SCOTUS opens the tap for campaign contributions.

Originally posted by JS357
It's logically impossible for a person to want the SC to rule in a way he [b]doesn't like or want.

It's more realistic to admit that we each want the SC to rule in favor of our interests. But yes, tell your opponents not to do this. Getting people to overlook their own interests is a key political tactic.[/b]

But in criticizing the SC for a ruling, one should stick to whether or not the ruling is correct or not.

I don't think it is at all impossible to be in favor of a certain law while acknowledging that the current Constitution does not agree with that law. For example, there are many people that believe we should have term limits, but most of these people are fully aware the SC is not in a position to make this happen and that it would take an amendment to bring it about. If I'm in favor of term limits for congress, I would not be in favor of the SC looking at our current Constitution and decreeing it calls for term limits for congress. Instead, I would be in favor of an amendment.

Almost all critics of the SC ruling are focusing entirely on whether or not a country should allow these political contributions. It's as if they're saying...
"If I were designing a country from scratch and writing a constitution, I would allow the government to limit political contributions, therefore the SC should have ruled that way on our current Constitution."

And why do you presume I have a side on this ruling? I'm not wealthy. The campaign limits don't affect me because I'll never come near giving that much. And those that do, may or may not be giving to the candidates I would prefer. I don't think this ruling benefits me personally other than it upholds the rule of law.

I see two different discussions.

1. Did the SC rule correctly?
2. If I could rewrite the Constitution to clarify the debate, would I allow unlimited contributions?

These are two very different conversations and conflating them does not help.

From my perspective, the SC got it right (question 1).
As far as whether or not I would change the Constitution given the opportunity, I'm open for discussion. I'm not particularly partisan.

But I am partisan that we should try to stick to the Constitution rather than revert to either mob rule or allow our current leaders make up law as they go. I think we'll end up in a much worse place if we go that route.

Originally posted by techsouth
But in criticizing the SC for a ruling, one should stick to whether or not the ruling is correct or not.

I don't think it is at all impossible to be in favor of a certain law while acknowledging that the current Constitution does not agree with that law. For example, there are many people that believe we should have term limits, but most of these peopl ...[text shortened]... leaders make up law as they go. I think we'll end up in a much worse place if we go that route.

It would not surprise me if your reason for not wanting the SC to bring about terms limits is that you don't want the SC to be a loose cannon. IOW, if they can do that sort of thing, who knows what they or some future SC will do? Then we might as well have no Constitution. So you are willing to put up without the expedience of SC-mandated federal term limits in order to satisfy a higher-order interest of yours.

I won't get into whether the SC ruling under discussion "got it right." I hear reasonable concerns as to constitutionality on both sides. But it is of interest to me where the trajectory of decisions like Citizens United and now McCutcheon is headed. Should direct contributions be allowed without limit? Should donors have to disclose their identity, to whom and how much they give, to the public? This is a higher-order interest of mine. My chief concern, however, is that we have a broken legislative branch that is unable/unwilling to put the interests of the Unites States above their partisan interests and act on these questions, proposing amendments as needed. That's where the constitutional crisis looms largest.

Originally posted by JS357
It would not surprise me if your reason for not wanting the SC to bring about terms limits is that you don't want the SC to be a loose cannon. IOW, if they can do that sort of thing, who knows what they or some future SC will do? Then we might as well have no Constitution. So you are willing to put up without the expedience of SC-mandated federal term limits i ...[text shortened]... questions, proposing amendments as needed. That's where the constitutional crisis looms largest.

I've met a lot of people who are in favor of congressional term limits. But I've never met someone who says the SC should decree it.

Just curious, have you met anyone who would?

Anyway, thanks for the vote of confidence that I'm not that much of a hack on term limits as to call for the SC to decree it so. BTW: I brought up term limits more hypothetical, not so much to express being in favor of it.

As far as your second paragraph,.... all reasonable concerns. I could probably add a few.

Originally posted by techsouth
I've met a lot of people who are in favor of congressional term limits. But I've [b]never met someone who says the SC should decree it.

Just curious, have you met anyone who would?

Anyway, thanks for the vote of confidence that I'm not that much of a hack on term limits as to call for the SC to decree it so. BTW: I brought up term limits more h ...[text shortened]... t.

As far as your second paragraph,.... all reasonable concerns. I could probably add a few.[/b]

I've never met anyone who said the SC should mandate term limits. Of course if they follow their usual format, pro-term limit legislation and a complaining lawsuit would be needed in which they uphold term limits. As it stands they have done the opposite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton

In this case it was states imposing term limits on their members of the US congress. I doubt that the US congress will ever impost them on themselves.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The poor have more money than the rich???

Actually the richest 10% own 73% of total wealth in the US. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

By way of the contrast, the bottom 40%: the lowest two quintiles hold just 0.3% of the wealth in the United States.http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

The poor have lots more votes. Poll taxes aren't legal in the US.

Originally posted by sh76
I haven't read the decision yet though at first glance I don't see why it would be unconstitutional to prohibit maximum overall expenditures to campaigns but constitutional to cap donations to individual campaigns; but I'll have to read the decision to understand that distinction.

Still, the real money and influence is in PACs and 527s. To limit the influenc ...[text shortened]... e to overturn Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United. This nuance seems like a drop in the bucket.

The question, valid in my opinion, raised by Peter Schweizer is it the buyers of influence or the sellers? "Extortion" is a great read, and sheds a lot of light on money in politics.

Originally posted by normbenign
The question, valid in my opinion, raised by Peter Schweizer is it the buyers of influence or the sellers? "Extortion" is a great read, and sheds a lot of light on money in politics.

I am looking into it. There is an excerpt at

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-12-04/peter-schweizer-extortion

Originally posted by JS357
It would not surprise me if your reason for not wanting the SC to bring about terms limits is that you don't want the SC to be a loose cannon. IOW, if they can do that sort of thing, who knows what they or some future SC will do? Then we might as well have no Constitution. So you are willing to put up without the expedience of SC-mandated federal term limits i ...[text shortened]... questions, proposing amendments as needed. That's where the constitutional crisis looms largest.

"Should direct contributions be allowed without limit? Should donors have to disclose their identity, to whom and how much they give, to the public?"

Very few people are concerned about limits on contributions. I've rarely contributed to political candidates, but quite often to organizations which pursue specific issues. I believe most lower income people tend to act through organized groups as opposed to individual contributions.

It ought to be plain, that increased regulation is totally ineffective at "getting the money out of politics". After McCain/Feingold more money poured into campaigns by other means.

"My chief concern, however, is that we have a broken legislative branch that is unable/unwilling to put the interests of the Unites States above their partisan interests and act on these questions"

Partisan interests are simply disagreements on what is best for the United States. The legislature is no more broken than at any other time in our history. The fact that the voters seldom grant a single party control of the Whitehouse, and both houses of Congress indicates the either due to the wisdom of the founders, or of the electorate we favor slow change after careful consideration.

The two times recently when there was a President and two houses of Congress of the same party, 04 to 06 the Bush administration passed nothing. During 08 to 10 the Obama administration barely passed probably the most divisive legislation in a century, this by buying the votes of two Democrat Senators, and lying to one Democratic congressman. Sometimes preventing bad legislation is just as high a duty of Congress as passing new bills.

I personally think term limits would be a good thing, and several States voted for term limits, but SCOTUS found these rules to be unconstitutional. States ought to not violate their State Constitutions, and I can't find anything in the US Constitution which rules out term limits. The 22nd amendment started term limits for Presidents, although until FDR presidential terms were limited to two voluntarily.

SCOTUS could reverse its previous decision, if a case came up, or a Constitutional amendment could settle the issue. In any case, I don't think this would stop or minimize partisanship.

Originally posted by JS357
I am looking into it. There is an excerpt at

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-12-04/peter-schweizer-extortion

He sets the issue in the first chapter. The first thing people believe is that large donors bribe politicians. He raises the possibility that extortion, rather than bribery explains the exchange of money. Many donors contribute to candidates on both sides, to be certain they support the winner.

Many bills are not introduced to pass. Instead they milk people for money for and against, and then they reintroduce the bill every session to milk contributors again.

Originally posted by normbenign
"Should direct contributions be allowed without limit? Should donors have to disclose their identity, to whom and how much they give, to the public?"

Very few people are concerned about limits on contributions. I've rarely contributed to political candidates, but quite often to organizations which pursue specific issues. I believe most lower income p ...[text shortened]... nt could settle the issue. In any case, I don't think this would stop or minimize partisanship.

"Partisan interests are simply disagreements on what is best for the United States."

I mean partisanship where the congress members of a party vote en bloc as they are instructed by party leaders. This turns over the popularly-elected representation to the party leader.

Worrying about of the state of the democracy is not the sole property of the Right.

We have term limits here in California and I see no noticeable benefit. I am waiting to see the effects of the change in redistricting.

Originally posted by JS357
"Partisan interests are simply disagreements on what is best for the United States."

I mean partisanship where the congress members of a party vote en bloc as they are instructed by party leaders. This turns over the popularly-elected representation to the party leader.

Worrying about of the state of the democracy is not the sole property of the Right.
...[text shortened]... and I see no noticeable benefit. I am waiting to see the effects of the change in redistricting.

In the US House, only a few seats end up in play every two years. When a congress-critter retires, the seat almost always glides to a member of the same party.

The "leadership" made up of long time congress-critters, sees to it that newbies quickly get the message that they had better tow the party line if they want the plum committee assignments, and assistance in their reelection campaigns. Extortion deals with this mechanism as well.

We have term limits in Michigan, and I do see the difference. You no longer have career politicians. It is difficult to determine if that makes a change overall.

Originally posted by normbenign
In the US House, only a few seats end up in play every two years. When a congress-critter retires, the seat almost always glides to a member of the same party.

The "leadership" made up of long time congress-critters, sees to it that newbies quickly get the message that they had better tow the party line if they want the plum committee assignments, a ...[text shortened]... no longer have career politicians. It is difficult to determine if that makes a change overall.

I'm sure you are aware of the pro and con arguments and don't need a debate on that. If what you say is true (and it is) term limits acknowledge (or assume) limited voter discernment and other problems in the electoral system that should not IMO be remedied this way. I believe that a citizen's ability to directly influence government by election to office is fundamental to democracy and should not be abridged on the basis of previous service. I'd rather let the sheepish judgement of the voting public (which your commentary implies) play itself out, than resolve the problem this way.

Originally posted by normbenign
In the US House, only a few seats end up in play every two years. When a congress-critter retires, the seat almost always glides to a member of the same party.

The "leadership" made up of long time congress-critters, sees to it that newbies quickly get the message that they had better tow the party line if they want the plum committee assignments, a ...[text shortened]... no longer have career politicians. It is difficult to determine if that makes a change overall.

Term limits just make sure you get the same guy with a different name. If you want to break the stranglehold of the two main parties, get rid of the two-party system by introducing proportional representation.

Originally posted by sh76
I haven't read the decision yet though at first glance I don't see why it would be unconstitutional to prohibit maximum overall expenditures to campaigns but constitutional to cap donations to individual campaigns; but I'll have to read the decision to understand that distinction.

Still, the real money and influence is in PACs and 527s. To limit the influenc ...[text shortened]... e to overturn Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United. This nuance seems like a drop in the bucket.

The ultra rich tend to back up their preferences by contributing to both sides. Of those with a preference, there seem to be as many supporting one side as the other.

The real problem with the PACs and 527s seems to be that this money can be converted to personal money at some point in the future.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Term limits just make sure you get the same guy with a different name. If you want to break the stranglehold of the two main parties, get rid of the two-party system by introducing proportional representation.

That may or may not be true. In some cases, such as Carl Levin retiring 90 plus year old Senator from Michigan, his trophy wife is running for the seat. Name recognition alone may give her a winning edge. This doesn't always hold true. I think that term limits would eliminate professional politicians, and to a lesser extent, people being influenced by the search for power in incumbency. On the other hand it could well increase the pressure on them to make their money early. I'd like to see what the actual effects would be.