|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It is well established that loosening campaign finance restrictions creates less democratic outcomes. Got a source for this? How are you defining "democratic outcomes"?
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
They might be less democratic but they are probably more Constitutional.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Got a source for this? How are you defining "democratic outcomes"? Representative based on population preferences, rather than the preferences of, say, an inherited gentry. Or for the purposes of this discussion, capital. Hieronymous posted a an article about a comprehensive study of how capital can undermine democratic preferences, and there is plenty of data showing that policy outcomes are influenced by spending.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Representative based on population preferences, rather than the preferences of, say, an inherited gentry. Or for the purposes of this discussion, capital. You know why the preferences associated with rich people get enacted? Because Congress is essentially universally made up of rich people. You know why business is good at getting their preferences in obscure areas? Because Congress doesn't have any internal preferences on it, and business presents a case for it and no counter case is presented. It has essentially nothing to do with campaign finance (which operates in the inverse of your proposition - people don't do what you like because you gave to them, you give to people who are already in agreement with you on things). Lobbying is effective, but only on issues where there isn't any sort of established orthodoxy - you can't lobby effectively on abortion or income tax rates because views there are essentially set, but you can lobby effectively on how to interpret a research tax credit provision with regards to quasi-research spending on improving logistics because no one cares other than you. The data shows that policy outcomes correlate with people who spend (in certain specific circumstances) and not in others. What it fails to do is account for the fact that the relationship isn't causative on the campaign finance side.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Kalman posted:You know why the preferences associated with rich people get enacted? there's a bucketload of bad assumptions in these two sentences that need to be unpacked but the most obvious is why is congress made up of only rich people Kalman posted:It has essentially nothing to do with campaign finance (which operates in the inverse of your proposition - people don't do what you like because you gave to them, you give to people who are already in agreement with you on things). the bad assumption here is that purchasing the election for a sympathetic representative as opposed to purchasing the representative's sympathies is a meaningful distinction as to how corrupted the government is by campaign finance
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
"gentry"? The Rochester article is actually a book ad. The Princeton "oligarchy" study was methodologically garbage, and also doesn't demonstrate the claimed effects for the reasons Kalman outlines, even if it were valid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:there's a bucketload of bad assumptions in these two sentences that need to be unpacked but the most obvious is why is congress made up of only rich people That's not an assumption, that's factual. I'd go with "because they can afford to take a shot at running without it being personally ruinous and are more likely to have the necessary connections", personally. It's still not actually evidence for the idea that rich people exert influence on the views of politicians via campaign donations. quote:the bad assumption here is that purchasing the election for a sympathetic representative as opposed to purchasing the representative's sympathies is a meaningful distinction as to how corrupted the government is by campaign finance It's not "corrupt" to try to get someone elected who you agree with, though. That's kind of what politics is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Kalman posted:It's not "corrupt" to try to get someone elected who you agree with, though. That's kind of what politics is. And yet capital has outsized influence on politics, impacting who wins elections and by extension the policy choices made by those people. This is inherently undemocratic, that it's not "corrupt" is only because allowing private money to influence politics is legally built into our political system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:And yet capital has outsized influence on politics, impacting who wins elections and by extension the policy choices made by those people. This is inherently undemocratic, that it's not "corrupt" is only because allowing private money to influence politics is legally built into our political system. But you see, it's not corrupt because it's a clear cause and effect relationship! Inescapable facts can't be corrupt!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:This is a very Robertsesque argument. You can't prove that any single campaign donation/PAC donation influences a politician, therefore the entire campaign finance system does not present any evidence of corruption. Meanwhile billions of dollars continue to flow and policy continues to favor the donors - but surely that's just a coincidence? Yup, this is the debate in a nutshell, at least from my perspective. The conclusion is well supported and easily inferable, but not conclusively provable in the sense that an individual person can be proven guilty, so lawyers and judges are by their training going to reject it. Very similar to the problem with getting courts to recognize the judicial system's institutional bias against African-Americans. The data is extremely clear in the aggregate, but always hard to prove in the individual case, plus it leads to a conclusion against the interest of judges ("my decisions are racist"), so courts refuse to accept it even though it's about as well established scientifically as global warming.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
The problem is, even with wholly taxpayer funded campaigns, capital will still strongly influence politics. The wealthy can buy independent ads, they can write editorials that papers are likely to publish, the can talk about politics during TV interviews; all things average people can't do. I can't imagine a constitutional way to seriously regulate any of that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
I think the problem is less capital's influence on elections and more the very existence of capital
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Kalman posted:It's not "corrupt" to try to get someone elected who you agree with, though. That's kind of what politics is. So it's not corruption if the politician is the one who makes the offer to do what you want in exchange for funding, that's just politics? I'm honestly not even sure if I disagree with that. All this conversation is doing so far is convincing me corruption as a general term is basically meaningless and that this whole thing is coming down to Jacobellis v. Ohio situation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I think the problem is less capital's influence on elections and more the very existence of capital Every problem can be solved with a Marxist revolution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Rich people do too much __________ basically describes everything wrong with America tbqh
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Every problem can be solved with a Marxist revolution. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Representative based on population preferences, rather than the preferences of, say, an inherited gentry. Or for the purposes of this discussion, capital. Issue: it is very hard to determine what the population's preference is, much less whether the status quo is what they want or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:So it's not corruption if the politician is the one who makes the offer to do what you want in exchange for funding, that's just politics? I'm honestly not even sure if I disagree with that. I think that a politician saying "I'll try to enact a thing if you fund my campaign" is Bernie Sanders. Supporting a candidate you agree with is what you're supposed to do. A system that tries to or even could prevent that probably should be unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
"Corruption" is a meaningless slur and imho you really should shy away from using it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
euphronius posted:"Corruption" is a meaningless slur and imho you really should shy away from using it. What about "conflict of interest"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:What about "conflict of interest"? Much better because it has a technical definition wrt lawyers and corporate law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Much better because it has a technical definition wrt lawyers and corporate law. Would you mind posting or linking the definition you have in mind, in case there are significant differences or caveats that might not be apparent to a layperson?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Much better because it has a technical definition wrt lawyers and corporate law. What is the exact 'interest' of a politician? Who are they supposed to represent? I don't think that has a clear technical definition
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
But as we established too technical a definition and suddenly we can't do anything about it because it's harder to prove specific instances.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yup, this is the debate in a nutshell, at least from my perspective. The conclusion is well supported and easily inferable, but not conclusively provable in the sense that an individual person can be proven guilty, so lawyers and judges are by their training going to reject it. This is a core to the problem, really. Speaking fees are a great example - plenty of non- and ex-politicians get speaking fees without anybody saying boo, and there are plenty of legitimate reasons for organizations to want a big name to speak and are willing to pay for it. Can someone prove that Hillary was given the fee as a thinly-veiled bribe, or is it because she's one of the most well-recognized politicians in US politics in the last 30 years? What about Bill's fees? Does he get singled out from other ex-Presidents even though they're almost certainly using some of their money to support other politicians, solely because it's his wife and not his brother or son? What about Sarah Palin's idiot daughter and her speaking fees, is that a corrupt donation? If I get Al Franken for something, is it shady politics or do I just like his work as a comedian? Any of those could be legitimate, or they could be corruption, and how the hell do you prove it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I think the problem is less capital's influence on elections and more the very existence of capital I think it's less the existence of capital than the accretion of capital.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I think it's less the existence of capital than the accretion of capital. private ownership of capital is incompatible with democracy
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:private ownership of capital is incompatible with democracy I'm actually not so sure about this as so much as I'm becoming convinced it's incompatible with representative democracy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:private ownership of capital is incompatible with democracy Yeah I agree with that but you can understand how that Mindset doesn't exactly jive with the Constitution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:private ownership of capital is incompatible with democracy But most people like to own things, so lack of private ownership is incompatible with democracy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I'm actually not so sure about this as so much as I'm becoming convinced it's incompatible with representative democracy. Fun fact: British liberals/Whigs originally explicitly acknowledged that it was property that should be represented in government, not the popular will in a one man one vote sense. When the Great Reform Act was passed in 1832 the justification for reapportioning seats for the House of Commons was not that the people were not being represented but that the new industries and property/capital created by the Industrial Revolution were not. Corporations used to be able to vote in certain elections in Britain, until the 1940s IIRC PerniciousKnid posted:But most people like to own things, so lack of private ownership is incompatible with democracy. Are all things that people can own capital?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
I was thinking, and this is crazy I know, that the whole of human history of having specific people elected to leadership might be a baseline flaw in the societal configuration. I haven't thought too deeply on it other than it makes some sort of weird sense to me that we should vote for policy coalitions and then the people who formally organize those positions would send faceless staff to accomplish those goals, leaving the house a policy thunderdome. But that would all be unconstitutional so never mind!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:This is a core to the problem, really. Speaking fees are a great example - plenty of non- and ex-politicians get speaking fees without anybody saying boo, and there are plenty of legitimate reasons for organizations to want a big name to speak and are willing to pay for it. Can someone prove that Hillary was given the fee as a thinly-veiled bribe, or is it because she's one of the most well-recognized politicians in US politics in the last 30 years? What about Bill's fees? Does he get singled out from other ex-Presidents even though they're almost certainly using some of their money to support other politicians, solely because it's his wife and not his brother or son? What about Sarah Palin's idiot daughter and her speaking fees, is that a corrupt donation? If I get Al Franken for something, is it shady politics or do I just like his work as a comedian? I don't think it's possible to eliminate corruption; all we can do is mitigate. Other nations have managed to figure out how to have less inequality, more balanced elections, etc. We just need to change the Court's makeup and get justices in there that understand the need for campaign finance regulation, and then we need strong policies in place to limit the influence of big money as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I don't think it's possible to eliminate corruption; all we can do is mitigate. Other nations have managed to figure out how to have less inequality, more balanced elections, etc. We just need to change the Court's makeup and get justices in there that understand the need for campaign finance regulation, and then we need strong policies in place to limit the influence of big money as much as possible. My critique is more that there's a lot of nuance in things - there's few tests that can reasonably be applied in these cases and most of those fall apart fairly quickly once you get even partway to the edges of the envelope. Access certainly isn't a good test - I can get access to a lot of my local politicos (not Senators and Congresscritters, but state and local) for the price of a good meal or a few drinks. The amount of money isn't either - there's entire industries built around skirting the letter of the law with that. Frequently it's both the intent (of all involved parties) and the actions, and those provide a pretty hefty amount of plausible deniability. And bouncing off what you said before, our system is built to presume innocence rather than guilt. We absolutely need better rules for campaign finance regulation and limit big money influence, but there's a hell of a lot of particulars and fiddly bits in that. Is it even possible to create a law (or even legal definitions) to address the issue that isn't either uselessly loose or draconian?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
I think it's definitely possible to improve our current situation. Other countries do it better, and we did it better in the past. I don't buy the narrative that present day America's problems are uniquely intractable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Are all things that people can own capital?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think it's definitely possible to improve our current situation. Other countries do it better, and we did it better in the past. I don't buy the narrative that present day America's problems are uniquely intractable. Hahaha what the gently caress no we didn't do it better in the past. It's imperfect these days but it's not "donors handing over bags of cash anonymously to pay off politicians for votes is a regularly occurring phenomenon". (Which it very much used to be.) Other countries mostly do it better by constraining political speech. That's a trade off that we can't make very easily (and shouldn't make, to my mind, though that's at least a values argument.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
We're a representative republic, guys. If the will of over half the people was A-priority #1, strict scrutiny would never have existed. Gay marriage would still be illegal and California would still have Prop 8. Unrestricted direct democracy is A Bad Deal and so it's not at all a given that undemocratic things aren't OK in American law because the entire Bill of Rights is undemocratic on purpose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 21:30
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think it's definitely possible to improve our current situation. Other countries do it better, and we did it better in the past. I don't buy the narrative that present day America's problems are uniquely intractable. I'll bite - how did we used to do it better? There's thousands of stories of political corruption (big and small) running rampant through the US government in more or less every era, so that claim seems kinda hollow. And what other countries are better about it, and what do they do differently that leads to those outcomes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
Kalman posted:Other countries mostly do it better by constraining political speech. Yeah, it's basically this. There's only very limited ways you can crack down on disproportionate influence constitutionally. Mostly you just have to prosecute blatant corruption and hope for the best. Stricter FEC regulations on campaign cash used for personal expenses might be possible (and considering the sheer number of scampaigns that went down this cycle, it might be advisable). Greater restrictions on politicians becoming lobbyists might also be reasonable, though with the rise of the 'news consultant' circuit, it's not really the problem it once was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 21:47
|
|