READER COMMENTS ON
"Reproductive Rights, Campaign Finance Law and the First Amendment: KPFK 'BradCast'"
(6 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 4/3/2014 @ 12:18 am PT...
I hope you'll be covering the most promising candidate for SOS in CA --- http://www.derekcressman.com/ who is, by the way, very much opposed today's SCOTUS ruling on campaign finance
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 4/3/2014 @ 5:31 pm PT...
I don't understand if money is speech, why are there any limits? Isn't $2600 per candidate an infringement on speech? (at least Thomas is consistently crazy)
$123,200 is enough to give the max of $2600 to 47 candidates. Why would you need to give to 47 candidates? I can't think of 47 candidates who would be able to use that much money in an election that would REPRESENT ME.
This is obviously oriented to those who have the money and the interest in helping to elect people from outside where they vote. Maybe the way to fight this is to limit people to donate only to people who represent you. That would make politics more local. It might also reduce corporate influence because they could only buy candidates where they have their corporate headquarters.
SCOTUS is trying to do a compromise by still imposing limits. Why not go all the way and make no limits or admit this will be an even more corrupting influence on our politics? This "compromise" just makes it worse.
Sounds as though the majority in SCOTUS have the same naïve belief in their principles about corruption as Alan Greenspan had in the market's ability to regulate itself.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 4/3/2014 @ 8:23 pm PT...
Alex said @ 1:
Maybe the way to fight this is to limit people to donate only to people who represent you. That would make politics more local. It might also reduce corporate influence because they could only buy candidates where they have their corporate headquarters.
I've long spoken about (though don't know if I written about) the idea that one should only be able to donate to a candidate or initiative that they are able to vote on. If such a law was passed (and held to be Constitutional), it would also mean that corporations, no matter where they are headquartered, could not give to such campaigns, because corporations can't vote.
When one thinks of it that way, it makes perfect sense that corporations shouldn't be able to give money to political campaigns. Each person that works for or owns the corporation can still give money, of course (at least to a candidate or initiative they are legally able to vote for!)
As to doing away with ALL caps, as you suggest, I suspect that's next. Chief Justice Roberts seems to like to pull the band-aid off as slowly as possible. Though, make no mistake, he is clearly delighted to pull it off.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 4/4/2014 @ 3:00 pm PT...
Do you have any suggestions of who to contact so that I can help my community create a law that would prohibit non-voters (outside voting area) from contributing to a campaign. I live in Middelton, WI (where Russ Feingold is from).
This is not going to get fixed on a national level, it will have to come from the local communities first.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 4/4/2014 @ 4:46 pm PT...
Boy, good question. I guess you'd want to start with whichever body is the one that sets campaign finance laws for the community. Don't know if that's set, in WI, at the city, county or state level.
But, if it's possible to start local, that makes sense. If you can get it passed, maybe you'll be lucky and someone will challenge it in court all the way up to the Supreme Court and you'll get a lot of notice to the idea along the way!
(Before SCOTUS kills it!)
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 4/7/2014 @ 10:59 am PT...
By the time something like that gets to SCOTUS there is a chance there will be a bit of turnover. Of the current members Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer were born in the 1930s and Thomas in 1940s.I would think that some if not all would retire by then.
Personally I think after Alito retires things may be a bit less wacky because he sees to be belligerent and a bully.