans out. The Democrats have always acted as the numbed two. But now we have Republicans with a lock on electoral vote counting and the people do not want to throw them out. The Democrats are now forced to articulate a message and all they can come up with is trans bathrooms and the like. Pathetic. FDR must be rolling over in his grave.
1
It applies to both parties. Indeed, economic studies show that campaign donations to Democrats return slightly more money to industry than campaign contributions to Republicans
From the NY Times
"June was a busy month for Senator Charles E. Schumer.... he raised more than $1 million from the booming private equity and hedge fund industries"
"But there is another way Mr. Schumer has been busy with hedge fund and private equity managers,...He has been reassuring them that he will resist an effort led by members of his own party to single out the industry with a plan that would more than double the taxes on the enormous profits reaped by its executives."
(The plan was to tax their income at the Federal Tax rate, closing the infamous carried interest loophole under which they pay less than 1/2 in federal taxes)
"He has regularly portrayed himself as a progressive politician who identifies with the struggles of the middle class and is sharply critical of the selfish “plutocrats” who he says control the Republican Party."
NYT
And Mr Schumer succeeded. To this day the Ultra Rich of Wall Street pay a lower fraction in Federal Taxes than middle class American
Why would Mr. Schumer do this ?
Click here
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary/charles-schumer?cid=N00001093&cycle=CAREER&type=I
2
I agree with everything here. All the same, the Democratic primaries have not been corrupt like this. The claims from several of the candidates to the contrary are baseless, divisive, counterproductive. Yes, Bloomberg is a billionaire but he is also a credible candidate. He was, after all, the best mayor ever of one of the largest cities in the world. On the other hand, some of the other candidates who are not billionaires have managed to cobble together tens of millions of donations even though they by any conventional measure not qualified, at least this early in their careers, to be president. Folks tend not to realize that only a tiny proportion of Americans ever donate to campaigns at all. The relatively large number of donors to the Sanders campaign, for example, is still only a miniscule fraction of the number of eligible voters. Another useful way of looking at the problem would be looking at things in light of the division between the tiny number of Americans who give and the vast majority who never do. In that light, public funding looks even more compelling.
1
Great column. It's exactly why I am voting for Bernie. He has been talking about campaign finance reform for decades. Let's give him a blue senate and house to make this possible.
3
yes ... but: no one can change this system before November 2020. in this context: Bloomberg isn't asking money, no 'quid pro quo' with donors. why all the progressive media insist on the budget he's spending much more than analysing his proposals? when Bloomberg gave plenty of money to some democratic candidates, it was ok. now he's spending his money for his own campaign: everybody attacks him. and this article seems even put Bloomberg and Trump on the same level, that's absurd of course
1
How much money has George Soros put into our elections, please? Besos?
Conservatives argue that blocking corporate giving but allowing union giving is tilting the scale unfairly and create an anti business environment which is not good for Americans.
2
Thank you Editorial Board for making the case of small government. When the government controls very little, there is no need to buy favors from politicians. When the government is a huge all encompassing Leviathan the temptation for cronyism is almost irresistible. When the next dollar invested by a corporation is better spent lobbying, that is where the dollars will go.
We need to decrease the role of government in our economy. That will decrease the cronyism and take money out of politics.
3
As the Doomsday Clock stands at 100 seconds to midnight, we're out of time to take actions the fossil fuel industry opposes.
As the opioid epidemic rages and people die, as insulin and epi pens become unaffordable, how urgently must favors to the pharmaceutical industry be curbed?
As Boeing planes fall from the sky, campaign finance contributions deserve scrutiny - but there is that lack of transparency in campaign funding that stands in the way of getting the complete picture.
Until we get money out of politics and government returns to meeting the needs of voters, Trump and Sanders benefit from the people's anger and frustration.
Did I miss it, or are only Bernie and Elizabeth talking the talk and walking the walk to tackle this problem that lies at the root of so many of our other problems? Are any other candidates addressing income inequality that continues to grow as money in politics continues to grow?
We're out of time. This must be addressed now.
One other solution is to run on policies that truly represent what people, not corporations want. Bernie Sanders is doing this and raising more money than any other the other Democratic candidates by (mostly) small donations.
Just a thought.
2
Nationalizing the "democracy vouchers" program run in Seattle would be a terrific step. Such a program makes it possible for people who aren't wealthy to run for office in the first place, augmenting an otherwise thin pool of candidates. That is improvement #1. It also increases their odds of winning such a race by helping to level the election funding playing field. That is improvement #2. We need something like this nationally.
Even if Citizens United is repealed, we still need to get rid of hackable, untraceable voting machines and return to paper ballots. Same thing with ending gerrymandering and the multitudinous right-wing tactics of voter suppression.
And that's just to fix the voting process as it is now. We still need to deal with the extraordinary level of income inequality in this country, because the extremely wealthy will continue to find ways to buy politicians and blanket the airwaves with propaganda.
3
The Supreme Court has generated an oxymoron that free speech is something you buy. And guess who can buy most of it. In the 2012 presidential race, the top 0.04% of donors bought about as much “free” speech as the bottom 68%.
3
"Mr. Zekelman complained to Mr. Trump that mandatory rest breaks for truck drivers made it harder to move his steel pipes to market — and also that they might force a driver to pull over when the driver was close to home."
What in the world happens to these people who are obsessed with money and having it all, in a culture that venerates and celebrates wealth, money, and power and is willing to sacrifice adults, children, living things, the environment, and the country and planet's future to make a few more bucks?
Look no further than Mr. Donald J. Trump, the entire Republican Party, and the mighty 1% who supports them with billions of dollars. To do what? Cut their taxes, take away government regulations that force these wealthy capitalists to be responsible in their business dealings, and make them richer.
This is from something I read a long time ago:
Too much money? First goes their human dignity, then goes their humanity.
Make America humane and sane again in 2020.
1
It's shameful that today politicians court and serve donors instead of voters. We can thank the Supreme Court for this. Their decisions in Citizens United and associated rulings that equated money with Free Speech and flooded our elections with dark money have created massive corruption and made a mockery of one person - one vote. We're watching a billionaire buy his way into the next Democratic Debate. Blumenthal's merits aside, the fact that he could buy enough political ads aimed by the social media to get him into the debate is very dangerous for our Republic - and the Supreme Court is blind to that. It also makes it impossible to govern for the Public Good when money buys results. Would it take a Constitutional amendment to limit grotesque interpretations? That's extreme but I looked at comments and others have also suggested it.
1
Although I often disagree with the NYT Editorial Board, who can disagree with this current op-ed. I agree 100%. In the more distant past, votes were often bought with bottles of whiskey. Today, votes are bought through social media and advertising spots. Guys like Michael Bloomberg should not be able to buy a political office. It makes a mockery of democracy.
1
Rich individuals funding their own campaigns entirely with their own money is categorically different than corporations and individuals donating huge amounts of money in order to influence the campaigns and then the allegiances of candidates. Bloomberg can only influence Bloomberg, Steyer Steyer. There is simply nothing wrong with that. If they are good candidates with good platforms and can convince enough people to vote for them, more power to them.
Beyond illogic, there is a disturbing moralism to the condemnation of self-funded campaigns, claiming it is somehow 'not right,' 'bad for democracy,' etc. Why?! They are participating in the democratic process in what seems to be a straightforward way.
Is it better to have candidates spend so much time begging people for money and convincing influential donors to give them large sums of money? Not all do the latter, but then they're begging even more people to give them money. Not to mention spending money they've begged for in order to beg for more.
Earning a lot of money is not morally bad. Not having any or much money at all is not morally good. I myself am somewhere in the middle; this doesn't make me good or bad. If one wants to talk about morals, then talk about what was done to Anita Hill, about Cheney's war, about virtually everything about Trump.
Self-funding a campaign is not a question of morals, but of trying to get elected in order to enact policies that the candidates believe will improve the country.
4
It's all about the money, so why not take the millions of dollars Bloomberg is spending on political ads and give a couple of million to each Republican Senator in return for their vote to convict Trump on the Articles of Impeachment. Would that be illegal? I understand that McConnell has a large dark money war chest that he uses to bend the will of his caucus, so why not do what is done everyday among lobbyist and party loyalists, simply throw money at the problem to rid the country of Donald Trump. The use of money to influence politics is after all the norm and Mr. Bloomberg could achieve his objective more effectively that he will by throwing millions of dollars at TV ads.
2
Simply require all campaign funds be divided into two piles. One half is shared equally with all other qualifying candidates, the other is the candidate's money to spend. To be a qualifying candidate, a candidate must raise (and share) a minimum amount: the amount qualifying candidates have received through fund sharing so far.
A fundamental issue with public financing reform is that it does not prevent a Bloomberg from using his own money to operate a campaign. It also does not prevent Soros from funding advertisements to favor or disfavor candidates.
Further, it institutionalizes incumbency. Fully 80% of incumbents who run for re-election win. If public financing is going to finance campaigns, the incumbents are going to automatically qualify for taxpayer money. Insurgents, on the other hand, are going to be required to meet some threshold in order to qualify for taxpayer funding.
We have taxpayer funding for presidential contests. In 2008, McCain and Obama promised to comply with the requirements of the taxpayer funding, but Obama reneged on his promise once it became apparent that he could raise more money that McCain. So he was able to buy the election, as would Hillary if she had won the nomination.
3
This is noting new. It has occurred for since the founding of the Republic. Citizens United just expanded the ability to use campaign funds to gain access to elected individuals. Congress has the authority to change the elections laws and send an amendment to the constitution to the States. It will never happen for the same reason term limits will never pass. Changes are not in the best interest of those in elected positions. We should also remember that it was not a "far right conservative" Supreme Court that made this decision. Do not expect a change any time soon!!
2
Sanders has proved beyond a doubt again, that you can run a campaign with policies only and not by becoming a pawn of plutocracy. There is no law necessary to compel the electorate to support elections, if the American people are allowed to vote for policies perceived to be necessary for good governance and increased democracy.
4
Why didn't the House take on emoluments in the impeachment? Apparently they decided it would offend their own wealthy donors. So they gave up the chance to reveal Trump's corruption because so many of them are compromised as well. And how did McConnell keep his caucus together? By threatening those who wouldn't cooperate with no campaign funds. Why isn't this considered bribery? Trump's lawyers have funded many Republican senators. Why isn't this considered bribery? Please let this past week prove to the American voter that our country has nothing to do with democracy or justice. We need money out of politics yesterday. Bernie 2020.
1
I am in complete agreement as to the diagnosis but lack confidence in the prescription. I write to note the law of unintended consequences. It took two full centuries for these consequences to manifest. What began as an expedient for raising capital and reasonably insulating business organizers from the ordinary risks of conducting business, the corporate form has literally taken on a life of its own, equal and in some cases superior in rights to natural persons. And it has all been accomplished through delicate and calculated, finely written and perfectly legal opinions of a microscopic minority of citizens cloaked in the robes of justice.
The law of unintended consequences. For a further example look look to that smart phone in your hand. Because thousands of apps and agents are doing so right now.
This article makes a convincing case that money corrupts democracy. But democracy is failing though other means as well. The question is whether we can save democracy before it is voted out of existence.
In the US, democracy has lasted 230 years. In 1790 the US population was 3.9 million. Population of the US has since gone up by a factor of 85.
That has had a profound effect on personal freedoms. Most people now live in congested cities.
My grandfather lived on a farm in Bison, Kansas. Democracy for local matters made sense. He knew all of the neighbors in his small town. He understood the issues. From his farm he could see wheat fields that stretched for miles.
I got a facebook picture from a friend in NYC. It showed pigeons on his air conditioner outside his apartment. Beyond were apartments beyond which were more apartments extending to infinity. He must come into contact with a thousand different cultures every day.
Americans don't understand those culture of others. That's why they make such bad decisions. The War In Vietnam cost us 58,000 lives because we didn't understand the History of Vietnam. Now Americans are even informed about the 5.4 million who died in the Second Congo War.
But our fates are intertwined.
The NY Times censors discussion of overpopulation. But without discussing it, readers have no means of understanding why democracy is failing.
Or why global warming developed. This is even more basic than funding issues.
3
Polluters, a.k.a. big corporations, do indeed pay, just not in the courtroom. They expect results, and -- almost all the time -- they get them. Real people of modest means are the victims and will continue to be. Big money does indeed buy favoritism and votes. Conflicts of interest? What conflicts of interest?
Hmmmm
"Mr. Trump, whose administration has been shaped by his willingness to stretch the law, is providing an object lesson in the consequences of the court’s capacious standards. "
I would have written "...of the court's rapacious standards.' There!
1
Now that we face an indefinitely long future of trump being
in our face and ears 24/7, since he has unlimited amounts
of money to buy up all the air time
he wants, it would help if we could somehow begin
to focus upon how the private funding of campaigns, and the rules that govern it,
has created this gigantic amoral swamp we are living through.
It is really unclear however how much the public feels this
is a very big problem that has some type of solution. Public
financing of campaigns is not exactly a hot button item
except among activists.
Why this is is not hard to
explain. There is a very deep cynicism that nothing effective
can really be done about public corruption, so you might as well just buy into it rather than do something to contain it. This reveals a moral decadence that has already eaten away at the core of the body politic. Trump is but the
end state of this phenomenon.
To combat that what is required are innumerable local
efforts whose successes at neutralizing effects of wealth's
private interests in dictating public policy will convince people that local reforms deserve wider adoption. A groundswell of people pushing their local wins at the state and federal level is a sine qua non for this restorative force
to get off the ground.
It is ironic that Roberts has been forced to bear witness to
what the court's positions on speech and money have now
led to during the trial at which he refuses to be anything other than an umpire.
Please look into Dr. Sheldon Wolin's "inverted totalitarianism," perhaps being along similar lines of Gilens's and Page's book. In any case, the elephant (not GOP!) in the middle of the room here, as it is typically ignored, is Bernie Sanders' campaign and its donors. While he has proven among Democratic candidates how to accumulate the most donations not coming from super rich sources, it is with an immense effort. Thereby, I support public financing of campaign and hope to live to see it happen; in the meantime, I'm one of those small donors to Sanders' campaign. Regarding another elephant in the room, BTW, I keep wondering about how the current system must be a profit-making bonanza for advertising agencies, as likely most of that money goes to them. (I refer to Bloomberg's "$11 million to air a one-minute ad during the Super Bowl"). Watch out for their lobbying against any fair-minded changes!
The sad reality is that politics has become a profound growth industry. Politicians are making money hand over fist. The Entire Senate, including Sanders and Warren, is made up of millionaires. Those who run for the White House stand to make significant income through speeches and book deals. McConnell did not come into the Senate as a millionaire, but he is one many times over now. Politicians respond favorably to the corporate and billionaire world because they profit from it. It's that simple.
1
This is THE biggest problem we currently face, because it is the problem which ties our hands in dealing with all the others.
I can't support a Democratic candidate in the primaries who accepts PAC money, and all of the candidates that I'm taking seriously have plans to address our corrupt campaign financing system. That doesn't mean that their plans will succeed, but what is Biden's plan to reign in big-money campaign contributions? That's right, he doesn't have one. I prefer candidates who at least recognize that this is a problem.
And in light of this commentary, the New York Times might want to reconsider its perpetually negative view of Bernie Sanders. A common refrain for Bernie critics is "What has he done?" Well, he's mounted a small-donor campaign for the presidency that is out-competing the donor establishment favorites. In a system as corrupted by money as ours, that's monumental. Much more impressive than anything Biden or Buttigieg has achieved.
2
The issue is so crucial that campaign finance reform should be promoted as an amendment to our constitution, because the relatively excessive influence of money in our politics has long been a huge factor in our peculiar form of democracy that has now gotten far worse.
The power of propaganda has been amplified by technology that allows moneyed interests (and adversarial countries) to virtually install culture into the brains of the connected shows that we are entering a very dangerous time.
A drive for a constitutional amendment might seem like a hail Mary, but it could be used as a focal point to bring focus on the issue. The movement needs to be populist and appeal to all voters- even many Trump loyalists despise the level of corporate power over our political system, however ironic that may seem.
65
The time to get money out of campaign financing was yesterday before that money changed the laws and stacked the courts. But that horse is out of the barn. If you want to win now you must ride the money horse. What were the Democrats thinking when they let all of this happen? Oh yeah, they were thinking that if they were just more like Republicans they would get more votes. How has that worked out for them?
5
I have resisted the idea of a Constitutional Convention as a solution to any of our political problems for all of my adult life. I have always thought it to be a frightening proposition. But given the current nature of our "paid for" political class, and the elections they produce, a Constitutional Convention to add language to our founding documents to clarify that, "one citizen equals one vote", is essential to maintaining any government that looks like a democracy. We need to get the money out of politics one way or another. A Constitutional Convention could work out a mechanism, and perhaps work out many other problems that are ripping apart this nation. It is time.
41
@Patrick Stevens beware of the rule of unintended results.
A Constitutional Convention will replace the archaic Second Amendment language with unequivocally firm “the government at every level is forbidden the power to regulate the ownership of all weapons by those not adjudicated.” The 14th will eliminate birth right citizenship, anchor babies, and hearings for deportation. The 16th will mandate equal taxes on every citizen, cap the government at 10% of a citizens income, eliminate corporation taxes (which are really hidden taxes on citizens, and limit spending, except during times of declared war, to the income of the government (no deficit spending). The 22d will be extended to every elected federal office.
All of these things I support. You may not.
7
@Canis
You are right. I don't. A Constitutional Convention while the Plutocracy rules is a terrible idea.
10
@Canis
exactly right. A constitutional convention is a free-for-all, where the wealthiest donorships have the ability to PERMANENTLY install their concept of America/Freedom/Government.
What cannot possibly be dreamed of in the minds of Objectivists and legacy plutarchs in terms of entrenchment of wealth and class during a lifetime will be on the table for discussion; What they can't pass using amendment (pro and anti) is available to them.
wanting it so badly is part of the rhetoric for acceptance; To make things so lousy that normal folks are forced to accept irregular means to gain advantage, it's the same principle that got herr drumpf elected.
4
It’s not even a matter of “money in politics”. The devolution of US democracy has gotten to a place where the plutocracy has gamed the system in such a way that the political process hides the fact that a handful of billionaires with armies of lobbyists run the country. It’s the plutocracy that writes our bills and then has them rubber stamped by a legislative branch that the rich get elected with dark money. The court system are corporate shills. The gerrymandering and electoral college system rig the game. And the masses are hypnotized by Fox News propaganda to a nation informed by a misguided notion of political and economic theory they were indoctrinated with in middle school.
64
@Red Tree Hill
Yes. We're living in the soup. The electoral college is ridiculously out-dated and giving far too much weight to tiny states, gerrymandering goes on, lobbyists get their way through backroom money exchanges. What's an American to do besides bemoan the obvious wrongs, voice our objections and hold out for an unprejudiced judiciary? You forgot to mention our Supreme Court packed with conservatives with an agenda such as toadies like Judge Clarence Thomas, who sit silent for the most part and vote against the people's interests again and again. Who can say why?
8
We are already at a place where only Billionaires will run against Billionaires. (Trump vs Bloomberg in 2020). It is too late to complain now. Elections had consequences a long time ago.
6
@JB Say Rightist: a person bizarrely insensitive to the humanity of mankind. (See: Jacob Marley to Scrooge.)
2
We need to move to publicly funded elections, with small donations capped at a certain limit in some sort of matching system.
Even though Seattle was able to elect some candidates to actually represent them rather than Amazon, there's no realistic way $100 per person can stand up to $1.5 million.
Let's get the big bucks out of politics all together. Otherwise, we just end up with more and more dinners at the Trump hotels, and less and less concern for the needs of the rest of us and the planet on which we all depend.
49
@avrds . . .to do that you have to overturn the Supreme Court's decisions on that or get a united Congress, both houses, to legislate publicly funded elections. Who of most elected officials would agree to that?
4
We can’t move anywhere without winning elections. And the changes that you describe will require complete control of the House and Senate for a long period of time. And those wins have to happen in this world and not a dream world. They have to happen in a world of vote rigging and official bribery. To do that the Democrats will have to change their message for a long time and they show no signs of wanting to do that. They would rather lose elections than give up the moral superiority they display as they give speeches arguing for trans bathrooms. Their priorities are so skewed as to make them non electable in the real world. And if they were going to learn they would have done it over the past 40 years. They are now hopeless and the Republicans raise no sweat beating them at the national level. Republicans play chess and Democrats play checkers and throw the board at each other. Sad.
2
@avrds The problem is not just how much anyone donates, but the cost of elections. Advertising, transportation and staff costs probably eat up much of anyone campaign budget/costs. I did political work in the 1970s when volunteers were sleeping on floors in their own sleeping bags. I would suspect not so much anymore.
1
I'm grateful to the board for this crucially important editorial. Nothing good can be sustained in a system controlled by random business interests pulling government chaotically where ever the money directs it.
If it was an organization of plutocrats planning collectively (a kind of House of Lords), perhaps our nation could survive such an arrangement, but this isn't really government at all, it is a chaotic gold rush.
Government has to be the conductor and it has to lead, big business should consult but never be in such a position of power it has obtained.
It is fine to propose reform, but it almost seems hopeless against the momentum of corporate money that just keeps getting stronger and stronger directly by making our government weaker and weaker.
For David to defeat this Goliath we will need a miracle. Begin the process of establishing a constitutional amendment as a focal point and hold our politicians to the fire. The amendment might take 50 years or it might catch fire but in the meantime, incremental reform will have to suffice.
39
Amendments do not take time, they take political wins in both state and national elections. To get those wins a political party must address the needs (or fears) of the majority and leave the minorities alone. Does the Democratic Party look like an organization that can do that?
2
I love irony, and that's why I love our Supreme Court. The Court uses "legal fictions" that allow it to reach decisions it wants. Their "fictions" are often absurd. Here's one: "money is speech". Now, I always carry around some dollar bills in my pocket, but I yet to hear one of them cry out for a breath of fresh air. Of course, the Court did not mean to assert that money is literally speech. Rather the Court said it as simile, to imbue money with one of the most important qualities of speech in our country - freedom of expression. In practice the Court's rule means that those of us with the most money have the loudest voices. But the Courts' rule is nonetheless mendacious, simile and irony notwithstanding.
1
A modest proposal:
Contributions to political candidates and political parties can be made only by individuals eligible to register to vote. This would rule out all PACs, SuperPACs, unions, 501c(3), corporations ... They may be "people," but they are not eligible to register to vote.
While we are at it, we could set federal qualifications for eligibility for voting for federal offices (president, vp, both houses of Congress). This would take care of the various states using state election laws to favor one party over another and otherwise jerking people around.
If it takes a Constitutional amendment to accomplish this, it wouldn't hurt my feelings.
I bet media would love the repeal of Citizens United. What about media? Positive headlines and stories on the front page are worth how much? Bezos, bought the WaPost. Is that a way of “donating hundreds of millions of dollars of in kind political contributions”?This paper would have the right to do the same. So would all networks and publications. Articles in this publication and the WaPost have more effect on congress and voter perceptions than any 30 second advertisement ran a dozen times nationally. Is that fair? I think the freedom of the press was meant for many reasons. Electing politicians was not one of them. Unless all media is somehow controlled, freedom of the press would become uncontrolled political contributions. That was never intended. This, nor any media outlet should not have that much control in elections.
Big money donations do not guarantee victory. Jeb Bush spent $100 million during 2016 primary and went nowhere with 4 delegates.
Government campaign funding would difficult to administer fairly in a highly politicized environment, a can of worms.
Would rich old white guys like Tom Styer and Bloomberg get financial help too? ..not to mention Donald Trump getting millions of taxpayer dollars.
Bad idea.
2
@Lane Don't let "the perfect be the enemy of the good." It would still be an improvement to have public funding. So what if the wealthy would receive funding? The other candidates who aren't wealthy would nevertheless receive a fair share.
Jeb Bush could have spent a billion dollars and still gone nowhere. His name was Jeb.
1
@Richard Hahn Would you agree if a David Duke type,a Hugo Chavez, or worse qualified for government campaign funding too? How would you account for a Trump who managed to get at least $500 million worth in free media facetime reporting on him...
1
So fact-based news reporting is even more critical. I depend on the NYT to do that. I don't think that all of the Democratic candidates have received equal treatment in your coverage of the race so far, especially in Iowa. Press coverage seems overly driven by polling numbers, which can more easily be swayed by private campaign-funded efforts. This creates a self-fulfilling scenario for candidates who are not polling at the top. The NYT needs to do a better job at not being part of the ecosystem that is being manipulated by dark money.
1
Now that it has been declared ok for Trump to seek foreign help to be re-elected, can other candidates do so as well?
3
Sure, all they have to do is sell their office. Oh, that’s right, they don’t have an office to sell because they can’t win elections.
1
All campaign donations go in a pot, which is equally distributed to candidates for travel and organization. The length of campaigning is limited to the year leading up to November elections. Air time is equally distributed and free to candidates to discuss issues and policies. If we gathered up all the money spent so far leading up to 2020, imagine the support we'd have for meaning programs that serve citizens!! It's a disgrace and backwards.
As if big money is the problem. Because it is theoretically possible for big money to fund both right and left wing politics.
2016 to date has demonstrated that no force, not big money, is as powerful as people feeling powerless - many after self-inflicted damage - who want to hurt someone by undoing everything good, and supporting everything bad. Republicans are running amok, to a steady drum beat of right wing propaganda, slashing paintings and breaking down artifacts in this beautiful museum called America. Presence or absence of big money may not have much to do with this kind of self-loathing among Americans.
The Times editorial and most comments here decry the influence of money on politics. I heartily agree. But the solution proposed by the Times is lame. Most candidates already combine small dollar donations with mega donations from PACs. It's the latter that are the problem, and the Times plan doesn't deal with them.
3
No public funding for politicians or political candidates, period. That's like paying a rattlesnake to strike yourself.
1
It would take a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. That's not going to happen in the foreseeable future, which is why I don't have a problem with Democrats accepting money from large doners and Dem super-paks, so long as there is no 'understanding.'
GOP super-paks and the Trump campaign are about to unleash their substantial treasure chest. To win you have to level the playing field, and you don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
1
All it would take to over turn Citizens United is a few different faces on the court. And all that would take is for Democrats to win a few elections.
Citizens United is not based on any constitutional reading of the text. It was a gift to the party that put the justices in power. It can be removed in a single court case.
But that gets back to winning elections and that requires that a political party speak to the needs (and fears) of the majority. Losing parties chase minorities as the Democrats do.
For the record, Citizens Divided was foisted upon us in a 5-4 vote by 5 (R) "justices", who were all appointed by (R) presidents, thereby legalizing the out-right, public purchase of Congress Critters by the Pluto-Corporatocracy. RIP democracy - thanks to the soulless "conservatives".
3
No. It was foisted on us by a Democratic Party that forgot its base and that has been out of power for 40 years. The Democrats created a political vacuum that someone had to fill. It turns out that someone was oligarchs with ties to global mafia corruption. Thanks again Democrats for keeping your eye on the prize: trans bathrooms in red states. You can’t make this stuff up.
1
Funny how the Times regularly publishes a "money out of politics" editorial but continues to denigrate the one candidate who has advocated this his whole career, and that candidate has also refused big money, all the while generating historic levels of small donations.
We know that the elite are not crazy about the public getting involved in policy decisions, and that big money helps the elite control policy, but this is what democracy is all about.
Sorry.
2
It's not free speech if you have to pay to be heard.
1
Good job New York Times! Keep campaign financing and undue political influence on the front burner, and keep the pressure on. A free press is about all we the people have these days.
Getting D.J. Trump and big private donations out of politics is the most important thing we can do to give our country back to the people.
Not a problem say the Republicans. Consider this:
Lincoln's definition of democracy: by the people, for the people, of the people.
Not any more in the United States. Count the ways.
1. We don't agree on much in this country, but 75% of Americans favor a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United--66% Republicans; 88% Democrats.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-05-10/study-most-americans-want-kill-citizens-united-constitutional-amendment
2. Also, 83% of gun owners want universal background checks to own guns, including 72% of NRA members.
But the NRA doesn't want background checks, although even 72% of NRA members want background checks.
https://iop.harvard.edu/get-involved/harvard-political-review/vast-majority-americans-support-universal-background-checks
So, if you add up #1 and #2, then 1 +1 = 0, as far as Americans getting the legislation from Congress they want and agree on.
It is pretty basic:
"Follow the money."
"He who pays the piper, calls the tune."
Is Democracy dying in the U.S. & how do we get it back?
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/02/03/the-last-time-democracy-almost-died
1
It’s not even a matter of “money in politics”. That way of looking at it is sort of
Forget Iowa - doesn't represent anything close to what the US looks like. The same goes for NH. Useless. Forget the primaries, polls, speeches, promises - who cares.
If the selling out of the Constitution on Friday by the Republicans doesn't fire up the Democrats and Independents to get out and vote - nothing will.
I don't care who the nominee is, I'm voting for him or her. And if you truly care about the future of this country, Democracy, the rule of law and the Constitution, everyone will get out and vote. If you arent registered, do so TODAY.
#TakeAmericaBack #Vote Democrat
1
The dumbing down of the american mind continues unabashed with great help from social media platforms, who are using our ADD generation to inflame more division by dumping all the garbage of disinformation on their platforms and young impressionable demographic...so many bad, utterly malicious actors who are monetizing on this disunion farce.
It's coming from all the dark places of the globe and easily propagated by our enemies.
If we can't manage and stop this barrage of falsehoods that is flying from our screens every second of the day,
we'll have to admit that we lost our voices, our nation and our democracy once and for all!
2
Money is a drug that pols crave and surrender to. Money is a weapon that strangles democracy. Citizens United? More like a handful of Mammon worshipers who laugh at the entirety of Congress's addiction.
1
Public funding would be great but its never going to happen. In the meantime the New York Times runs article after article attacking Bernie Sanders who does publicly fund his campaign with donations from nearly 1 and half million Americans and zero from corporations , PACs etc. Just bit ironic no?
1
Let's not leave out the tale of Roscoe Conkling, a lawyer and former US Senator from New York who in 1886 lied to the SCOTUS to establish the "person-hood" of corporations. See details from Wikipedia below.
As one of the original drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment, he claimed in a case which reached the Supreme Court, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886),[11] that the phrase "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" meant the drafters wanted corporations to be included, because they used the word "person" and cited his personal diary from the period. Howard Jay Graham, a Stanford University historian considered the pre-eminent scholar on the Fourteenth Amendment, named this case the "conspiracy theory" and concluded that Conkling probably perjured himself for the benefit of his railroad friends.[12]
1
Public funding for public candidates serves public interest, if this is not right what is then?
of course, unless rich people are against it because it would use their tax dollars against their private donation. But then again, democracy is to serve the majority but not the selected few rich people,
Isn't it?
1
It's Opinion pieces of this calibre that make me proud to be a Times subscriber and reader.
I do not relish even the remote idea of a contest between inappropriately funded candidates. I prefer the idea of overqualified candidates arguing in real debate. Our elections should not be about choosing the lesser of two evils, but the better of two highly worthwhile individuals.
I’m not sure your premise of now having “over qualified candidates” will ever emerge. In fact the list will only grow as there would be no “skin in the game” and every person with a pulse would show up only cluttering an already cluttered field. Throw in “public money” which undoubtedly be managed by politicians on how to spend it for the election and you are one step away from that same group of politicians deciding who should be on the list to start with like China, Russia, Venezuela etc... No thanks! I’ll take the existing imperfect model over disaster any day. I think the better discussion in term limits. By default the politician’s power becomes limited thus less desirable which is a good thing.
As bald face lies are countenanced about cheating in elections, and unconstitutional behavior is found to be 'ok', do rules matter?
Both major political parties are run but the same NYC neo-elite, neoliberal, overnight billionaire establishment. They never lose because the establishment candidates always win with their equal opportunity self picked candidates and financial support.
The faux “philanthropist causes” that Michael Bloomberg purports to support are self-serving. There’s nothing pro community that he’s supported. It’s all about creating the semblance of playing in an equal playing field and coming out ahead because of his smarts. Fact: unregulated algorithm trading where a millionth of a second makes a difference is how these billionaires are gaming the system, not to mention insider trading. If all was fair, our 401Ks would be brimming with success and creating comfortable retirements. The opposite is true. Bloomberg claims to be working for the people, yet as time is marking the 75th anniversary of the Holocaust, people from Kushner to Stephen Miller are supporting the very criminal laws that turned Kushner’s family into refugees and “survivors”. Where has Bloomberg been all these past three years Where have the TV ads been denouncing the Kushner/ Miller ethnic cleansing policies? Well, Bloomberg had preceded with “stop-and-frisk” Dirty money has to b eliminated from politics, period.
Libertarians will never let this happen. They hate democracy. Period. I got mine go .... yourself.
By the way Republican and Libertarian are the same thing.
Smell the coffee. Put down the purity test and vote blue.
2
Can we say the Republic has become Empire now?
Can you hear the music whenever Darth Vader walks onto the screen?
Who born for the Universe, narrowed his mind,
And to party gave up, what was meant for mankind.
Tho' fraught with all learning, kept straining his throat,
To persuade Tommy Townshend to lend him a vote.
"In Citizens United, the court struck down restrictions on election spending by corporations and unions"
I'm surprised the Times supports restricting union spending to elect candidates who favor pro-labor legislation.
1
It is amazing that the New York Times and other “liberal” media outlets, which never give Andrew Yang any coverage or credit keep stealing his ideas - if you have $100 to every American voter to donate to their favorite candidate, the money would overwhelm the super PACs and make them meaningless. Let’s give credit where credit is due. - r
1
The democrats know they have no leaders or an agenda worthy of the presidency. That they changed the rules to let a filthy rich late-comer into their"debates" while keeping minorities out tells you that they know all they have is a bunch of losers. All we learn from their "action" is that elections are little more than purchases made by a privileged elite. Democracy is dead in the U.S.A.
1
Human nature will never change with its lust for power AND money (greed). Excess money...billions...are in America's DNA with its long history of industrial barons, bankers, Apples & Amazons. It will take a huge market crash and depression to wake America out of its Disneyland slumber.
What a crazy idea, taking money out of politics would remove civically minded patriots like Lev and Trump -- they sport American flag lapel pins! -- from the public sphere and allow self-dealing frauds to corrupt our liberal democratic ideals.
Mr Zekelman plain and simple is a murderer putting profit before people.
Campaign spending by corporations and the wealthy is not free speech, it’s ventriloquism. At the very least Congress and the Courts should insist on the public’s right to know who has their hand up the dummy’s butt.
Verily, money & democracy — a serious problem.
Survival / passing selection tests Fundaments: processing complex relationship information with sufficient Reach Speed Accuracy Power & Creativity.
Think of your immune system, if it doesn't process novel pathogen information with the above criteria, you're dead.
Democracy can't process: Complex global relationship information with exponential dynamics.
Humans, as the dominant, short-term drivers of evolution / selection, have essentially been doing selection in-&-across Geo Eco Bio Cultural & Tech networks for centuries with the world's dominant app—people deploying monetary code.
That app's information processing specs also can't handle: Complex global relationship information with exponential dynamics.
Exhibits A & B: Sky & Ocean are being armed with weapons of mass extinction.
Code: Fundamental, physics generated & physics efficacious Relationship Infrastructure in Bio Cultural & Tech networks.
From the biological network:
“The rule of thumb is that the complexity of the organism has to match the complexity of the environment at all scales in order to increase the likelihood of survival.” — Yaneer Bar-Yam
Both our biological and cultural coding structures violate the rule of thumb, largely because complexity increases weaken the efficacy of code—whether genetic, legal, monetary, software, etc.
Our bio & cultural coding do fit the complex relationships / environs we've generated.; that is, they are non-selectable.
3
Just curious.... are contributions from the “teachers union”, “the teamsters”, “IBEW” etc... considered “private funding”?
1
Maine’s Clean Elections program serves as a model for other states. The majority of state legislators like me choose this unique public campaign finance program. It used to appeal more to Democrats than Republicans, but more and more Republicans are choosing it every cycle. Voters have come to expect it from candidates. Here’s the simple reason why: when taxpayers pay for your campaign, it’s really easy to be accountable to taxpayers. If Maine can do it, so can any other state!
53
@Cathy Breen - YES! More states should pass "Clean Elections" programs, because the RNC and DNC are not going to address the big-money issue. They are both too addicted to the money from 40,000 lobbyists flowing directly to the parties. Currently 42% of registered voters consider themselves "Independent" voters, who would prefer to directly vote for candidates based on key issues. Many of us feel the Republicans and the Democrats have both moved too far to the right, especially when it comes to the economy, which has a direct effect on all other policy decisions. Princeton did a study, and reported that the US Congress passes almost 100% what the corporations and Wall Street investments crowd want. In fact most of the legislation is written by their lobbyists.
Elected by the state of Vermont 8 times so serve in the US House, Bernie Sanders saw that the Democratic Party was continuing to move to the right, and forcing the Republican Party further to the far-right. So, he launched the Congressional Progressive Caucus to hopefully move the politics back to the left – to the Kennedy and Johnson Democrats, and before them, the FDR Democrats. The CPC is now the largest Democratic voting bloc in Congress, 100-members strong.
4
Power and dark money are ruling our country thanks to the SCOTUS. I have lost faith in that institution and its ability to make sound independent decisions. I have also lost faith in the Senate and Execute branches ability to be anything but partisan. Where does that leave the rest of us? At the mercy of special interest and a lot of foreign influence. We are losing our sovereignty and the pillars that make a Democracy work.
67
It was bad enough before Citizens United, millionaires and billionaires found a way to promote a candidate or candidates of the choosing, but now we add Corporate America to the mix, and we haven't got a chance.
Between Citizens United, Russia, and Trump's Republican Party, we are very possibly doomed this coming election in November.
Can anyone see daylight out there, I surely can't. Really bleak times ahead.
145
People wonder about Trumps power over the republican party. Certainly his ability to raise money for the party is one answer. The other has to be the big political contributors to the party. Certainly, many Senators and Congressman conferred with or where directed how to vote to continue on the political gravy train when it came to the impeachment of Trump.
Yes, Trump has control of his base in the republican party, and control of the purse strings too.
Money and power, perhaps always the driver of politics has become more important than political issues in our elections. Just look at the democrats using money to decide eligibility for debates. The democrats will spend 300-400 million dollars on the primary trying to convince people to vote for them.
And then, there's republican operatives literally handing out money to potential Black voters.
Thank you Supreme court for turning our political system into a corrupt money scheme enriching the powerful.
Agreed. Money is the problem. However, Russia and the GOP keep buying elections via the NRA etc and winning. Therefore, this article, as so many in the media keeps discussing how things should work, not how they are working. The gop is playing only to win. Like the Patriots, they will cheat to do it. And unless the Dems win all of this hand wringing will never matter. Bloomberg can buy the election and then implement the right policies. And he’s the only one who can do it.
You misunderstand Citizens United. It says that citizens can band together in voluntary associations and those associations may speak and spend the money necessary for the speech to be heard. In addition to corporations -- which are voluntary associations of shareholders -- associations that speak on behalf of members include labor unions, activist organizations and charitable organizations. It's all about the First Amendment and free speech.
Doesn't the New York Times speak on political matters? Perhaps the Times' displeasure with Citizens United is that it minimizes the Times' "gatekeeper" role by allowing the voluntary associations to speak directly to the public without the Times' approval or meddling with the messages.
2
Money is not the measure of a candidate.
The misuse of money has created so much that is harmful.
Money may lend power but not usually for the good.
“Citizens United is bad law.”
Really? Corporations have bought Congress for quite some time. Where in this is “of the people, by the people, for the people”?
The single act of offering candidates a way to avoid taking money from corporations and the ultra wealthy is virtually the only option we have to substantively repair democracy in the US.
Public funding of elections avoids the pitfalls of Citizens United. It may be necessary to allow candidates to choose to not fund their campaigns with public money, but it would have to come at a price.
Candidates would have to declare that they will be publicly funded or choose to take private money. If they take the public funds, they could only take small donations from US citizens and public funds sufficient to mount a campaign that can equitably compete with privately funded candidates.
The source of all campaign contributions for public and private funded candidates would have to be identifiable down to the original donor. Campaign ads would have to clearly declare the candidates status as public or private funded.
Lastly, and probably more importantly, a department of elections should be created. The DoE would be responsible for verifying the identity and legality of contributions, monitoring and enforcing voter rights and electoral bribery.
At the most fundamental level, elections are what defines democracy, one person, one vote.
2
Union and other labor organizations donated $217 million to campaigns in 2016. 90% of the money went to Democrats. Non profits, including Planned Parenthood and the NRA are also major donors.
3
Less than the three donations to the Trump campaign mentioned, so your point is?
@michjas
Corporations spent seven times that, 95 percent of which went to Republicans.
This is like watching a slow motion car wreck. History is repeating itself and the story isn’t pretty. Once a crisis occurs that makes the current system unsustainable, say climate change or an economic collapse, the vast majority of Americans will have trouble feeding their families and the elites will have to be overthrown with violence.
The idea of American exceptionalism is only true if we act better than other modern democracies. Since we’re now like any other corrupt government, we are also now prone to revolution and collapse the same as other societies.
Western democracy as we know it is on the retreat everywhere. If we don’t acknowledge this fact immediately, then the future belongs to technologically enhanced authoritarian rule like China and Russia. Perhaps Trump is ahead of his time after all.
3
Rather than having the emphasis on campaign contributions, put a limit on campaign spending. Seems like a more equitable solution to curbing the influence of money in our democracy.
4
I shake my head when I read about how well (or not well) a candidate is doing, and it's measured by how much money they have raised. "Candidate A is surging, he/she raised twice as much money last month as Candidate B!"
And elections are just part of it. As also noted, money drives who gets influence. That can be access to officials such as the President, but remember it also fuels the revolving door of elected officials and the lobbying industry, with many legislators using their public office to learn how to game the system, then jumping onto the financial bandwagon once they are out of office.
We need short, publicly financed elections, but also need much stronger limits on the ability of elected officials to use their knowledge and influence when out of office.
2
It is hard to comprehend the Times recommending a band-aid where major surgery is required. Pumping publicly sourced funding into a corrupt system dominated by wealth and power, our oligarchs will simply spend and raise more.
The obvious solution is to overturn CU, ban PACs, place low limits on individual donations, and eliminate corporate and non-profit donations. That along with public funding of elections will place the power of the voters on a level field.
10
It's worth noting that Donald Trump won in 2016 despite having spent only a fraction of what Hillary Clinton's campaign spent. And if we think more money is more influence, then we don't need to worry about Russian influence. The $120,000 they spent on Facebook ads in 2016 couldn't possibly have offset the billions spent by the Democrats.
What is more worrisome is that name recognition seems to be more important than other factors. That certainly helped Trump, and I wouldn't be surprised if more professional athletes and actors run for office based on their names. (Schwarzenegger did it!)
1
Is that number accurate? 120k?
The problems that surround campaign financing is not new. While the debate has been going on, and continues, neither party has come forward to implement the desired solutions.
When all these large corporations extend donations to a political party, it is not done to spread the benefits to the people. It is another form of quid pro quo. The donors expect something in exchange for their campaign donations.
The manner in which donations are made to political parties must be subject to stricter rules and not left unchecked. Why are we having problems in having a comprehensive health care plan? Addressing Climate Change, Income Inequality, to name a few. The question if the last Tax Reforms has helped the people or the wealthy? "More Money, More Problems for Democracy".
3
Yang’s Democracy Dollars, where each citizen is provided $100 by the government each year to spend on political campaigns, is meant to resolve this issue.
By doing this you flush out special interest money several times over, putting incentive for politicians to pay attention to constituents rather than special interests.
Further it empowers citizens to become more involved as voters in a democracy. Rather than feeling impotent, the classic shrug and “what can you do?” I hear all too often, you can do something. You can donate even if you are abjectly poor, vote for people that will represent your interests, and make for a more fully realized democracy.
5
In 2008, Hillary and her usual Wall St. backers were swollen with entitlement and certitude because they thought their Citizens United money made them impregnable. Then a guy named Obama came along and taught the world how to neuter the rich with charisma and massive small contributions. Now Bernie is doing even better at this game. The combination of the growing dominance of our politics by the sheer numbers of progressive Millennials, as the neoliberal and Republican-dominated Boomers disappear, and the power of Millennial small contributions will take care of the blip of outsize dominance of our politics by Citizens United money. Even Trump started out with relatively little fat cat money, but that hardly hurt his 2016 campaign. The little people have figured out how to revolt perfectly well on their own. Maybe the progressive Millennial takeover will give us public financing yet.
1
@Fred White Yep. I agree. I think the hubristic status quo is beginning to feel the tremors of just outrage of the young and the usual tricks of the corrupted wing of the Democratic party against incorruptible Bernie will no longer work.
1
The problem with public financing, as well as with all limits on campaign financing, is that it perpetuates the advantages of incumbency. It's also worth noting that there were plenty of lobbyists in Washington well before Citizens United.
The best way to reduce corruption in Washington is to limit the impact of government on our lives. I would start by eliminating the corporate income tax and tax all business income at the individual shareholder level. That step alone would put thousands of lobbyists out of work. The next step would be to eliminate the tax deduction for "charitable" contributions. It's only the top 10% who itemize deductions that benefit from this anyway.
1
The remaining Democratic candidates should unite in opposition to the recent DNC rule change -- bought and paid for by Bloomberg to secure his spot on the stage -- by boycotting all future DNC-related events unless and until the DNC returns to the (admittedly unfair) rules that have been in place since the beginning of the election cycle.
3
CT is a good example of the consequences of relying public financing of public officials. CT is the nation’s only State with a decade long stagnant economy/employment level with a pronounced Exodus of jobs, firms and residents. CT’s 3 largest cities - Bridgeport, New Haven and Hartford - each have per capita incomes at poverty levels just one half the CT average.
CT’s largest “industry” remains its 165,000 public Unions paid among the highest in the entire nation. There’s little reason to expect continued public financing will improve CT governance.
2
@Peter I Berman What is the causal link between economic decay and public financing? Just because they're taking place at the same time doesn't mean one is causing the other.
Rather than perpetuate a funds race, let's level the playing field on political donations by setting limits on political contributions that applies to everyone. Despite the ear-piercing screams from those making lots of money in outrageously expensive political campaigns, two limits can help a lot. They are: Limit the maximum campaign donation by a voter or company to 10% of the single person poverty level; and limit campaigns to no more than 180 days. The endless duration and bottomless spending in campaigns has transferred power to the wealthy elite and has damaged democracy. Vote in those who will return America to the people and restore democracy. Vote out those who will keep it for themselves.
6
@Better4All That would have to done by Constitutional amendment given the political makeup of SCOTUS.
Senator Alexander’s statement said it all. Yes, Trump is corrupt, but if his corruption serves my financial interests, I don’t care.
Thanks to these Republican senators, we have turned a critical corner in this country and we can move forward with the understanding that our system of government is not corrupt...corruption has become our system of government.
As a designer I met in Soviet era Moscow explained to me, “when corruption is the only system, the people have no choice but to aspire to it.”
7
Public financing would be excellent. However, as Federal Elections Commissioner, Ellen Weinstein, and the Brennan Center have observed it also is possible to ban campaign spending by foreign-owned and foreign-influenced corporations, closing at least partially the door opened by Citizens United.
6
Unfortunately political parties and candidates are far too easily bought in both the US, the UK and most of the world. Our democracies were not designed to function in the attention seeking world we now inhabit.
Limits on individual donations and total campaign spends are a step in the right direction and limited public funding of the sort outlined in Seattle is an excellent way to allow alternative voices to be heard.
The next question is how do you reward truthfulness over mendacity amongst the candidates? A penalty of $$$ for every proven lie told, perhaps?
3
Given the imbalance in "free speech," it's seems that throwing public money at the problem, like in Seattle, is a fix. But it's only short term.
It's just creating an arms race that the public funding won't win.
The "money is free speech" fallacy has to be overturned or at least better regulated to protect those with very little spare "free speech" in their mattresses.
6
@Sara C
"The odd thing is that the U.S. Supreme Court never really gave such a grant of personhood in any of its decisions. Rather, the statement that the Court considered corporations as persons under the Fourteenth Amendment was inserted into the headnote, or prefatory material, of an 1886 case by the man responsible for compiling and printing the Court’s decisions, Bancroft Davis, the court reporter. In the case of Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad (118 U.S. 394), Davis, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice, inserted the following into the headnote:
One of the points made and discussed at length in the brief of counsel for defendants in error was that “Corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” Before argument Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are of opinion that it does."
1
How about drastically limiting spending, regardless of the source?
6
Money only buys influence because voters are easily fooled. If people were generally intelligent the simplistic arguments and the outright lies would not work. What the overlords and the supreme court know is that most people are not able to tell the difference. All one needs to do is repeat a message enough times and most will fall in line. How many moderate democrats still think the GOP is the more fiscally responsible party? I would suggest that it is most. So despite evidence to the contrary the moderate democrats believe the propaganda of their opponents.
Bred and educated to be serfs they cannot overcome this thing they were intended to be. But have no fear, they are in good cults that will assure them a place in heaven if they suffer in this life.
5
@Chris Exactly this. Why is there not more funding for public education? Do the elites simply not value education in general? No, they value education but not for everyone. Makes it easier to control the masses while giving their own children the ability to shape the world themselves.
6
It's somehow odd that Americans who complain of there being too much private money in campaigns and electing multi- billionaires like Donald Trump for president, are ready to do the same thing all over again by voting for Mike Bloomberg, or to a lesser degree, Tom Steyer in the belief that they're saving money by not having to support them.
No surprise that Citizens United and other conservative lobby groups are having a holiday and rushing in to take up the slack.
In the meantime, this president is running the country like one of his businesses -- and he doesn't have a very good track record.
Now would be a good time to remember that there's no such thing as getting something for nothing.
12
Trump is by most reputable accounts not a "multi billionaire."
2
@karen
That's not the point. He's got a lot of money.
Besides do we really know how much Trump has? -- he hasn't been exactly honest about it, has he?
And we're still waiting for his income tax records.
1
@JB Say
Just to be clear.
I don't believe in "hidden attacks"
And my point stands.
1
Other sound democracies like Canada and Britain strictly limit campaigning by time and costs. It works.
That includes what is put up by people "not in the campaign." They can't do it, and the media can't/WON'T run it.
Rich people still find ways to buy power and influence. They still own some politicians.
It is a huge improvement, but it is not a full solution.
What is needed is "naming and shaming."
Politicians who take the money and are owned by the rich ought to be disclosed like Jeffrey Epstein or Harvey Weinstein; they are no better, and may be much more dangerous because they get the power to victimize many more of us.
So who took how much from whom? What have they done for it lately? Where is this really disclosed, outside marginal alternative media?
Why does our mainstream media actually participate in coverup of this? For example, all of the people who have given half million dollar per hour secret speeches to wealthy institutions.
It wasn't only Hillary who did that, but only she was named and shamed, and only by Republicans who hated on her. Democrats defended it, and covered for it. Defended. Covered up. Like Epstein or Weinstein (whom they also knew about for quite some time).
How many others go on to do all the same things, as much as they possibly can?
The clean up needs a lot more than public money poured into the pot.
11
@Mark Thomason -- As a specific suggestion, the NYT could start that naming and shaming with some hard hitting investigative journalism.
So, where are ALL the MANY articles needed to cover the vast number of details about the specifics on who took how much money and when, who gave the money and how, and exactly what specific money has gotten?
1
All intelligent countries work to limit the massive advantages the role of money has in politics. The US is, of course, not one of the intelligent ones. When elections are won by who has the most money the entire concept of democracy is undermined. Why are campaigns not limited in time? Instead of 30 second TV ads, give all free, equal TV time. Stop anonymous money. Put caps on donations. A government of the people, by the people, for the people (anyone remember that) is what we should have.
13
"The best path forward is to limit the influence of wealth by allowing candidates to tap other sources."
Nuts. The best path forward is mandatory public campaign funding, with caps and a limited widow for the campaign.
As it is, elected reps spend half their time raising money and full year (or two) campaigning.
The Times and other media benefit greatly from the tons of campaign cash flowing into the advertising department, which may explain the tepid response to a corrupt industry.
As long as we have a perennial, multi-billion dollar election-industrial complex funneling cash to media / entertainment companies, we will never achieve fairness.
If the UK can run an election in six weeks, so can we. Perhaps then, our representatives would spend more time doing the people's business.
15
Hear, hear!
1
Not to mention the absurd marketing of election / debate coverage: gratitude to our journalists for excellent reporting, but skepticism at how much of the format has devolved into The Hunger Games.
If corporations are people, they should be taxed at the same rate as people. At a minimum we should accomplish this now.
12
@R. Mihm
And on their gross, minus the same standard deduction allowed for an individual. Corporations are able to deduct the "living expenses" of the corporation (payroll, equipment, etc.). With the exception of a few carefully targeted items, individuals cannot deduct their living expenses. Why should a business feel entitled do something that the employees who keep the place up and running cannot? This is what I think of when I hear the word "entitlement," not Social Security and Medicare. There's no one more entitlement-minded than a business owner.
Start treating businesses like individuals and things would change for the better and fast. And please, don't trot out the tired, old "taxed twice" argument. Income is income for the recipient, whether it's in the form of a paycheck earned by working, dividends and capital gains, or an inheritance. It doesn't matter who's already been taxed on it. Tax all income the same. Every time it changes hands.
5
The only way campaign limits work is with term limits. Otherwise the person in office with the name recognition gets re-elected time and time again. There are several house and senate elected officials today who have been in office for 35-45 years.
2
What the US SC's Citizens United ruling did was to give formal legal sactiion to what was already a reality in the US democracy. Now not only the big money has acquired its free speech right but also become an arbiter in choosing the rulers of the country who will only follow the policy dictates given by the campaign financiers and the similar special interest groups. The US has long forgotten Lncoln and has come up with a new definition of democracy--Government of the moneyed, by the moneyed, and for the moneyed. American Inc is now a real ruler.
4
We know. That’s why we’re volunteering to elect Sanders. Don’t despair. Join us.
2
My solution, for what it's worth:
No public money. Every voter can spend $100 per year contributing to candidates. They can give it all to one person or give 100 candidates $1 each, their choice. Truthfully, even a $100 cap is probably too generous given the fact that half of the country can't come up with $400 in an emergency.
Only those eligible to vote (aka people) can contribute. No corporations. No businesses. No unions. No PACs. No interest groups. No churches. Only those who can vote can give. No giving in your two year old's name as well as your own.
Contributions can only go to a candidate in an election in which that contributor can vote. For example, as much as I abhor Mitch McConnell, I should not be able to contribute to his opponent's campaign. And Kentuckians should not be able to contribute to Rob Portman's or Sherrod Brown's campaign. No crossover.
All donations should be public in an easily searchable database, including the contributors full name. If you're ashamed of your contribution perhaps you ought to rethink whether you really should be supporting that candidate. Either own it or don't do it.
Is this a perfect solution? Of course not. It would howerver be a giant step in the right direction. But I fear it's way too late.
5
@pedigrees
Major portions of private donations are transmitted in cash. Not much likelihood of a searchable data base here. Major politicians rarely retire impoverished. “Public service” is often more rewarding than many citizens can imagine.
Total spending for the 2016 presidential election, including candidates, parties, and outside groups, has been estimated at $2.4 billion (OpenSecrets.org). Charles Koch’s net worth is somewhere around $50 billion. He could have paid for the whole show on annual earnings alone. Money is power.
3
Our Founders gave equal power to every citizen with one person, one vote. Vote to increase democracy. That’s why Sanders is running, if you ask me.
6
@David
It is always assumed that private spending works for the benefit of the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. But this is not necessarily true: Look at Bloomberg, Steyer and Soros, etc.
2
@David
Both former Presidents Clinton and Obama retired from “public service” with major fortunes. Even though they had only very modest wealth prior to their political careers. Should we remain unconcerned about such wealthy enhancement while performing and immediately after so called “pubic service” ?
Or is substantial wealth just a “perk” of so called “public service” ? Oft referred to as “feeding on the public trough”.
Although it sounds counterintuitive, Citizens United is actually a reason to elect Mike Bloomberg come November- because not a dime of outside money will ever influence him.
3
Outside money doesn’t have to sway him. Greed to keep from being taxed to take away his own money is the reason he’s running.
5
@Doug M
"...not a dime of outside money will ever influence him."
Uh huh. Seems like I've heard that one before. How's that working out?
1
@Lilly
That argument is absurd and totally specious. If you took away 99 % of Bloomberg’s money it would not have any effect on his standard of living. I suspect you know this but what you might not know is that your false argument plays into Trump getting re-elected. Good luck with that!
Or perhaps you are saying that it’s a bad thing for Bloomberg to spend as many billions as it takes - of his own money- to defeat Donald Trump.
PS. Have you read anything about Bloomberg’s tax plan or how he is the quintessential philanthropist?
1
It is interesting. None of the Democrats seem to be raising issues with Bloomberg spending billions to support Democrat candidates. I guess that type of spending is ok.
6
No one I know wants an oligarchy purchasing the presidency. But, I left the Democratic Party after I started noticing how corrupt the DNC was and watching what Clinton and the media did last primary to sway the election before a single vote was cast.
1
I think the press has an obligation to interview Anthony Kennedy once a year on the anniversary of Citizens United, for which his was the deciding vote. His opinion was all about the way that corporate money was safe because it could not be used in a way directly controlled by the candidate or his or her campaign.
How are we doing now, Justice Kennedy? Did the campaign finance system turn out as you envisioned? Would you vote the same way today?
Once a year the esteemed retired Justice needs to be reminded of the impact of his decision. And the rest of us need to be reminded of his pivotal role in creating the system we all live under today, where people don't have a say but money does.
9
@Mobiguy And the rest of us want to know about Justice Kennedy’s sudden decision to leave the bench, his son’s work with Deutche Bank, and who paid off under-qualified Brett Kavanaugh’s loans, post-rushed-confirmation.
The power of Mitch McConnell to thwart the wishes of 75% of Americans for an actual trial with testimony in the impeachment of Donald Trump stems from McConnell’s power to bully Republican senators.
McConnell’s power to bully the relative handful of Republican senators with consciences stems from the extraordinary amount of secret money which is consolidated for McConnell’s use on a daily basis.
The sources of McConnell’s secret money are the several PACs allowed and recommended by the Republican majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision.
Thus, it is with great irony that Chief Justice John Roberts, presided over the non-Trial “Trial” of President Donald J. Trump.
The legacy of Chief Justice Roberts is a deep distrust and sadness felt by most Americans for our federal judiciary.
13
@sdw
We just watched the Reps flip the bird to the constitution: We know how we (the sworn to be impartial) jurors will vote, so we won't allow witnesses or documentation in the "trial". Give him a fair trial, and then acquit him. Not only was it rigged, they didn't even tip their hats to the constitutional process, or their oaths. It will be interesting to see how it can get worse. It will.
2
Fully and exclusively public funding of elections.
(Which would mean, of course, the repeal of Citizens United.)
Reduce the campaigning season to four months, tops.
Return the management of debates to The League of Women Voters.
Hold all primaries on the same day, nation-wide—preferably a weekend. (Maybe establish a fine for failure to vote?)
Establish ranked-choice voting.
Anything else? Probably. But just these few changes would be nothing short of revolutionary.
6
By only accepting money from small donations from citizens, Sanders has already run two campaigns solely funded by the public, but without any law to make it happen. Only with policies for necessary change. Actual change. Yes, we can, this time.
5
Agreed.
It has produced the extreme partisanship we're experiencing now.
Average Americans far outnumber the oligarchs and could easily kick out the politicians who cater to the rich crowd. Of course, they are also the voters who elected Donald Trump as our president. Not much hope there.
5
Once you open Pandora’s box of public funding, where will it stop? Can you imagine what politicians would agree to fund themselves over time? It would make gerrymandering look innocuous.
This is another pipe dream that the board should not be wasting time with.
2
@Mike Cos
What is a better alternative?
At least Justice Roberts was forced to take an up close and personal look at the mess he helped to create.
4
It’s time to not depend on those in power caring enough to change anything for the better. It’s time to increase democracy the only way it works. By participating.
2
Citizens United also gives foreign companies an easy way to funnel money into campaigns as Mr. Zekelman illustrates.
6
It’s interesting that a newspaper based in New York City would write an editorial about the corrupting influence of private donations to politicians and not devote a single word to the city’s coin-operated mayor.
Why does de Blasio get a free pass?
2
You write that there are "a pair of intertwined developments...that have magnified the influence of money..."
Thomas Jefferson would add one more - the development that, without which, the two you write about would either be less influential, or not even have come about.
That development is the decline in widespread, general education for citizens. Here is Jefferson on the dangers of such a development.
“…Preach…a crusade against ignorance…improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against…evil, and that…kings, priests and nobles…will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance…”
5
I’m afraid the American who vote for Trump and the Republicans are uneducable. Their willful ignorance can’t be undermined by a lecture.
@Kevinlarson At this point, your are right. The point I'm making goes back to totally inadequate k-12 education - which in itself is due to the corrupted values of higher education. See my blog inside-higher-ed.com to see the explanation of that, along with documented illustrations.
If corporations enjoy individual rights, like freedom of speech, they should also be subject to the same legal responsibilities as individuals. A corporation who’s actions kill another citizen should be subject to the same rules as individuals who commit murder. The CEO, perhaps along with members of the board of directors acting as accessories, should be at risk for punishments including the death penalty or life imprisonment without eligibility for parole.
5
The top 1% control about 40% of the wealth. The next 9%, who earn between $120,000 and $450,000, control about 50% of the wealth and they are mostly upscale professionals, including many Democrats.
So Democrats and Republicans are similarly positioned to donate big money and Citizens United helps them to buy influence equally.
Those who think Republicans fare better are wrong, which doesn’t stop them from complaining. The notion that Democrats are poor is utter nonsense. And the notion that Republican billionaires have more influence than wealthy Democrats is false.
2
How many billionaires are needed to run our government?
Which billionaire's children are next in line to run our government?
Which unelected billionaires, are legislating from behind the curtain?
Why do we put up with this?
8
@Martin
Does "Queen Ivanka" mean anything to you?
1
Lot's of inaccuracies and innuendo's regarding trump here.
Why not just say it outloud rather than talk about this million or that million someone donated to Trump.
Bloomberg can put more money into his run than all presidential efforts combined.
100's times more than any candidate has ever spent.
5 billion? ten billion? 20 billion? Does anyone even know how these enormous sums will effect the election?
1
there's no reason not to have all the primaries on one day, nationwide. that will never happen simply because US elections are money making opportunities, the whole political enterprise is a huge con game on the people. and the money making media keeps us sheep entertained.
9
Because of Robert's "Citizens United" court, a billionaire can now legally bribe/buy a candidate to do his bidding.
It's the worst decision in Supreme Court history.
10
Allow me to point out that you have been looking at the issue thru the wrong end of the telescope.
ALL money is private. The tax money used to run the limited legitimate business of the nation belongs to the tax payers, not our elected agents.
Who we support is a matter of privacy, not a matter of public largess.
Who we elect is our choice.
After 6 decades of repeating the same mistakes and pouring money down social rat holes and reaping negative results, it is time to return to sanity.
Get the unelected functionaries out of the process. Put an end to the wasted effort to create a federal hegemony and let the taxpayers decide who they want to support with their money.
1
That’s one reason Bernie is inspiring ordinary Americans to run for office, and increase participation in democracy.
3
When I first read that a Canadian had given 1,75 million to Trump, I almost fell off my chair. Both the giver and the recipient would go to jail for a long time on this side of the border. An aggravating factor in sentencing is the fact that a foreign individual is corrupting an elected official.
Imagine how much money these guys can squeeze out of businesses when negotiating a trade deal.
6
The progressive collective state supervisors publicly funding themselves in perpetuity. Pay and obey!
1
Thank you for this searing editorial, an embarrassment to a country that loudly, hypocritically proclaims itself a bastion of democratic ideals. We await the results of the criminal investigation underway by New York federal prosecutors, focusing on the alleged rank illegalities and “pay to play” corruption involving Trump’s inaugural committee which raised over 100 million dollars, by far a record in presidential fundraising. Disgust does not begin to describe the angry reaction of most citizens to this unacceptable state of affairs, obviously another cogent reason to vote as if the very future of America as a representative democracy is at stake. It is.
3
Democratic Members of Congress badly debased Congress with their appalling impeachment farce . It will be years before public trust in the institution can be restored. Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer should set an example by publicly apologizing for their disgraceful political malpractice and resign .
2
I await the move in a few years, Schiff’s Folly”.
The Times, itself, is guilty of not holding Michael Bloomberg to a regular standard for political candidates. So far, not a single article has been analytical of his legacy, nor allow reader’s comments. Stop-and-search, a third undemocratic Mayoral term and a legacy of leaving the most segregated d public school system in the country, a segregated city. A-free-for-all for his NYC’s developers friends who have turned even city hospitals for the poor into luxury apartments sold to international crooks who need money washing , complete with real tax breaks that allow them to contribute zero taxes to the city for decades. Can you say Kushner family? Bloomberg is bad news to our democratic values 250 yrs strong as he takes advantage of the “dirty money” free-for-all option.
2
It's not just the transactional corruption that results from dark money. The long term corrosion of dark money comes from the institutions it funds. The Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, Breitbart, and others of this ilk are simply instruments of disinformation. These institutions develop and nurture narratives that are picked up and disseminated to right-wing media. They smear the opposition on every level, fabricate and distort issues, but above all they sustain the themes of fear, anger and hate. It's a well-coordinated, 24/7 operation that has been very successful, but also very expensive. If you want to limit the effects of dark money, start taxing these institutions. Yeah, I know. Fat chance.
3
We seem to focus on the ugly process of turning campaigns into auctions, how about focuses more on the outcomes that would result if say Sheldon & Miriam end up being the highest bidders? Maybe shed some light on the Adelson’s agenda & how it will effect the average voter?
If the voters see that they are funding politicians who would help them greedily line their own pockets while undermining education, taking away healthcare benefits, privatizing Medicare and otherwise turning a cold shoulder to the concerns of the public. Voters already know there is too much money in politics, how about shine the light on those behind the curtain.
4
There's a rather glaring omission of Mike Bloomberg in this article. He is the most egregious example of a billionaire trying to buy his way to the presidency. But he's a Democrat, so that doesn't count.
1
You are right that money is the evil king of this and every other country. The selfish greed of individuals, men and women, seems unending. The Republicans have the most special of all mammon-loving leaders: Trump. He, and they, deny climate change even exists as being influenced by our actions. Burn the coal, the gas, the earth. Just burn and make a good profit. This is the end-game of money as king.
We have a mountain of corruptions to climb, including a right-wing Supreme Court. I hope the Senate flips this fall; it could. But to get rid of the President, the traitorous, criminal, serial-liar/bully/braggart, I would talk about three things:
1. The reality of the situation, whether that be climate, inequality, concentrated wealth and poverty, gun laws, abortion, health care, housing. Talk about it all. Responsibly.
2. Then, go to the 50 talking points of all the dishonorable things Trump has said and done; use his whole life, use the recordings and videos. And, be sure to talk about the real economy working for the few with most new jobs being lacking of income necessary for that 'American Dream'. Show the charts of inequality always, and the tax cuts the Republicans established for the richest. Use the insipid words used to 'defend' the President from guilt of crimes in the Senate.
3. Repeat the real issues facing us. Tell us why Democrats care about everyone, care about the home planet, care about you. We care about you. We. We all rise or we all fall. We the People.
2
Incorrect. The only answer is a constitutional amendment to repeal Citizens United. Too many U.S. citizens have NO IDEA that the 'corporate personhood' of Citizens United allows an unrestricted flow of money into U.S. elections from other countries (many U.S. corporations are international and thus the international spigot of money is open). The hypocrisy of blaming Russia, China and North Korea (or any other country) for so-called "hacking our elections" is one finger pointing while the other three-fingers-in-the-fist are pointing back to US, i.e. blaming others for our own internal, election-cycle problems. Like the song goes: "...before you accuse me, take a look at yourself," which unfortunately the U.S. citizenry doesn't do because a very young country like the U.S. continually amuses itself to death in a sort-of jingoist denial of reality. Mike Bloomberg jumped back into the race the moment Liz W. came-up with the 2¢ wealth tax. The entertainment-mirage is "anything to beat Trump." The reality is that Wall St and the rest of the global financial markets around the world have been leveraging debt to create "wealth" for years (a dubious proposition at best). Hide those globally over-leveraged positions with the international funding of the U.S.'s Academy-Awards, star-studded, reality-show elections---sprinkled with an internal, faux-democratic "vote," and the pitchforks go away, a new vaudeville, election-cycle starts, and debt remains king worldwide. Pass the Doritos.
1
Getting rid of "Citizen's United" and adopting public campaign financing are exactly how we get democracy back.
Anything less won't work.
Consider just the last few days: All Mitch McConnell had to do to keep most of his cowardly Republican Senators in line, was threaten to withhold contributions from the dark-money superpac that he controls.
3
When it comes to corporate sovereignty RGB is no hero.
So let the poor have a bigger say? Let me guess, they will vote to give themselves my money.
1
@daniel r potter
It was settled law in 1840 that corporation was a person? Please reference the source of your information.
Reversing Citizens United should be at the top of the Democratic platform.
3
It’s on Bernie’s To Do List.
Surprised that you did not mention Bernie’s individual only small donor no “pac” campaign as a great alternative. No legislation required by a candidate who got it right for his second campaign in a row. Ethos!
3
McCain and Obama agreed to only spend the amount that the government provides. Then Obama backed out and spent ten times what McCain spent. Did you like the result? Hilary spent about twice what Trump spent. Apparently she should have spent more. Will Bloomberg buy the Presidency by profligate spending?
2
money truly is the root of all evil, especially in the trump era.
I don't know what, exactly, the point of this editorial could possibly be. Timed to coincide with Trump triumphing in the sham Senate impeachment trial, this piece is spectacularly at odds with the new American reality. You're going after Citizens United at a time when the pendulum is swinging hard in the opposite direction. The now completely unfettered president is going to institutionalize graft and influence peddling. Running this makes the editorial board look hopelessly naive and pollyannish. The Times should be more worried about the inevitable curtailing of press freedom that must follow Trump's achievement of absolute freedom from removal from office.
3
Is there a way back? I am not sanguine. Short of a complete "pitchfork" revolution where the rich and powerful are drug into the street, hands bound, given summary judgement and a harsh sentence rendered I don't see this changing. They are too rich and too powerful. The police are owned along with the politicians. We reached the end game. Degenerate capitalism has won. Say hello to the new serfdom.
23
@Paul
Yes, there is a way.
Have some courage.
Vote for Bernie Sanders and his revolution.
Or, do you really not want change.
The NYT and other Establishment media may decry that us democracy has long been sold to the highest bidders,
but they are supremely unwilling to endorse real change that might disrupt their beloved status quo.
The NYT and other Establishment media, and the status quo protecting Wall Street supporting carefully moderate Establishment are afraid of Sanders.
His integrity makes them look like part of the swamp they defend and protect.
As for Sander's ideas,
a 2016 Harper's article by Thomas Franks, after having meticulously examined Washington Post reporting on Bernie Sanders. "As we shall see, for the sort of people who write and edit the opinion pages of the Post, there was something deeply threatening about Sanders and his political views. He seems to have represented something horrifying, something that could not be spoken of directly but that clearly needed to be suppressed.
" ..."Think of all the grand ideas that flicker in the background of the Sanders-denouncing stories I have just recounted. There is the admiration for consensus, the worship of pragmatism and bipartisanship, the contempt for populist outcry, the repeated equating of dissent with partisan disloyalty."
Bernie Sanders' integrity, bold ideas, vision and courage way outshine the media's attempt to marginalize him and his ideas.
10
@Paul I think you are right here but I assume no pitchfork revolution but rather home grown terrorism. We see how easy it has been for the Taliban (a marginal relatively small group) to wreak havoc with IED's and suicide attacks even while the US pours hundreds of millions into prevention. When the extreme left finds there is no winning no matter how many more votes the Democrats get they will turn to other methods. We are a very soft target in this country.
5
@Lab333 Restrict citizens and companies from campaign donations. Seems logical, but for people unfamiliar with Citizens United, it involved the paid fo see viewing of a movie 90 days before an election. Really? Who decides what is political speech? This publication, and every other media outlet runs negative Trump information hourly. That is worth billions of dollars. Should The Court have ruled against the distribution of the movie 3 months before the election, and included other media outlets the same way? Would media outlets prefer no political columns 90 days before an election? No, they want a monopoly, to be permitted unfettered coverage, with any pushback, or counter arguments to be silenced. That is not a fair election. The Times is the largest political donor in every election. They act like they want a fair election. What the want is a monopoly to control a narrative until Election Day. How much would large newspapers be worth if wealthy people can control political outcomes. Ask Jeff Bezos. Bloomberg banned his news companies from investigating him, not Trump. See how it works? Do we want political parties to purchase networks, media outlets, and newspapers to avoid new laws? I don’t think so.
3
Elections have become an insider's game. Checkbooks not ballots are the tokens of choosing winners and losers. Add to that, the system fails with heaping doses of distorted information and twisted rationales about how funneling dark, unattributed "money" into choosing a government is actually free speech akin to me, let's say, writing to a newspaper about my disagreement with this government. This nonsense cannot go on forever, but it will likely take a long time to something better and fairer. I am grievously sad that my grandchildren will never know the frothy though imperfect America that used to have the appearance to be on a track for a just and fair union.
23
Public funding would certainly help. However, you can't legislate public funding in fixed dollar amounts. Not when private funding is limitless. The value of the dollar tends to depreciate as the cost of services appreciates. Running a campaign isn't getting any cheaper. We call the phenomenon inflation. $100 dollar donations might make Dan Strauss viable today. However, ten years from now, Strauss is still collecting $100 donations while Amazon can spend $2-3-400 to Strauss's one.
You need to adjust campaign limits to meet campaign inflation at least. Even more aggressive, you could level the playing field by making campaign matching unlimited. The outrageous campaign costs to the federal government would force Congress to debate the issue. You know? The reason we have a Congress. Debating important issues.
1
This is why we need a Warren or Sanders. This country needs big structural change or it will only get worse for the vast majority of our citizens.
2
Warren stood by Clinton and fought against Sanders and every progressive policy that Americans desperately needed last election. Warren didn’t dare break with Clinton to endorse Bernie, and yet she is running on almost every progressive policy this time. What else will she not dare do to protect herself? Sanders understands how much unnecessary and unconscionable suffering her decision caused, including the election of Trump. Sanders proves he is the most trustworthy candidate and that’s why he’s ahead.
3
@Lilly Warren has always been progressive and (unlike Bernie, as far as I can tell) has worked to create protections for Americans from our rapacious financial institutions. If you have an issue with a financial institute's wrongdoing - your bank, a collection agency hounding you, etc., you have recourse to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, thanks to Warren. We sent a complaint about a collection agency to the CFPB wrongfully harassing our son, after months of providing the agency (and the original creditor) with evidence that they had made a mistake. After sending the CFPB the same information we had been sending the agency, we received a letter of apology from the collection agency, which withdrew its complaint (thereby sparing our son a "black mark" on his credit rating as he starts out in adult life). I very much appreciate this real help. And are you really blaming Warren that Bernie didn't get elected?
2
Give each candidate a certain amount of money from taxpayers. Shorten the campaign cycle to one year. Allow no outside donations, super PACs or corporate donations.
Ban lobbyists and any underhanded political donations from foreign governments, or gifts of any kind.
We must give our presidential candidates a level playing field. We want the most qualified man or woman to seek this very important office and it's imperative we give them the proper tools with which to work.
Baring these changes, we leave our government open to unwanted manipulation and outside influence. We must never again allow a foreign government to step in and help elect our president.
We're paying the price for our inattention and inability to change these problems. The onus for these changes is on us.
3
The wierd thing about american goverment is that it seems to deal only in extrems e.g. gun control and political spending. The whole notion of: you can only have certain freedoms when the regulation is adequate. seems to be lost. I'm from Germany and we have the Autobahn, where you can go theoretically as fast as your car can drive, but that comes with regulation so you have to prove your vehicle is save every two years. So to recap: if you want certain freedoms you have to regulate them heavily!
6
While I agree that campaign financing changes are needed, I disagree with your solution. I think only allowing contributions from a person who can vote for the candidate would eliminate part of the problem. Secondly, impose a reasonable limit on how much each individual voter can contribute to limit the ability of the wealthy to influence our elected officials. Finally, require all contributions be sent to the federal election commission for verification before sending them on to the candidate.
7
So, you are suggesting that, being a supporter, say, of Bloomberg, I should also be required, through my tax dollars, to support his opponent. There's something wrong with that. Why would I give money to the enemy so they can purchase more weapons to defeat my candidate? A better solution is to give tax incentives to the other candidates donors.
1
@Jimmy
You are not being asked to support his opponent, you are being asked to ensure that his opponent's megaphone broadcasts just as loudly as Bloomberg's megaphone, so you and others can make the decision fairly in the voting booth.
BTW, tax incentives are just another way of using public money.
6
@pmbrig Okay, no incentives.
@Jimmy - Zero sum, thinking. Step back a bit - our tax money would be devoted to supporting democracy, not "the enemy".
1
Canada’s Supreme Court ruled on a very similar law as Citizens United and had the opposite verdict. The court found that while there was a limitation on the freedom of speech, it was sustained as the intended benefits for a pluralistic democracy were far greater than any infringement.
The second great joy in Canada is that Parliament can over rule the court, so the people’s representatives can overturn the opinion$ of a handful of appointees.
Sorry that your your system has been purchased by the oligarchs.
25
Bernie is trying again to return the country to democracy. Pray we can do it this time.
6
Thanks for this. Another example of our northern neighbors’ opposite lean towards common sense.
6
Unfortunately corporate donations are just as bad as union donations. Government union political contributions are particularly troubling as union goals often run counter to those of taxpayers that ultimately bear the ultimate burden. Ban all but individual support and we will all be better off.
4
If you truly care about getting money out of politics, the only way to do so is to fight for a liberal majority on the Supreme Court that lasts generations. And you're going to have to fight harder than the anti-choice zealots do for "conservatives". That is the only logical conclusion.
Anything passed legislatively would require 60 Senate votes, a House majority, and the President. And even if Democrats were to get that through, they would surely find whatever they passed overruled with a conservative SCOTUS.
4
The social system of any culture is an exercise in power, and politics is therefore warfare without violence, a way of channeling the struggle for power. The Constitution was an attempt to design a system in which the the wishes of citizens had real power. Buckley v. Valeo ruled that money is speech, and then Citizens United decided that money in politics could not be limited. SCOTUS has eviscerated our ability to use the power of government to represent the interests of the people of this country to counter the power of big money.
Big money is now free to spread propaganda without restraint. We are witnessing the dissolution of the US as a representative democracy. No more checks and balances, just checks.
15
No public money. In doing so you eliminate my First Amendment rights and direct my tax dollars to candidates I do not support. Not interested in more statist solutions.
1
@Once From Rome
Public money for elections directs your tax money towards allowing you to decide, with your vote, who will have political power. Currently, the money I spend in the marketplace gets used by corporations to boost candidates I don't support. I prefer a level playing field, thank you.
9
@Once From Rome
Your puritanical stance guarantees 0.1% public policy instead of 99% public policy.
It's much better to have to put up with public funding of a few crackpots who will be filtered out by voting than have to put up with our patently corrupted duopoly that caters to the uber wealthy.
Americans can exercise their First Amendment quite well without the rich 'legally' bribing candidates who are begging for their money.
Look at the reality, not just your First Amendment ivory tower that built on a sewer of 0.1% campaign cash.
9
@Once From Rome So you like the influence of money disrupting our one citizen-one vote democracy. You do not see that your tax dollars could serve to provide us the choice of candidates vs merely supporting your favorite candidate. God Help Us,
3
With Citizens United ( what a kafkesque and paradoxical name ) the Supreme Court of this Great Country has been demolishing our democracy to install a plutocracy with a concomitant “ mixed theocracy “ . Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves in dismay.
21
It didn't take long to turn into a banana republic. My lost America.
7
Don’t despair, please. Join us and increase democracy.
Interesting subject. Big money has typically gone to progressive candidates as an “insurance policy” in case they get elected. That way their company will possibly be exempt from drastic policy changes. There are more globalist billionaires and money going to left leaning candidates. It’s funny because the media wants you to think those evil corporations donate to conservatives, but in fact it’s the opposite. If I wanted to get rich and had no ethics, I would be a progressive politician. They literally shake down everyone like the mafia. Look at how much Gore has made peddling climate change. Look at how much the Clintons made selling out the country. Look at Pelosi & Biden. They are in it for the money, not the cause.
1
Clinton is not progressive. Warren helped Clinton fight against every progressive policy last election, hammer and tongs.
2
Hit them in the pocketbook now. If you have money on wall street get it out of equities and into cash or bonds until after the election cycle. Don’t continue to play the wall street sucker game. No Democrat should have money in equities, especially mutual fund portfolios with the likes of Facebook included this year. Make it hurt.
2
@Pete the Supreme Court will find any new tax on the wealthy to be illegal 5-4.
1
Now there’s a bad idea.
Democraty has been replaced with moneycraty because a majority of the SCOTUS judges are oligarch friendly.
4
The solution is very simple and straight forward.
Everyone in government understands this solution, but no one wants to implement it. The solution requires too much change in "how things work" in WashDC. Too many Power-Elites and Bureaucrats would have to struggle to maintain their positions of authority.
The USA has reached that point of crisis, long talked about by the futurists such as Marshall Macluhan and Alvin Toffler.
....
Solution.....
TAX campaign contributions.
TAX Lobbying Groups.
TAX the Internet.
The serious solution to any number of complaints we all have at this moment in the USA......is a radical revision of the TAX CODE.
Alex the Great solved the Gordian Knot problem by simply chopping it up.
4
@Wherever Hugo
TAX investment transactions
ELIMINATE Lobbying groups.
GUARANTEE one person /one vote
ELIMINATE the electoral college
just a couple more. . .
1
Campaign finance reform is not going to happen. Congress is a millionaire factory. Heck even Bernie Sanders couldn’t avoid becoming one. Michael Cohen is in jail. One count too which he pleaded guilty was 52 USC 30109(d), for assisting his client in failing to disclose a $125,000, and a $150,000 contribution to silence two women in the days/weeks before the election. Our President is an unindicted co-conspirator in this felony level offense. The aim of the offense was to fix the 2016 election. The President was just tried for wrongfully trying to fix an election. One of his centerpiece defenses was that he hadn’t committed a crime. The Democrats aren’t going to kill the goose that lays the golden legislature-believe it! Yes your country is as deeply corrupt as the Ukraine.
2
@Powderchords If not more corrupt.
Am I missing something? Are Trump and the Republicans the only political party to be corrupted by corporate money? The Dems started down this dark path in 1978, when Tony Coelho, made it a policy to accept big money from big business. Our Democracy has experienced a bi partisan rot ever since.
https://maplight.org/story/corporate-pac-donation-history-for-2020-democratic-candidates-reveals-few-surprises/
3
Billionaires lobbying for a cross national highway for self driving trucks funded by tax payers and designed to put hundreds of thousands of truck drivers out of work. Keep voting republican - and we will all be serfs.
15
Bernie has already done this!
3
@Lilly I trust you will be voting for whoever the Democratic candidate is - and encouraging others to do the same.
1
Money corrupts, corrupt money corrupts absolutely.
1
And I think money laundered in from foreign countries is an obvious issue with Russia and the Republicans as a prime example.
7
What the Senate, Electoral College, Cabinet and Supreme Court of the United States don't you accept nor understand that America is not and never was meant to be ' our democracy'?
America is and always has been a very peculiar kind of republic.
A divided limited different power constitutional republic of united states where only the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant Founding Fathers who owned property including their enslaved black African men, women and children along with the lands and natural resources stolen from brown Indigenous nation men, women and children were originally intended to be divinely naturally created equal persons with certain unalienable rights of life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In America corporations are people and money is speech.
The Civil War, Reconstruction and Civil Rights eras were fought to include more types of Americans within the meaning of persons in our Constitutional republic.
And the biggest ' winners' of the black men, women and children blood, sweat and tears shed in those ' fights' have been the powerful and privileged lwhite European American Judeo-Christian women and LGTBQ majority.
1
Unlimited Money + Unlimited Power = Unlimited Corruption
7
It’s pretty simple (but not easy):
If every Democrat-leaning voter gets up and out and votes on 11/3/20, we can make this happen.
Simple. Not easy. Unite. UNITE!!!
11/3/20. VOTE.
Hillary Clinton raised hundreds of millions more than Trump. Bloomberg is spending hundreds of millions to either be the nominee, or obtain influence with the DNC and eventual nominee. Tom Steyer is doing the same. As for PACs, Eric Holder keeps sending emails from Obama for his AOTL PAC, which does what? Prominent Democrat George Soros spends hundreds of millions from his "charity" to fund Democrat political causes. Lev Parnas is small beans compared to the money floating around in Democrat circles. Joe Biden is taking money primarily from large donors with special interests. Democrats are the hypocrites here.
1
@TL
You forget the Russian fix, which was crucial in a close race.
And Trump is openly seeking more foreign aid this time.
1
@T
He cheats. That is what he does. The only thing he does well.
That’s why Clinton and the DNC doesn’t consider Sanders a ‘Democrat’. He refuses to be corrupt.
We need to ban political ads. It is clear that the American public has stopped reading and is too stupid to realize Russian and other propaganda when they see it.
4
Late to the party, after testing the wind. Surprise. NYT should get on the bandwagon to open a Constitutional Convention to make bribery, (better known as "Citizens United"--should have been called "Oligarchy United") illegal in our election process. And, get rid of lobbyists, and the electoral college, too. The money is killing our democracy, and non-direct voting is killing the "one citizen,one vote" nature of our elections. This is why folks don't vote--Republicrooks really like it this way!
5
I think that money is not the only problem with our elections. I do not think that direct funding with public money is good. I would rather create a law that makes a radio, television stations and web companies broadcast x amount of adds free to each candidate equally, as part of their licensing.
This article only highlights one problem with our elections. We should also have a single day for primaries. We should also do away with the electoral college. Our constitution is a living document we must bring it back to life so as to help " We The People ". Our founding fathers new enough to brake away from England because of the King and what one person rule means to The People. They had money reasons for leaving but they coupled that with righteous reasons also. How else could they bring the masses with them on they're quest for freedom from the crown. We now stand at the same spot as our for fathers. We have a demigod in control because of all the inequities that the masses have endured. Just as any demigod he has chosen to highlight all that is bad by blaming the vulnerable among us. Fortunately we have more people recognizing what is happening and we have the power to correct it, without lighting the house on fire. VOTE!!
1
It is commendable that the NYT is advocating for public funding for political campaign. But like all things related to public policies in the US, advocating for progressive polices for the for the well-being of the average Americans and strengthening democratic institutions will inevitably run into an immovable wall of resistance from the capital owners and indifference from the average and passive Americans.
Democracy in the US has steadily fallen far from the ideals and values of what the founding documents stated, which were less than desired of what constitutes a true democracy. If recent history is of any guide, the US is inexorably heading into a very dark and frightening age.
“ Countering private campaign funding with public campaign funding is the most viable way to limit the political influence of the wealthy.”
The rich own the government.
That is no accident.
4
By only taking small dollar donations (and zero big money fundraisers and zero from super pacs) from the start, Bernie has proved good policies are all a campaign needs. Bernie has already increased participation in our democracy by giving millions hope that our democracy isn’t dead yet. This is how our country is supposed to work. This is what the Founders wanted for us. Let’s take it.
3
I would submit that the state we are in is NOT due to obscene amounts of money spent on persuading one side or the other. The state we are in is due to NOT enough people caring or taking their citizenship (let alone freedoms) seriously.
Note more than 100 million sit out any given election.
Note as well, that many politicians win by only a few hundred.
IF we are going to wrestle back our Democracy, Republic, freedoms, towns, states, country or world, then we must make voting MANDATORY.
We must make it mandatory voting by paper ballot and preferably by mail. In lieu of that, there should be a national day off to vote. It should be automatic that all citizens be registered to vote when they sign up for any type of identification. (driver;s license and the like).
Further, we could do what other countries do and have a publicly financed election for no more than 6 to 8 weeks, Further still, we could treat it like the census and have millions hired to help at MORE election stations. (if paper ballot by mail is too much of an inconvenience)
Or, people could just care about their futures.
3
@FunkyIrishman Yes, I agree voting should be mandatory and a National Holiday. Instead of President's Day make it Democracy Day. Unfortunately, the powers that be, really don't want everyone voting. On another note, how about the most viable of the non-party candidates getting the public monies for a well funded 3rd party run?
3
@Mancub
IF voting was mandatory, then the problems of a two party stranglehold would diminish, because obviously the electorate pool would be massive and split in a multitude of different ways.
I think it would spread out to about 5 or 6 viable parties. Think about that for a moment.
Things would then get done.
1
The state we are in is because of racism pure and “simple.” Otherwise how could America go from a solid, educated, pleasant, decent loving family man who purely and openly lived the values this country has respected to a self-serving, lying, racist, corrupting womanizer with three wives with five children and saddled with sexual abuse lawsuits ...and that’s just for starters.
1
Priorities, please. Complaining about dark money when our democracy is in imminent danger is backwards. We need to defeat Trump, fix what he has broken, enfranchise and include all Americans, and then chase dreams.
On Friday, Bill Maher got it right: This is like 'Bringing a notion to a gunfight'. Fight to win, not to convince.
Like any disease, a country has to come down ill with a bad idea before it learns to thoroughly reject it. Unrestricted campaign finance by corporations and the wealthy, followed up by lobbying and political organization threaten to pull all the wiring out of our republic. Business will find a cheaper bargain via authoritarian plutocracy. Once people have lived through such a system, and if it can be overthrown, they will never emulate it in the future.
I would prefer an end to all private funding of election campaigns because private money reduces our democracy to a plutocracy.
Laws should be passed that require the television and radio stations, and newspapers to provide free debates and free ads to all candidates who meet a minimum threshold of low budget contributions that goes to the government, rather than the candidates, television, and radio stations. The media should provide this service for free as a public service. The equal time should be only allowed at designated scheduled times.
The candidate who attracts the most contributions should not matter. All candidates who meet a minimum threshold should receive equal time in the media during the primary season.
The two final candidates from each party should then receive equal time in the election. Individuals should be allowed to write letters to the editor, put up yard signs and display bumper stickers favoring the candidate of their choice. There could also be a third party established by meeting a minimum threshold.
Free speech in the media as defined as money by the Supreme Court should be allowed on issues, but never candidates. This should eliminate negative ads that focus on personalities. Political phone calls targeting voters should be illegal. People should only receive texts messages or emails if they request such services.
Eliminating all this counter-productive activity should reduce campaign expenditures considerably.
2
After you look at the trends clearly, I think we can easily draw a straight line from the disastrous Citizens United decision and Trump’s election. Without change, like climate change and wealth disparity, is unsustainable.
9
Maybe if we adequately taxed the 1%, we could set aside some of that money for mandatory public financing of federal campaigns. The federal campaigning including PACs cost $8-9 billion between 2015 and 2016. This does not include state and local races.
6
After reading this article, Sanders suddenly has become very attractive.The Sanders campaign should publicize this article in Urban areas where poverty exists.
Im was amazed that Sanders could not get the Black vote, which enabled Hillary to win the nomination in our last election.
It's articles like this that makes Socialism attractive, can it be that Sanders was right all along?
4
@Independent1776
No, I got one do not think so. I think he has some good ideas like all the candidates do but Sanders is not the answer.
To get your policies passed you have work with Congress and I just do not see Sanders as the type to work with anyone that might disagree with him.
1
@Independet1776 Bingo! Thank you for seeing it too! Now, Pardon me while I step out to go knock on doors, helping people see that Bernie and all of us who support him care about them, even if they haven’t had the reason to hope for change from plutocracy for a decade or more. Everyone counts. Get off the internet and get out into the world and make it better with us.
1
Yes. And Buckley too is a bad law.
Buckley v. Valeo in ‘76 ruled that political spending is protected by the First Amendment right to free speech, and Citizens United in 2010 ruled that corporate political spending is protected— because Buckley gives corporations a First Amendment right to free speech.
Money has always been in politics but corporate personhood and the rulings in Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo have resulted in essentially legalized corruption.
The matching funds bill does not change the structural flaw but it could help.
Meanwhile in the face of Buckley and Citizens United we have Bernie Sanders gaining ground. The middle and lower economic classes are successfully crowdfunding him through small dollars despite absence of matching funds.
5
"---limit the political influence of the wealthy"! They should have no more influence than the woman/man in the street. What percentage should it be "limited" to - 80? 50? 0? What does "democracy" mean in America?
4
Bernie has already run two publicly funded campaigns. This is the definition of increased democracy. This is why the establishment is trying to kill his candidacy yet again. Let’s not let them, and turn our oligarchy into a representative democracy, shall we?
8
Shorter election seasons, anti-lobbying laws, term limits, real campaign finance reform that severely limits spending by those seeking office and reveals all their sources of funding are all needed. But abolition of that outdated sop to slave owners known as the Electoral College would eliminate what is now minority rule by a party that no longer wins the majority vote.
5
All of the comments are valid opinions but it is all wishful. There is too much financial greed and too much power greed in politics. Few politicians enter politics with lofty goals of bettering their country and democracy.
2
We already have a presidential candidate who is running a purely publicly funded campaign,* specifically to increase participation in democracy. Vote for him and vote for actual democracy. FeelTheBern Bernie2020 *This is why the millions Bernie raised are exponentially more significant for us all than any other candidate’s. The millions raised by Bernie are ‘democracy’ in action. Join us.
2
Difficult to think about this editorial when it makes it case with only the Republican/Trump example of corporate and large donors doing the corrupting. It is most certainly not limited to Republican donors. This also leaves out entirely the whole business of pork that takes place in every state whose local senators and congressman lean on the legislature and the President to do what's good for their local re-elections. And by the way, even a couple of the examples provide here as bad people pushing bad laws is questionable. Like electric engines generate less pollution which conveniently leaves out the byproduct of charging those batteries. We may need a better answer for election fund raising but using tax dollars to help support that when there is no change in the current funding available is very objectionable.
1
This law would help populists like Trump and Bernie Sanders, who earn small donations by running on broad dishonest demagogic messages. It wouldn’t do anything to stop the influence of industry lobbying.
Notice that none of the rules that industry asked for in this article are ever discussed in election discourse. When government endlessly regulates the economy, there is no democratic debate about the rules they make.
Big business and special interest will lobby for regulations that favor them and hurt their competitors, regardless of who controls government. Voters never know the difference.
2
Please note that getting billionaire, corporate, and dark money out of politics is a foundational, primary goal of true progressive candidates such as Sanders, Cenk Uygur, and others.
The most powerful office-holders in both political parties at all levels of government are bribed by big-money donations. The donors expect to be serviced via favorable legislation and other anti-democracy actions.
The corporate, centrist, neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party, and the entire Republican Party, are owned by wealthy elites, leading to rampant corruption...a kakistocracy and oligarchy.
6
Do most campaign funds go to the media to buy ads? If so, is there any legal way to make political ads free for perhaps one year before the election in question? Just wondering.
1
There was some irony seeing Chief Justice Citizens United presiding over a Republican Senate bought and paid for by its donors and selling out our democracy in exchange for the tax-cuts, deregulation, and other favours those donors demand.
22
@Jackson
Trickle down never works.
1
Republican politicians represent the interests of the wealthy in return for financial support as needed. Opening the campaign finance spigot wider benefits Republicans more than Democrats, so Republicans will block all attempts to tamper with that spigot, which is their political lifeline. As backup to this stance, Republicans can count on the Supreme Court and the DOJ to salute the Republican flag. They are sitting pretty.
1
Since the federal government controls access to the airwaves, the obvious solution involves prohibiting accepting money to air political ads more than 6 months before election day. Next, confine all political primaries to August of an election year. If you narrow the time involved, you cut the costs. And of course, only taxpayer funding of campaigns. If it takes an amendment to the Constitution, so be it. But this permanent campaign has to stop. Oh, the simple solution to violations of campaign finance? The candidate is removed from office and replaced by the runner-up. Call it the 'political death penalty'.
6
The cry from the left upon the Citizens United ruling was deafening with the presumption that the right would buy elections. As we know, this did not happen. The Editorial fails to point out that Hilary Clinton spent 2x what Trump did on the last election - HRC 1.2B, Trump 646B. I get txts from Trump declaring the end of civilization were the Democrats to win. I get emails from Progressive candidates with the same message. In order to create an equal playing field for all ideas, is the Editorial board also going to suggest that there would be balance in the Editorial rooms of the media?
The real problem in our system are the web of laws, rules, and structures in place (and reinforced by the press) inherent in our two party system that creates a fiction of choice while putting up guard rails designed by the party apparatchik. It is the very parties themselves that establish "choice".
I believe that the Australians have the best system - required voting. Instead of parties creating the drumbeat of their respective version of populism, with everyone voting, the parties must appeal to the middle, unaffiliated voters. Remember that 45% of Americans consider themselves independnet with only 55% who identify with a party. The relative majority is the real forgotten group in this country
3
Under this logic, Philip Levine, the multimillionaire former Miami Beach mayor who largely self funded his campaign, should have trounced Andrew Gillum in the gubernatorial primary here in Florida. But it didn't end up that way. Greater real time transparency of campaign donations, and especially dark money expenditures, are both allowed under Citizens United. Trust the voters to get this right.
1
Trump has reversed the political context. To the rich, democracy is the problem.
30
@Roland Berger bear in mind that two things are true about the United States. (1) it is not now, nor has it ever been a Democracy. (2) when judged on a global scale we are all effectively rich.
1
The UN study recognizes that for millions of us, we are living in a third world.
11
Roland.. Most of the other posts are funny. We should..... The problem is....... The people in charge....... Who are WE, Problem and people? I think they are the democrats.
The effects of Citizens United needs to repealed along with the ability to gerrymander. There is a direct link between these two issues and where the country is today. Further, if these two mistakes are not overturned, the United States will continue to decline in terms of being a nation "of the people and for the people”. Until this is done, all men may be created equally, but not accounted for and treated equally under the laws of this land.
This country was created in a manner that allowed individuals to excel and prosper due to their own ingenuity and effort. It also guarded against having monarchs. A monarch under another name is still a monarch.
Unfortunately, those in charge of changing our laws are the monarch. We need a second revolution and hopefully it will happen peacefully..
9
@sbanicki You can’t repeal any citizens right to freely assemble nor can you change the legal requirements to redraw Congressional boundaries based on the census.
@Canis .
The party in a given state who controls it draw lines every ten years based on the census. So what are you talking about.
1
It would be very helpful if the Times would do thorough investigations of the specific corporate sources of campaign finance (both sides) so that consumers can make informed choices about how and where to spend money. Money talks loudly. If we want to drain the swamp, we must first drain the coffers.
10
Bernie is already draining the swamp by never taking any money but from small donor Americans.
The better answer is to recognize that the Supreme Court has become an irresponsibly reckless and politicized institution and that it no longer serves the public interest to allow the Court - in flagrant defiance of the plain words and Constitution and of the history of the Constitutional convention of 1787 - to decide whether legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President is constitutional. The federal government, including the federal courts, and unlike state governments, has only those powers expressly given it in the Constitution. Expressly means just that - the Constitution must unequivocally state that the federal government has the power in question. Article III, provides that "The judicial power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made". There is no suggestion that the unelected Court might decide that acts of the politically elected branches are unconstitutional, much less an express grant of power to do so. The Supreme Court gave itself the power to invalidate duly passed laws of the United States in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. How can a branch of the government give itself a power? It's a complete contradiction to the principle of separation of powers and a nullification of the 1787 convention's decision to not allow the Court and the President acting together as a Council of Revision to overturn an act of congress.
5
Every day I get several e-mails from progressive politicians, asking me for money. Each one of them decries the influence of big money in politics. The obvious conclusion is that the way to get money out of politics is to send money to a politician. That seems counter-intuitive.
And why do politicians need so much money? Well, to run ads, of course! And what do ads do? Inform? Not quite. Commercial ads try to convince us to spend money on a particular product or service. And they work! If not, advertising wouldn't be the trillion-dollar business it is today.
And so, political ads (which I have yet to hear ANYONE say they enjoy) are there to convince us to vote for a particular candidate instead of their opponent. And since there are no standards for what can and can't be said in those ads (meaning a candidate or supporter can lie like a rug if they choose), the average voter is stuck trying to decipher a huge morass of alleged information, and decide what is true and what is not.
And that's how we end up with someone like Trump in the White House.
My suggestion? Get rid of political ads, period. Have a TV channel & website where each candidate can plainly state their platform and their qualifications. Let the voters search for information they want, and vote accordingly. As a candidate, you get my vote - not my money.
We need to spend our money on things that improve our lives. Billion-dollar presidential campaigns do not meet that criteria.
42
@TLMischler
Well said -- notions to which I fully subscribe. The cost of informing would be a small fraction of what is spent on advertising -- including whatever costs might be incurred by insuring that all voters have access to the information.
Including independent fact checking of candidate qualifications and any data included in their platform/policy statements would keep hype and misleading information to a minimum.
Formats that place candidate's policy statements side-by-side would encourage voters to consider opposing views and avoid confirmation bias.
6
Very well said. Political ads are like Rx drug ads. They are very costly and and their outcome is very questionable. Do you show up at your pharmacy and get the advertised cancer drug after seeing the commercial or do you put pressure to your doctor to prescribe the medicine you liked its commercial ?
5
@TLMischler
C-SPAN, IMHO even with all its faults, would be the best solution for a political ad channel.
1
Quite a sensible note denouncing the promotion of our corruptible ways...when given a chance. And Citizens United is but one example of making real this corruptibility...and making sure this is a democracy in name only, given that money has become fundamental in buying elections, so we have effectively a plutocracy...dictating politics as if it were an inalienable privilege of the 'rich and powerful' corporate world. This has been a fundamental torn in widening the odious inequality in this country, the violence of having poverty in such a wealthy yet inequitable country. This, with the Supreme Court's complicity, as those leaders ought to know better how fallible we are...when given a chance.
5
One policy could be to make campaign advertising free with some limitations up to a certain amount. Media would claim the amount as a tax deduction and have to give equal amounts of time to each of the three parties. At least, some candidates would be heard.
4
@mouseone not a very bright idea. Nothing is free. Mandate that the stations give away “free” time and it only gets air time at 2 am Sunday.
Stop messing with the system and reset the rules to get federal oversight out.
It would take an amendment to the constitution to do away with the electoral college, which is not likely to happen anytime soon.
What could be done to make the situation with the electoral college more fair would be to reapportion the House of Representatives so that it reflects the populations of the states more fairly. This would require an increase in the total number of seats, but it would allow the California - Wyoming disparity to narrow a bit, without penalizing the states with lower populations.
With the census due this year, time to consider this seriously, depending on the outcome of the national elections.
1
This never before seen hyper-partisanship is sure to injure, if not kill, our democracy as we know it. People with wealth and power have, like never before, purchased our political system.
How did we get this way?
1. Private money funding public elections
2. Lack of term limits
3. The near evaporation of objective news reporting --replaced with subjective, opinion-based ranting marketed as "news".
The remedy?
1. Outlaw ALL private funding of elections.
2. Institute term limits on virtually every elected position.
Sadly, there is little we can do about the de-evolution of our "news" services but we can make the first two remedies happen.
What are we waiting for?
11
@Robert Cacciatore
A miracle. Seriously though, the "news" service has always been a double edged sword. The Spanish American War was pretty much a foregone conclusion after Pulitzer and Hearst created the fiction that the Spanish sunk the Maine just to boost their circulation numbers. Moreover, Democracy has always been a struggle which is why it has such a short history in human affairs. It is, for better or worse, a never ending vigilant battle.
1
Let us be clear. Citizens united merely made an already very bad situation worse. Public financing will still not fix the problem when lobbyists write bills which get adopted as law.
17
@FurthBurner so your solution is to repeal freedom of speech and freedom to assemble. Foolishness at its finest.
@Canis
Thanks for a good laugh.
Adelson was the top individual contributor in 2018. Bloomberg was 2nd with $95M. Tom Steyer was 3rd with $73M individually with another $13M through Fahr LLC. All to Democrats.
Honesty and transparency going forward mean acknowledging that both parties extensively benefit from the current system.
1
@CNNNNC
That is true but one party does appear to have the best interests of the country at heart.
Underlying concerns about big money distorting democratic elections is a contradiction.
The foundational principal of democracy assumes that when everyone expresses their preference at the ballot box, we get the most equitable and representative government. We trust people to make the choice they think is right.
The concern about campaign spending (especially by the other side) is that partisan information will sway voters' opinions and decisions. In other words, we don't trust people to make the right choice.
Why have faith in democracy when we doubt the ability of people to make decisions?
1
@Bob Krantz
No, that's actually not the problem with money. What we are worried about is the influence donors have on policy. Politicians need the campaign dollars to mount effective campaigns. The people who give them that money then get control over the politician's choices, regardless of what the politicians tell the voters to attract their votes.
There is also a separate concern about how politicians and interest groups market themselves. Marketing has become quite sophisticated thanks to big data and the use of social networks to create and distribute highly effective, manipulative, and often misleading messages. Money does fuel this type of marketing and lack of disclosure rules makes it difficult for the voters to judge where messages are coming from or evaluate their reliability. That also needs to be considered. But the main problem is politicians being responsive to donors rather than to voters.
1
@Bob Krantz
Taking into account the past few years, let me ask you?
Do you have faith in democracy?
So you have confidence in the ability of people to make the right decision?
I do not.
@617to416
You seem to reinforce my point. Yes, politicians seek money to pay for effective campaigns. They may indeed then promote policies favorable to donors. But at the poll, the donor only has one vote.
The power at the voting box is still vested in the much larger number of other people. Those people can vote problematic politicians out at any election, or avoid voting them into office in the first place.
If you believe that money buys too much influence (and I agree that marketing uses powerful tools to influence people), and people are too susceptible to influence, then why should we trust people with the vote?
Recently, Elizabeth Warren has begun responding to questions about her policies in an interesting way. She's shifted her answers away from the policies themselves and instead focused on what she's defining as our underlying problem: corruption. Initially, I dismissed this as a marketing ploy. It seemed a bit exaggerated—how much illegal corruption is there really in the US? But as I heard her define corruption it began to make more sense. To her, corruption isn't just illegal behavior, it's the perfectly legal ability of monied interests to buy the policies they want regardless of the wishes of the people.
Then, this week, I read Lamar Alexander quoted in the NYT. His words shocked me. This "moderate" Republican essentially said that, while he agreed Trump acted improperly, it was okay because Trump got us tax cuts, deregulation, and business-friendly judges—and would protect us from Warren! So even moderate Republicanism will tolerate Trump's authoritarianism, racism, and cruelty as long as Trump advances the interests of the monied classes and protects those interests from Elizabeth Warren's reforms. The rest of Republicanism is beyond corrupt: it doesn't just tolerate Trump's worst characteristics it celebrates them. And, to be fair, a lot of centrist Democratic policy is just as corrupt in placing monied interests ahead of the people's interests.
So Warren is right: 2020 is about ending corruption. It's the only way to restore government of, by, and for the people.
70
@617to416 . . . and the way to help end corruption is to elect people with a high sense of morality, a dedication to doing what is right even if it hurts them politically.
We need to start teaching ethics in our schools as if it were any other subject like reading and arithmetic.
16
Public funding = Incumbent protection. Let’s remember that Eugene McCarthy could have never challenged LBJ with out a few wealthy backers.
3
@Tony Ross
And how did that work out?
Your mention of a constitutional amendment should be expanded. As with most movements, groups have been working on an amendment to restore and strengthen the ability of citizens, through their state and federal legislators, to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures since the Citizens United ruling came down. Amendment proposals are making progress in Congress. HJR 2 has over 200 bipartisan co-sponsors in the House, and SJR 51 (the companion bill) was introduced into the Senate last year with all Democrat and Independent senators as co-sponsors. Yes, 2/3 of each house is a heavy lift, but we are always just two years away from succeeding. Citizens have accomplished passage of amendments to overturn bad Supreme Court rulings six times before. We are a self-governing nation. A congress that would support public funding of elections would also support an amendment, which is a permanent fix. And so far, 20 states have passed resolutions calling on Congress to propose the amendment. We are over half way to the required 38 states needed to ratify.
The strength of our Republic requires a strong democratic process, and this should not vary depending on which party is in charge. An amendment is the only way to accomplish the consistency needed. We need to enshrine “political equality” within our First Amendment so that we all not only have an equal right to speak, but the equal right to hear other’s ideas. Money is not speech, it is power.
15
Simpler solution. Term limits.
@Tony Ross, the money would still be there. For the past 40+ years, no matter what party is in charge, the government has not belonged to the people. We need this amendment.
when citizens united passed in the Supreme Court the justices were just holding up precedent. Precedent being that this was already settled law in the mid 1840's. We can cry till doomsday but those facts are constantly ignored Sorry
6
@daniel r potter
Even if your statement is true (I'm not sure it is), precedent should not be a cement block to which we feel we must remain tethered while we drown.
@617to416
Yes i read this in Howard Zinns Peoples History of America. Chapter before the civil war
Remember Pres. Obama's state of the union just after the Citizens decision? He indicated that it was bad law. The wise and all-knowing Justice Alito shook his head and mouthed "mo." So much for wisdom we hope for.
Work for heavy majorities in the house and senate so that specific laws can be passed that overturn the bad law that exists and will be coming down the road.
17
Interesting tongue in cheek editorial. Lobbying and self interests, wealth development and self enrichment permeate every level of government and industry. That's the way things get done and it won't change.
It won't change simply because those that have will never relinquish their hold on the political strings they control. American history reeks of tales, of examples that have brought us to this place. That small percentage that earns and dominates our industries will never allow themselves to be upended. Why should they? Would you?
1
@Nick
yes, I would. And so would anybody who caress about the principles of our country.
It's BOTH money is speech and corporations are people. These notions date back to the 1970s inappropriate Supreme Court decisions, essentially legislating and weaponizing our current political mess. Campaign finance reform, public financing in particular, is essential to a democracy. We don't have a democracy now.
18
The problem of campaign finance is clear. But I think we need a more radical solution. All political campaigns for federal office (house, senate, president) should be funded entirely with federal funds. My daughter-in-law explained this to me some years ago, I thought she was nuts. Since then watching money in politics, I have come to agree with her completely.
56
Any billionaire could buy this pivotal presidential primary. They give a billion dollars to either Sanders, Biden, Warren or Buttigieg. Same for the general. The present system was broken long before Trump, long before Citizens United. There's no surprise: Everything in the US is based on money---it's all we know.
15
@Newell McCarty You are absolutely right. It's all based on money. American democracy was hijacked a very long time ago by the rich. One could argue even from the beginning of the republic and its constitution. See Charles Beard. But with the rise in wealth and power of corporations over time has come the incredible increase in influence of private money. The United States is a plutocracy. The rich are able through their lobbies and other means to shape the rules that govern the "free market" and via their election donations to seat the politicians who do their bidding. The only positive side to all of this is that more and more Americans are waking up to how their country and its democracy have been hijacked.
12
To be clear, the road to a Constitutional Amendment on campaign finance reform is an amazingly steep one. To get a Constitutional Amendment either 2/3s of each House must vote for it or in 2/3s of the states, the legislatures must pass resolutions to have a Constitutional Convention (if the state has a bicameral legislature, both houses would need to pass the resolutions). In either case, these are the very people who benefit from the lax campaign financing court decisions. There is no way to have a popular vote establish an amendment.
And, in either case, once an amendment is drawn up, 3/4s of the states’ legislatures have to ratify it. So again, the very people the Amendment will negatively affect will decide its fate.
One additional thing, if we go the states route, there is no method in the Constitution for how delegates to the convention are to be selected. And who has the time to attend what will likely be a long drawn out process? Those with ample wealth, who benefit from the current state of affairs. Lastly, there is no limit to what can be offered as an amendment at the convention.
For those who believe these things are no real obstacle, remember that over 50% of the voters in this country wanted the Senate to call witnesses and subpoena documents in the current impeachment proceedings. But, somehow, the motion was defeated. This is how responsive our politicians are to the public will.
5
The whole mess of private money in public politics is simply another example of the fading lines of checks and balances in our constitution. Into the morass of political walks Donald Trump, a man who even before becoming president has skirted laws in his own business dealings.
How fitting that Trump's Trump International Hotel in Washington is where the wealthy go to woo a president who has never met a campaign donation he'd refuse, and is perfectly happy with quid pro quos. Not only is he stretching the boundaries of Citizen's United, but he's violating the Emoluments clause as well.
Everything has a price, and Trump patrons are happy to pay it in exchange for laws that will harm ordinary citizens. It's "legal corruption" any way you slice it.
33
Eventually, Donald Trump will pay the price. Even from outside looking in, I can see the deep violation that many Americans feel about this latest episode of not just upending norms, but the willful demolition of people’s deeply-held beliefs. Americans of all political stripes have a deep sense of belief in their country and personal pride in what America is supposed to stand for that until now has allowed political enemies to stand together in love of and loyalty to the good old US of A.
Now that is broken. A trial without witnesses? Believing your own re-election is what is best for the country allows you to do anything to get re-elected? It is all a bridge too far. People who have hung on up to this point, rationalizing all the compromise of principle and honour, now finally shake off the spell of ratiocination and realize they simply can’t do it any more. It’s very much like the moment you realize that no matter how hard you have tried, there is just no way you can save your marriage.
There is no coming back from that level of hurt, that level of disillusionment. You have to take that first step away on a different path. This morning, Americans across the country are waking up to the day they start the long hard journey on the road of claiming back their country.
I wish you all God speed.
4
@MJM: thank you for your eloquence and sentiments. You've nailed it. I've been pretty depressed for the past few years, a deep malaise and head scratching on how this could have happened, so fast and so hard.
@ChristineMcM What is really sad is that 35% of the American public believes this is how to run a business. Raise your hands if you are willing to work for or do business with a business owner like that.
The problem of influence of money in US politics is so obvious that I am in constant bewilderment that nothing is done against it and people are not revolting against it. I cringe when I read about Ambassadors who got their postings because of their donations, no matter what their qualifications are. (I am sure we can all think of at least one of those ...)
Of course, if a public that is generally not really interested in politics needs to be plastered with political ads to try and win voters every 2 years - of course then money is key. So, if you have enough money, you buy your share of voters, I you don’t - tough.
Democracy in the US? IMHO not really, - not as long as there are SuperPacs and Citizens United - and a GOP that is happy with that.
20
When a Corporation like Facebook or Wall Street banks know they will be broken up if Bernie is elected they will break the law to keep Trump in office. We never find out for years then because they are rich our government does nothing to them so we will need another way to take our country back. It will be messy.
16
@gene they don't need to break the law they just need to outspend.
This is a good idea - And perhaps it should be paid for by a tax on media companies that are collecting so much money from the ongoing auction of US democracy.
21
@Sandy Think that's a great idea. Or maybe we should impose a 15% surtax on all incomes of $1 MM or greater and dedicate the income collected to publicly financing political campaigns?
2
In an otherwise excellent editorial, I have to object to the Times’ statement, “Citizens United is bad law.” It was a bad decision that was not achieved by legislative activity. It overturned legislation that sought stronger limits on corrupt electoral purchases. And it was a companion to other bad decisions that this court has delivered, on issues like guns, religion in politics, union representation, immigration and healthcare that affect all Americans.
39
.......to press Mr. Trump to remove Marie Yovanovitch as the American ambassador to Ukraine as part of a plan to make money from natural gas. That, in turn, is part of the larger saga that has resulted in Mr. Trump’s impeachment for his later efforts to compel Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden.
But the dinner also provides a clear view of the ways.....
The article might want to point out that Citizens United, as unethical as it is, is the law of the land and that Vice President Bidens and his sons behavior in making big money from the Ukrainian gas industry by providing US government protection is equally "legal."
1
@AS Huh? Joe Biden made big money and the US protected the Ukrainian gs industry?
Aah, but the problem with this is that although the complaints are absolutely spot on, the only people who can change this are the very politicians that benefit from the status quo.
And we shouldn't be too naive. If there were a fully Democrat-controlled situation, and if the donor class were throwing money at Democratic politicians, they wouldn't refuse it either. For sure, that what would be complained about and that what would be surreptitiously sought by the money men would be different, but the process would be the same.
1
The problem lies in the idea that money is protected speech.
Yes, corporations have a right to articulate their needs and points of view to politicians and to the voters, but gifting large sums of money is not argument, it is bribery and should be seen as criminal rather than protected.
112
@Gerard if money is speech, guess who has the megaphone? You are correct, much deeper than Citizen’s United
4
The Citizens United decision will go down as the worst SCOTUS decision since Dred Scott. It has opened the floodgates to untold amounts of dark money, much of it from hidden foreign sources. Before any meaningful reform of election campaign financing can take place that decision will have to be overturned. And now that politicians have gotten a taste of big money, the likelihood that it will be overturned is slim to none. So now Republicans have set themselves up for being in power for a long, long time despite being a minority party, with unlimited funding, gerrymandering, voter suppression, and a Cheater in Chief.
147
Our current dollaracracy is fundamentally undemocratic.
The idea that 'money is speech' is predicated on the royal assumption that the wealthy may speak and the masses must remain largely silent by virtue of their lack of wealth.
It's the perfect form of 'legalized' unConstitutional Republican nonsense that champions corrupt oligarchy and drowns representative government and democracy in a Grover Norquist-style bathtub.
Republicans have shown that nothing less than feudalism, oligarchy and Grand Old Power will satisfy their dark souls.
There's nothing particularly American about Republican oligarchy.....and there's something stunningly Russian about it.
November 3 2020.
219
@Socrates If only the world was so simple as who has money. Remember that HRC outspent Trump by 2X - $1.2B vs $640M. The silence from the pro-HRC media was deafening during the last election cycle when she was out raising/outspending Trump. I happen to be a never Trumper but this current Progressive fascination with money is bad will assure the nation of Trump 2.0
4
Yes - liberty and justice for the Greedy One Percent, and no one else
21
@Socrates,
How utterly pleased so many oligarchs must be to see no mention of their own so-called Democrat oligarchy here.
It seems, in fact, that we're not even entertain the notion that so-called Democrats make up a substantial portion of your oligarchy here.
And your comment currently sits atop an op-ed titled, "More Money, More Problems for Democracy," coming out of the boardroom of a private, multination corporation (utterly filled with so-called Dems and Libs) running a news press sponsored in largest part by other private multinational corporations.
Hmmm . . . wonder why it's at the top?
1
Call them out. How many children are in the families represented by the truck drivers who will loose their jobs ? The Trucking Company owner paid Trump for a dinner invitation
that enabled the owner to ask Trump to divert federal funds to a driverless coridor for the owner's personal profit. Some of the money came from the truck divers who had no idea that their employer would betray them. Taxes are supposed to contribute to the common good. Political contributions buy quid pro quos. When the Dems win back the presidency and the Senate there should be 3 things on their agenda: Abolish the Electoral College, End Private Ownership of Public Legislation, and Restore Obama's Legacy.
24
I disagree entirely. If anything there should be no limits on corporate or individual political contributions, whether to candidates. political parties, to PACs, or to any group that wants to advocate in the public square. Contributions should be made public but beyond that citizens and organizations run by citizens should be able to put their money to use to try to influence the direction of the country as they see fit. These freedoms are more important than any downsides, real or perceived. "Citizens United" is indeed a rather apt description of what political freedom and freedom of speech are about.
3
@Frunobulax
Citizens United is effectively 0.1% 'freedom' to unduly influence elections.,,,, a 'freedom' the 99% lack because of a lack of cash.
Rich people and corporations already have excess political access without America's legalized campaign bribery laws.
And our disclosure laws are a joke.
Actually disclosure is seriously delayed when it should be real-time disclosure and there is so much 'dark money' given by mysterious LLCs, 501's and shady donors that disclosure sometimes barely happens.
Public, taxpayer funding of all elections would save the public money in the end because it would produce better public policy than today's American oligarchy policy.
Your post reads like a sponsored cheer for the billionaire class.
Sad.
97
Nice to see the Times Editorial Board writing about this, though I will chide it for being a little late--a number of this have been writing about this only, like, forever (including quite frequently in these comments' boxes).
In sum, the biggest reform that we could make to our system--the one that might make all the others possible, is full public funding of elections, with no organizational contributions or funding (be they union, corporate, chamber of commerce, religious, or five-oh-whatever) allowed, and a low three-digit individual limit on contributions for any given contest. This latter part should satisfy the free-speech arguments of those who see bans on contributions as a violation of the First Amendment; I find it disingenuous, and legally suspect, to claim that organizations have free speech rights (as technically they can't speak).
Seethgrey's suggestions are also worth considering, as would reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine and expanding it to more on-line entities, which probably includes a re-evaluation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
As it stands now, our representatives can only represent their oligarchic campaign financiers, and not their constituents. And that, of course, is why we can't legislate even that which vast majorities of the country support.
54
Two changes that don't require Constitutional amendments: Disallowing all lobbying as a deductible business expense, and eliminating the non-taxed status of the so-called non-profit "political education" entities, especially flow-through entities. (All non profits can make profits, they just have to spend them by giving their founders high salaries and benefits, building non-taxed real estate empires, or dispersing the money to other non-profits serving other causes the original donors may not approve of.)
21
From the past three years we see we have one political party that doesn't believe in democracy or the rule of law. They love the present system and skillfully created it by nominating supreme court judges who do not believe in democracy. They achieved power under the present system and know that to maintain power they need to keep unlimited wealth flowing into political campaigns from the .1 percent. While we still have elections, American citizens in mass, need to decide they reject Fascism white nationalism and "The Stable Genius."
70
This goes back to the cynical Golden Rule - those who have the gold make the rules.
5
I guess there's no use in hoping for less corrupt politicians or a better informed, critical thinking electorate.
Equal protection and liberty are bygone notions of a once grand endeavor.
7
@David The end of the great experiment. Now to drink an glass of wine in its honor.
3