Money in (US) politics

[TokenLiberal]

This issue has come up a number of times. It's clearly something people feel strongly about on both sides of the political spectrum. What's interesting about it is that almost everyone agrees that money in politics is a problem, yet we're somehow divided on it anyway and (partly as a result of that) nothing is being done about it. The division is probably not ideological, but comes from disagreements about what the problem actually is, and what can be done about it. So these, then, are the central questions for this thread:

1) Why is money in politics a problem in the US?
2) What can be done about it?

Normally I would leave it there and wait for input/questions from other members before getting into it, but since that hasn't been successful here, I'll try a different approach and answer the questions myself first. This is just my perspective on the issue; I'm sure some of you will have a different perspective and I'd love to hear it.


Why is money in politics a problem in the US?

The way I see it, there's two main reasons for this. The first is that the demand for money is high in US politics. This is due to the weakness of US parties, which has a number of reasons, most importantly primaries. Primaries make parties weak because the party is not in control of who leads it. Populists like Trump and Sanders can come out of nowhere and take over the party essentially without its consent. A consequence of weak parties is that politicians who want to win elections need a lot of money. Name recognition is not free unless you're already famous, and during a primary each candidate is individually responsible for getting themselves and their message out there. They all need a lot of money.

The second reason there is a lot of money in politics is that campaign finance law is lax. To understand why this is, some background. The modern era of campaign finance sort of started with FECA and SCOTUS' response to it. FECA is a 1971-1974 law which limited contributions and expenditures and created the FEC to enforce it. In Buckley vs Valeo, SCOTUS first weighed in on campaign finance, as far as I know. In it, the court held that FECA's limits on expenditures are unconstitutional because they violate the right to free speech. This, in my view, is where it started to go downhill.

There was one more attempt by lawmakers to regulate campaign finance but this, too, was struck down by the court. In another landmark ruling, Citizens united vs FEC, the court held (again) that money = speech, and that corporate expenditures to promote a certain candidate can't be limited because they're protected by the first amendment. Needless to say, this ruling has proven controversial. Imo it's more reasonable to say money is a megaphone. It doesn't enable you to speak, it just enables you to turn up the volume on your speech. Using that reasoning I think the court could have ruled differently (something the 4 dissenter justices agreed with), and therefore should have. After all, this ruling had disastrous consequences for politics, greatly increasing the influence of lobbyists. Here's a direct quote from the ruling that aged particularly poorly:

this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.

"Guys it's fine. When we enable corporations to spend tons of money to support politicians, it won't cause corruption. It just won't, it's fine. Trust us. Oh and it won't even look like corruption either btw. Everyone in the entire world will consider this to be totally above board and nobody will lose trust in our glorious institutions. It's fine."

Absolute. Fucking. Donkeys.

Citizens United enabled super PACs as well as the 501(c )(4) construction, a loophole by which corporations (and individuals) can donate essentially anonymously, getting around transparency laws. From that point (2010), US campaign finance has been a wild west, "anything goes" environment where lobbyists can spend without limits. This, combined with the high demand for money which I addressed earlier, is why there's a problem.


What can be done about it?

Since the two main culprits are primaries and SCOTUS, there's a few things that can be done:

1) Remove SCOTUS as a third, unelected branch of government. This requires a constitutional amendment and is a somewhat radical change, but not as crazy as it sounds. A supreme court that checks the government's laws against the constitution is not necessary in constitutional democracies; plenty exist without it. The US supreme court took this role upon itself, but whether or not that is ultimately good for the country is up for debate. The issue of money in politics is a great example of the disconnect between SCOTUS and the rest of the country. Almost everyone is for stricter campaign finance laws, even politicians. Only SCOTUS stands in the way, because it doesn't answer to voters.

2) A constitutional amendment clarifying that money does not equal speech, and that corporate expenditures are not protected under the first amendment (or something along those lines).

3) The abolishment of primaries. I think if parties stopped holding primaries, this would greatly reduce the influence of lobbyists because there would be much less demand for money in politics. The problem with this is that, if a party chooses not to hold a primary, it will probably be accused of being undemocratic. I would actually argue that a democracy is more representative without primaries, not less. I can explain why if anyone is interested.

You might say: None of these are realistic. And that's very true, and probably the reason why nothing is actually being done about this problem. Politicians know that constitutional amendments are a non-starter these days, and abolishing primaries is politically very costly. Our only hope, realistically, is...

4) SCOTUS changes its mind, decides that Buckley and Citizens United were bad rulings and reverses them. I know none of you want to hear this, but the first step in getting there is by adding more liberal justices. After all, Citizens United was a 5-4 decision with only democrat appointees dissenting. That's not a coincidence. You'll want to hear this even less: Had Hillary Clinton been elected in 2016, these corruption-enabling rulings would likely have been reversed already. In other words: Elect a democrat.


Any takers?

[FCD]

You are just bound and fucking determined to post about one single thing, Citizens United vs. FEC, aren’t you?  It’s unreal.  Nobody can have any sort of discussion without you working the discussion around into being about Citizens United (not this particular OP, but other posts).  It’s like you’re a one-trick pony.  It’s simply the only thing you want to debate here.  I saw this coming a long while ago, basically right after you joined.  It just keeps coming back to this one subject for you.

I’ve told you I’m not going to debate you on the subject.  Now I am going to tell you why, and give you the two primary reasons why:

1. Because it is a SCOTUS “decision”.  I know you don’t like this answer, and I don’t really care, but it is a final decision.  You can cry about it all you like, but it’s not going to change the decision.

2. Your starting point for the discussion ignores one glaring fact which is not open for debate (and I’m not going to debate it with you here either).  This one assumption destroys your whole argument (and you know this).  And, that assumption is…that the mainstream media (MSM) is NOT biased.  If this were true (which it absolutely is not), then someone might be able to have a discussion with you about CU, but given this matter would need to be resolved first (which it won’t be…ever) to your opponent’s satisfaction, the discussion cannot move forward without this.  Period. 

You have established your position, clearly, without even having the full discussion.  You tipped your hand long ago.  Your position is that Citizen’s United (CU) pollutes politics as it allows corporations to make effectively campaign donations to candidates whereas before this was illegal (this much is true).  Furthermore, that this SCOTUS decision now (in your misguided opinion) gives conservative candidates an advantage that other liberal parties don’t have.  This is an incorrect position, hence item #2 above.  In fact, because the exact opposite is true (i.e. liberals already have an unfair advantage in that they control the MSM, get a free pass on any wrongdoing, and ample free advertising, thus billions in savings on campaign advertising (which constitutes campaign ‘donations’).  Again, you simply will not accept this as fact, thus the argument cannot take place, and hence my refusal to debate you on the subject.  (And no, I’m not inviting you to debate it here either, in response to this post.  And no, I will not provide sources because…duh…obviously the MSM is going to obfuscate evidence of any bias in their (yellow) pursuits of laughable “journalism”.)  Any American (which you are not), even liberal Americans, will agree that the MSM is heavily biased left, something you just cannot admit (despite you knowing it to be true, which is disingenuous).

So, the actual reality (i.e. truth) of the matter is that because the MSM is, in fact, so heavily left-biased, all Citizens United vs. FEC does is that it levels the political playing field.  It does NOT, as you suggest, give an unfair advantage to conservatives via big business and campaign donations.  No, in reality what it does is…takes away long standing and unfair advantages from liberals, and it levels the political campaign playing field.  The SCOTUS was wise enough to see this and ruled accordingly.  You don’t agree with this decision nor do you like it, so you refuse to accept it because this is the whole basis of your argument.  And, you are not wiser than the collective SCOTUS, sorry.  By accepting this decision you would effectively surrender any debate on your favorite subject, Citizens United vs. FEC.  A decision which has somehow directly and deeply affected you personally (or so it would seem).

Lastly, I suspect you will reply with something along the lines of the above not being your argument at all, and attempt to spin the argument in a different direction, that being corporate money in politics, in general, contaminates the whole political process and needs to be eliminated.  This, only to circle back at some later point into the CU vs. FEC debate…which seems to be the only thing you want to discuss here. 

Given this one argument seems to be so fundamentally important to you, I am left no other alternative than to conclude you are indeed a “token liberal” troll, bent on reopening the CU vs. FEC debate.  And, I might even posit that you are a professional troll, attempting to start some form of a grassroots lobby to get the SCOTUS to re-hear / re-interpret CU vs. FEC.  In other words…you already know just how big of a loss CU vs FEC was to democrats and liberals.  As long as you liberals had the MSM in your back pocket, life was good.  But the minute CU vs. FEC gave conservatives the ability to compete for that airtime and free advertising from the MSM (but it wasn’t free to conservatives like it was to liberals), well, then it became a serious problem for liberals, grave indeed.  Why?  Because the political playing field was now level, something liberals can’t stand.  And this explains why Citizens United vs FEC is so critically important to you.  

You’re not fooling anyone here.

[FCD]

One other thought.  …

Going back to your (incorrect) assumption that the MSM is not biased left; this is a clever starting point, one I’m sure you have thoroughly contemplated and refined over the past decade.  It gives you a position of strength at the beginning point of any discussion or debate on the matter.  It is an assumption which, despite any proof that someone might provide, you can dismiss as being subjective and therefore not proof positive.  This leaves any opponent left to continue any counterargument with one hand tied behind their back.  And, you very well know this (hence my statement about your being ‘disingenuous’ in my previous post). 

Were anyone to attempt to wade into this discussion with you they would be foolish in not making this a giant caveat right up front.  And further, any attempt to illustrate the MSM’s left bias with examples would be met, I’m sure, with endless rejoinders citing FOXNews, Breitbart, and other national sources which completely overlooks local medias all over the country echoing much of the same liberal bias in lockstep with the national MSM like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC.  There is no comparison between the two groups, conservative vs. liberal and the liberal’s iron grip on American media.

Thus, you already know, in advance of anyone being foolish enough to debate you on the CU vs. FEC topic that you will be able to prevail, or seemingly prevail.  But, what’s even more disingenuous, in my opinion, is the notion you are not wishing to prevail to stroke your own ego.  No, your motivations are different.  What you hope to do is leave a written record for others to see, and which you can refer to going forward, as your justification to further the matter…likely up to and including trying to get the SCOTUS to reevaluate the decision (which isn’t how it works anyway, but that’s a different post). 

I do have one lingering question though.  It is a rhetorical question, so there is no need to answer.  Much like yourself, I write it out here not for my own personal gain, but to leave a written trail for future readers to serve as precedent in a discussion (not a precedent in law).  That question is…why is someone who is not from America so invested in not only just American politics in general, but American politics down to a specific SCOTUS ruling?  Why is this one ruling so critically important to this person? 

I have an opinion on the answer, but it’s just my opinion.  I think the reason is that it clearly illustrates just how much of an obstacle CU vs. FEC presents to foreign operators in attempting to manipulate US policy, both domestically and abroad.  More to the point, it clearly illustrates just how much more expensive these attempts at manipulation have become to those foreign operators as a direct and immediate result of CU vs. FEC, whereas before it used to be cheap and easy.  Now it takes serious consideration, and serious ‘cheddar’, and this serves as a serious deterrent.  Regardless if this is about foreign policy in areas such as international aid, or trade, or immigration, or any number of other subjects, it illustrates just how attractive of a proposition it is to meddle in American politics for gains to people other than the American taxpayer.  I find that very telling, not to mention interesting.  The fact that CU vs. FEC has brought this to light is equally interesting.

And lastly, CU vs. FEC was a decision from 10 years ago now.  Why has it all of a sudden become such a big deal to so many on the left?  Hmmmmm…I wonder why.  Let’s see if we can find a possible reason.  Well, here’s one possible reason.  As long as corrupt US federal government agencies were throwing money away like it grew on trees to everyone and anyone with their hand out, CU vs. FEC didn’t matter all that much in practice.  But then along came DOGE under Trump.  DOGE exposed, and continues to expose, fraud and waste.  Now funding which used to come from the US taxpayer was going to need to be provided by the people who should have been paying for it all along.  I can’t imagine who that could be, can you?  I don’t see many (if any) conservatives running around screaming with their hair on fire over DOGE, but every liberal you talk to sure the hell is.  They’re crawling out from under every rock, coming out of every shadowy back alley, and just about everywhere else to scream, gnash their teeth and wring their hands over DOGE.  Even the head of the EPA admitted to then 'president'(?) Biden that they were intentionally "tossing gold bars off the Titanic" prior to Trump's inauguration.  

It also explains why a non-American might suddenly be so interested in CU vs. FEC.  Interesting.  $50m for condoms in Gaza, millions for DEI in Serbia, millions to train Sri Lankan journalists how not to use binary language in repporting, meals for Al-qaeda, millions for LGBTQ advocacy in Jamaica, Armenia and Uganda, millions for sex changes in Guatemala, and the list goes on endlessly.  I can't imagine why foreign (corrupt) entities might want to influence US policy.

Huh, what a coincidence, doncha’ think? 

Funny that.

[TokenLiberal]

I disagree with you, so I must be a troll. Sigh. I'll strike it off the bingo card. Does it occur to you that this way of thinking is extremely divisive? It's also, frankly, weak. It's comfortable and easy to dismiss dissenters and call them trolls. If you had an intellectual backbone, you'd recognize that your way of seeing the world is not the only way.

On top of that, you're arguing against a made up position. You haven't responded to my OP even a little bit, it's all responses to arguments that I did not make. You don't engage with my actual points, because it's more comfortable to engage with the version of me that's in your head. After all, that version of me is stupid and easy to refute.

You are just bound and fucking determined to post about one single thing, Citizens United vs. FEC, aren’t you?

It’s unreal.  Nobody can have any sort of discussion without you working the discussion around into being about Citizens United (not this particular OP, but other posts).  It’s like you’re a one-trick pony.  It’s simply the only thing you want to debate here.  I saw this coming a long while ago, basically right after you joined.  It just keeps coming back to this one subject for you.

Nope. Complete and utter non sense. Here's a far from exhaustive list of topics I've posted about here:

Freedom
Equal opportunity
What makes a successful state
Education
Why we are divided
Modern media
Neoliberalism
The collective action problem
Censorship
Trump's tariffs
DOGE
The 4chan hack
Taxation overhaul
The Russo-Ukrainian war
Conspiracy theories
Book readings
Health care reform
...

CU has come up in our discussions a few times, I'll give you that, but this is partly because you keep bringing up corruption and the role of money in politics (e.g. your thread about democrats and their "gravy train"). It's not my fault that CU is an important piece of the puzzle in that discussion.

Also, you didn't have to respond to this thread. That was your choice. I actually didn't expect you to.

I’ve told you I’m not going to debate you on the subject.  Now I am going to tell you why, and give you the two primary reasons why:

Finally!

1. Because it is a SCOTUS “decision”.  I know you don’t like this answer, and I don’t really care, but it is a final decision.  You can cry about it all you like, but it’s not going to change the decision.

SCOTUS decisions aren't final. Remember Roe v. Wade? Also, it's possible to amend the constitution. I know this is hard right now politically, but it is possible with a supermajority.

2. Your starting point for the discussion ignores one glaring fact which is not open for debate (and I’m not going to debate it with you here either).  This one assumption destroys your whole argument (and you know this).  And, that assumption is…that the mainstream media (MSM) is NOT biased.  If this were true (which it absolutely is not), then someone might be able to have a discussion with you about CU, but given this matter would need to be resolved first (which it won’t be…ever) to your opponent’s satisfaction, the discussion cannot move forward without this.  Period. 

Please explain where in my argument I assume that the MSM isn't biased. Be specific.

You have established your position, clearly, without even having the full discussion.  You tipped your hand long ago.  Your position is that Citizen’s United (CU) pollutes politics as it allows corporations to make effectively campaign donations to candidates whereas before this was illegal (this much is true).  Furthermore, that this SCOTUS decision now (in your misguided opinion) gives conservative candidates an advantage that other liberal parties don’t have.  This is an incorrect position, hence item #2 above.

That's not my position. It's the position of straw man me who only exists in your head.

In fact, because the exact opposite is true (i.e. liberals already have an unfair advantage in that they control the MSM, get a free pass on any wrongdoing, and ample free advertising, thus billions in savings on campaign advertising (which constitutes campaign ‘donations’).  Again, you simply will not accept this as fact, thus the argument cannot take place, and hence my refusal to debate you on the subject.  (And no, I’m not inviting you to debate it here either, in response to this post.  And no, I will not provide sources because…duh…obviously the MSM is going to obfuscate evidence of any bias in their (yellow) pursuits of laughable “journalism”.)  Any American (which you are not), even liberal Americans, will agree that the MSM is heavily biased left, something you just cannot admit (despite you knowing it to be true, which is disingenuous).

So, the actual reality (i.e. truth) of the matter is that because the MSM is, in fact, so heavily left-biased, all Citizens United vs. FEC does is that it levels the political playing field.  It does NOT, as you suggest, give an unfair advantage to conservatives via big business and campaign donations.  No, in reality what it does is…takes away long standing and unfair advantages from liberals, and it levels the political campaign playing field.  The SCOTUS was wise enough to see this and ruled accordingly.  You don’t agree with this decision nor do you like it, so you refuse to accept it because this is the whole basis of your argument.  And, you are not wiser than the collective SCOTUS, sorry.  By accepting this decision you would effectively surrender any debate on your favorite subject, Citizens United vs. FEC.  A decision which has somehow directly and deeply affected you personally (or so it would seem).

Personally I don't consider media bias relevant in a discussion about money in politics. To me it's not a partisan issue. More on that later.

Since media bias is relevant to your argument, I'll address it. A few points:

1) Even if most American MSM have a slight left bias, it doesn't really matter. People will find news with the exact bias that they're looking for anyway. It's no coincidence that Fox, one of the few MSM networks with right bias, is the biggest. And we have social media now, which serves people exactly what they want.

2) As for bias in other MSM organizations, it makes sense that you perceive a slight left bias but it's not actually bias, it's objectivity. You see, there's a difference between objectivity and neutrality. Objectivity is when you report the facts. Neutrality is when you carefully align yourself with the middle of the spectrum. Another way of putting it is that neutrality is taking no side, and objectivity is taking the side of the truth. The difference is important here because what you apparently want is neutrality, and what you're getting is objectivity. When "the right" collectively takes an anti-science position, the facts are against it (e.g. climate change denial, anti-vaxx, etc). Trump is another example, he lies through his teeth on a daily basis so the facts are his enemy. Remember when the white house came out with their reciprocal tariff sheet, and their math turned out to be calculating something completely different than they said it was? Objective media will report that fact, and this leads to a perception that media who report on the facts are biased left. After all, the facts themselves have a left bias. I realize this argument makes me sound biased, but the truth is the truth and I'm not trying to be neutral here, I'm trying to be objective.

With that out of the way, let's have a look at your actual argument. You seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong here):

A) There's a left bias in media (addressed above)
B) Lax campaign finance law is advantageous for the right
C) Therefore it levels the playing field and is a good thing

"Corruption is good because it benefits my side". I have to say, it's a new one for me.

As I explained I don't think (A) is true, or if it is true it doesn't really matter, and I'm not so sure (B) is true either (for example, Clinton far outspent Trump in 2016) but I'm willing to take these as premises for the sake of argument, because I think © is by far the most interesting point you made.

I mentioned earlier that this is not a partisan issue to me. Apparently it is, to you. You think money in politics/corruption is a good thing as long as it benefits republicans, because it makes up for advantages democrats have in other areas. I have three main problems with this take.

First, I think it's morally bankrupt. If you think democrats have an MSM advantage, tough luck. Freedom of the press, bitch. If it's not to your liking, start your own media company. When parties start adopting undemocratic ways to counter each other's perceived advantages in an otherwise fair competition for votes, where does that end? Civil war, probably.

Second, even if money in politics is beneficial to your party and gives it more political power, it's not wielding this power on your behalf but on corporate lobbyists' behalf. So you're not really benefiting from the situation as much as you would be if your democracy was actually representative.

Third, the presence of money in politics makes people distrust democracy (with good reason). Distrust in democratic institutions is very destructive long-term. We are already seeing the effects, with the rise of populism.

By the way, in this post among others you take a very clear stance against money in politics, which I wholeheartedly agree with. I quote:

At the foundational level, getting elected shouldn't require gigantic funding at all.  As it stands right now, there is already WAY too much money in politics!  The fact that it requires billions of dollars to elect a president in this country flies in direct opposition to everything the United States Constitution stands for.  Period.  So, maybe we agree here, but when you say "campaign finance reform", to me this means...prohibit almost all of it by law.

This seems to be directly contradicting the point you made here about money in politics being necessary to create the level playing field. Have you changed your mind?


Your second post, an amateurish and ridiculous attempt at psycho-analyzing me, is way off the mark. I'm not going to spend much time dignifying it with a response, but just a few quick thoughts:

Going back to your (incorrect) assumption that the MSM is not biased left; this is a clever starting point, one I’m sure you have thoroughly contemplated and refined over the past decade

Just so this is abundantly clear: This assumption is in no way needed to support the actual arguments I made in the OP. Also, I hadn't contemplated it at all in this context before I read your posts, because I think media bias should be irrelevant in a discussion about money in politics.

why is someone who is not from America so invested in not only just American politics in general, but American politics down to a specific SCOTUS ruling?  Why is this one ruling so critically important to this person?

I'm actually a bit of a constitutional law slut. I sometimes enjoy reading entire SCOTUS opinions. I should've studied law, maybe. You'll find I also have extensive thoughts about Roe v. Wade, Dobbs v. JWHO, the presidential immunity ruling, and some other landmark cases.

The issue of money in politics is important to me because I believe it is one of the primary reasons the US democracy is not as representative as other Western democracies, and that this is severely hurting its prospects for long-term success as a country. When a democracy isn't representative, every other important issue becomes harder to solve because politicians aren't working for the people.

As for why I care about American politics at all: I want the US to succeed. If the US loses its position as the global hegemon, Western democracies everywhere (I'm in one) lose. I don't want a unipolar world where China dominates. I believe in democracy and capitalism, in inclusive institutions which enable upward mobility and prevent the accumulation of power in the hands of the few. The US, despite its flaws, is still the main exporter of that ideology.

And lastly, CU vs. FEC was a decision from 10 years ago now.  Why has it all of a sudden become such a big deal to so many on the left?

It's actually 15 years ago, and has been a problem the whole time, at least to me. The CU ruling was big news at the time and it certainly didn't escape my radar, even though I wasn't as politically aware back then.

It also explains why a non-American might suddenly be so interested in CU vs. FEC.  Interesting.  $50m for condoms in Gaza, millions for DEI in Serbia, millions to train Sri Lankan journalists how not to use binary language in repporting, meals for Al-qaeda, millions for LGBTQ advocacy in Jamaica, Armenia and Uganda, millions for sex changes in Guatemala, and the list goes on endlessly.  I can't imagine why foreign (corrupt) entities might want to influence US policy.

Oh please, I'm just a guy on the internet looking for other perspectives to challenge my own. I'm not trying to meddle in anything. If I was, why would I be here, spending time writing long posts that will reach 4 people on a good day?