The argument when it comes to PAC's is not that "money is speech." It's "speech is speech." Donations to PAC's are spent independently on fundamental, protected political speech: advertisements, etc. Functionally, they are no different than Sierra Club or any other advocacy organization: they just support causes the internet hive-mind doesn't like.
Also, if you limit PAC's, then you suddenly give rich individuals tremendously more power: they're now the only ones that can bring large amounts of money to bear on supporting a candidate. That is, unless you straight up destroy the first amendment by telling even individuals that they can't make this or that movie or political ad.
Now, maybe that's a restriction that we want to impose but it's disingenuous to say it's not a restriction.
Absolutely not! Money is one of the most obvious forms of power in society, and therefore any group that has a lot of money to spend, is, by definition, already a significant part of the power structure. "Outside groups" with money are never true outside groups.
You have restated my position quite succinctly; FEC campaign regulations are a way of preventing "well funded challenger[s]".
One of the strongest arguments against FEC limits on
speech is that many (very long-term) incumbent politicians
support it.
So, in my public speeches to voters I would claim I was 100% in favour of campaign finance reform - I'm concerned, just like you! I don't like these million-dollar donors, I got into politics to represent normal Americans like yourself! Unfortunately until the system changes I have to go along with it, obviously, so I will be taking some million-dollar donations. Once elected I'll get on that reform as soon as I can, honest! First I have to fix the economy/ensure national security/balance the budget/ban guns/fight terrorism/take on the banks/fix the college tuition bubble/deal with income inequality/reform patents/fix contraception access/educate more scientists/fix agricultural subsidies/reduce our dependence on foreign energy/reform immigration/fix the DHS/stand up to Putin/bring peace to the middle east/kiss this baby. As soon as those are done, campaign finance reform will be my top priority.
Hence, I'd get the money of the big donors without alienating regular voters by publicly supporting the current (messed up) state of campaign finance.
New ideas, and real change... like the death of net neutrality. Great!
I really don't see how anyone could consider what you just said there logical considering that the people with (virtually) unlimited money (to donate to campaigns) historically always represent a very close overlap of the people who want to maintain the status quo that continues to earn them unlimited money.
Most American voters aren't PAC contributors, at least in any meaningful way. Is their speech less important due to less cash in their pocket?
The current people in Congress were elected under the current system and thus must be at least slightly wary of a different system. Despite this, there is some support in Congress for these sorts of reform. Perhaps those who support it do so because they think it is the right thing to do, perhaps merely because they think they can do well under the new system.
But you don't have to change the campaign finance rules to start with. By concentrating money in a few places on a single issue, i.e. using the current system, you can elect or help elect members favorable to the new system. If that works, you kick it up a notch and try to get more elected. At some point it's either going to peter out or it's going to have some sort of permanent success.
This is not to imply that it's a walk in the park, but there is a road to success here. Trying to effect significant change on other issues which run counter to big money seems to me to be less realistic, but that's just my opinion.
The question is: What is the most effective thing we can actually do to allow us to get to the point where we can choose the kind of government we want? I don't mean to say that I want the same kind of government that you do, or that either one of us will necessarily be in the majority if things ever reach that happy state, but how do we get there in the first place?
There is very little evidence that there are consistent correlations between money in politics and success in politics. For example the Sunlight Foundation found that all the extra outside spending in 2012 (post-Citizens-United) had no measurable correlation with who won election.
Arguments that it is a problem typically center around this or that "bad" law; but there is no guarantee that a representative democracy will make every citizen happy.
Focusing on money also ignores the many other potential influences in politics, like regional culture, religion, ideology, gender, sexism, racism, etc.
This study tries to approach the question more numerically: https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20mater...
Similarly, none of the following are speech, yet all are essential to it: telephones, computers, servers, printers, megaphones, and pens. If the government bans spending by certain groups, it is preventing them from acquiring the means to advocate for their ideas, which is the essential (and primary) purpose of political speech.
The "money is speech" phrase is a straw-man put forward by opponents of the expansion of 1st Amendment rights to non-media organizations.
If you want an example of how this might affect groups you support, consider that many courts have ruled blogs to be non-media activities, thus they could be banned from engaging in any politically related speech by the Federal Electoral Commission, if you accept Solicitor General Verrilli's arguments. The government could also ban groups and individuals from sending letters to newspaper editors by preventing the purchase of stamps to send the offending messages, or it could simply declare that uncompensated services (such as letter-writing, or petitioning) by groups like unions or other advocacy groups should be evaluated as a contribution, and limited or banned.
If it does seem likely that restrictions on spending _could_ restrict free speech, do you think that they _will necessarily_ restrict free speech? Maybe it just means we need to be careful in our implementation so we restrict the bad parts of unlimited spending while allowing the good stuff. I hope so, although I'd love to hear good evidence pointing either way.
And just to bring this back to the context of Lessig's plan, they don't want to restrict spending at all (https://mayday.us/the-plan/#fundamental-reform-in-the-way-el...), at least not until they try more important stuff first. They just want to make it more desirable to raise money from the many instead of the few.
In other words, had the FEC been given the power to regulate all campaign spending, they may or may not restrict one or another sort of spending, but I am not willing to take the chance that they might silence important voices.
With respect to these "matching" systems, I do not believe that anyone should be forced to support (through taxes,) campaigns they do not support. For one thing, this disenfranchises the people who expressly refuse to support any candidate, and necessarily helps people who have positions which give them access to the subsidies (such as members of the Republican and Democratic parties).
I can appreciate that. It's infuriating to feel like our tax dollars are going to things we don't support. I guess ultimately it seems to me like a question of net result- if some of my tax money goes to support campaigns I hate, but the overall result is a system that works better and is able to solve more problems effectively, that seems like a worthwhile trade.
An analogy might be public schools. I have my share of complaints about how many public schools do things, and sometimes my tax dollars wind up supporting crappy school policies, but ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to go to school seems like a net win, so I don't want to prevent my tax dollars from going there.
(As a side note: I'm open to replacing the public school system with something else that does the job better, but to bring the analogy back to our government, I don't know of any more promising approach to fixing government.)
> For one thing, this disenfranchises the people who expressly refuse to support any candidate,
I think the voucher system doesn't do that. You could always chose not to give your vouchers to anyone.
> and necessarily helps people who have positions which give them access to the subsidies (such as members of the Republican and Democratic parties).
I don't see how this would happen under either system proposed on https://mayday.us/the-plan/#fundamental-reform-in-the-way-el.... Can you elaborate?
>"I think the voucher system doesn't do that. You could always chose not to give your vouchers to anyone."
Do you get a refund when you refuse to give any politician the voucher? If not, then your tax money is actually going towards paying for other people's vouchers, whether you like it or not. You have been effectively disenfranchised.
>"I don't see how this would happen under either system proposed on https://mayday.us/the-plan/#fundamental-reform-in-the-way-el.... Can you elaborate?"
People operating in the existing parties will get the great majority of the voucher money, as most voters pay little (if any attention) to the political process (operating largely on name recognition). These voters will automatically donate to members of their own parties (especially if faced with limited choices), or simply the incumbent, while the little-known third party candidates and non-partisan causes will fall even further behind where they already are. This problem may be alleviated (though not solved) by allowing the vouchers to go to any political cause, including charities, lobbying organizations, and think-tanks.
On the other hand, if someone has no money with which they can enable their political speech, they are effectively disenfranchised.
Does that follow? At all?
Of course it does follow. If you look at how the FEC regulates campaigns, they do so by creating intricate and/or vague rules, which they can subsequently enforce against any speakers or type of speech within their purview. When any government agency is allowed to regulate something, they are given a great deal of deference by the courts and the legislature, this administrative discretion "necessarily allow[s] the FEC to selectively silence any group or type of speech they dislike".
Only if you know anything about the history of campaign finance regulation and First Amendment jurisprudence in the U.S., which I guess you do not.
The Supreme Court ruled that you can't restrict any organization from using money to influence elections, because that infringes of the fundamental rights of people to organize, and pool their money to get their message out.
Lessig's strategy as a result is not to restrict money in politics, but rather to augment it with some fashion of public funding (for instance, vouchers given to all registered voters.) This shifts the balance of power away from the big players with narrow interests, and makes the money game itself more democratic. It's a much more pragmatic approach than the campaign finance restrictions that have been tried in the past.
I personally think that Citizen's United was the correct legal decision, but it struck down a necessary law. To me that means that it was just the wrong mechanism to bring about reform. Lessig's is much better.
In the U.S., there's a long-standing propaganda campaign to get people to believe that limiting the ability of billionaires to buy elections is equivalent to coming to your house and cutting your tongue out at the roots. Pretty much exactly the same thing. No difference.
I agree that it's pretty baffling to the rest of the world. Has anyone here written a seven figure check to influence a particular political campaign? If not, this movement is a net positive for you. If so, then this movement is a net negative for you. But very many Americans think of themselves as temporarily embarrassed billionaires.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/23/google-att-verizon-and-comc...
(Clearly there's a simple argument against MayDay PAC itself, that it might be unsuccessful in its mission, but that's a much weaker argument.)
As far as I understand it, there are four main arguments for money in politics:
1) Money is speech; protecting free speech is important, and protecting political speech (and thus financial donations to campaigns) is probably the most important form of protected speech.
2) The utilitarian argument: if money is taken out of politics, groups with less economic power but greater organization and numbers will become dominant. (I'm not sold on pure democracy either). Control of "large audiences" without control of money to reach the public might become important; I'd rather live in a world where I can donate hundreds or thousands to EFF to influence policy vs. a world where Pat Robertson or Oprah are the only people who can influence voters.
3) The implementation argument: if this eliminates a fairly accessible form of financing (the PAC), those who control smaller but more enduring forms of money for political contribution will rise in power. IMO, those people tend to be much more objectionable than people who contribute to PACs. Or, if companies are kept out of politics, but unions are allowed to continue donating, etc.
4) Priorities: this might NOT be the most important issue right now. Maybe immigration is. Maybe not going to war in Iran is. etc.
I don't know how valid these arguments are.