Page 1 of 12 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 175

Thread: Do Campaign Finance Reforms Insulate Incumbents from Competition?

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default Do Campaign Finance Reforms Insulate Incumbents from Competition?

    "Variations in state campaign finance regulations across states and over time provide an opportunity to test the effects of reforms on the electoral success of incumbent state legislators. We use the most recent state legislative election returns dataset to test whether state campaign finance reforms help or hinder incumbents. Our analysis of nearly 66,000 contests in 33 years reveals that campaign contribution limits and partial public financing have little impact on incumbent reelection prospects. However, full public financing and prohibitions on corporate independent expenditures significantly increase the probability of incumbent reelection."

    https://politicalsciencenow.com/do-c...iciIGC0cTJNcwc

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    Bigdog (09-15-2020)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    11,390
    Thanks
    476
    Thanked 4,028 Times in 3,012 Posts
    Groans
    398
    Groaned 234 Times in 225 Posts

    Default

    duh

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to canceled.2021.3 For This Post:

    Celticguy (09-15-2020)

  5. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Hiden View Post
    duh
    We have often heard that reforms will cure certain political problems--limit campaign contributions or spending, repeal the 17th Amendment, abolish the electoral college, automatic voter registration, public financing of elections...........

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    Bigdog (09-15-2020)

  7. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    "Variations in state campaign finance regulations across states and over time provide an opportunity to test the effects of reforms on the electoral success of incumbent state legislators. We use the most recent state legislative election returns dataset to test whether state campaign finance reforms help or hinder incumbents. Our analysis of nearly 66,000 contests in 33 years reveals that campaign contribution limits and partial public financing have little impact on incumbent reelection prospects. However, full public financing and prohibitions on corporate independent expenditures significantly increase the probability of incumbent reelection."

    https://politicalsciencenow.com/do-c...iciIGC0cTJNcwc
    Well yeah, because the politician starts legislating on behalf of their constituents instead of special interests, which makes them popular, which leads to incumbency.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  8. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    11,390
    Thanks
    476
    Thanked 4,028 Times in 3,012 Posts
    Groans
    398
    Groaned 234 Times in 225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    We have often heard that reforms will cure certain political problems--limit campaign contributions or spending, repeal the 17th Amendment, abolish the electoral college, automatic voter registration, public financing of elections...........
    You hear a lot of things from statists. Much of it is lies. If you need help sifting through their bullshit, you can just ring me up. I didn't need to read this article to tell me what you posted. I already knew it. How you may ask?

    Easy. Experience guided by common sense.

    Why would ANY politician pass a law that would keep them from keeping their lucrative jobs? It is like nimrods who think these same politicians will pass tax laws that will negatively impact them.

    But, you were told that the Wu Flu was a big deal but it really wasn't. You get played a lot. I can help you with that

  9. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Hiden View Post
    But, you were told that the Wu Flu was a big deal but it really wasn'tt
    But it was. Trump even said so. It's on recorded audio. It makes you look really stupid.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  10. The Following User Says Thank You to LV426 For This Post:

    Phantasmal (09-15-2020)

  11. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    Well yeah, because the politician starts legislating on behalf of their constituents instead of special interests, which makes them popular, which leads to incumbency.
    They don't legislate on behalf of constituents any more with these reforms than without them. The point is that reforms reduce competition and benefit incumbents.

    All constituents are special interests and most legislation benefits some groups and hurts others. It is impossible to avoid this outcome.

  12. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Hiden View Post
    You hear a lot of things from statists. Much of it is lies. If you need help sifting through their bullshit, you can just ring me up. I didn't need to read this article to tell me what you posted. I already knew it. How you may ask?

    Easy. Experience guided by common sense.

    Why would ANY politician pass a law that would keep them from keeping their lucrative jobs? It is like nimrods who think these same politicians will pass tax laws that will negatively impact them.

    But, you were told that the Wu Flu was a big deal but it really wasn't. You get played a lot. I can help you with that
    The right thinks reforms will help just like the left does. The right wants to repeal the 17th amendment, use voter IDs they think will prevent voter fraud........They are both naive to think changes the rules changes human behavior.

  13. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,958
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,035 Times in 13,845 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    "Variations in state campaign finance regulations across states and over time provide an opportunity to test the effects of reforms on the electoral success of incumbent state legislators. We use the most recent state legislative election returns dataset to test whether state campaign finance reforms help or hinder incumbents. Our analysis of nearly 66,000 contests in 33 years reveals that campaign contribution limits and partial public financing have little impact on incumbent reelection prospects. However, full public financing and prohibitions on corporate independent expenditures significantly increase the probability of incumbent reelection."

    https://politicalsciencenow.com/do-c...iciIGC0cTJNcwc
    You have to purchase the study to look at it, but it raises a few questions

    How can a study covering 33 years be possible when Citizens United is only ten years old? And I can't recall any election anywhere they ever received full public financing

  14. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    You have to purchase the study to look at it, but it raises a few questions

    How can a study covering 33 years be possible when Citizens United is only ten years old? And I can't recall any election anywhere they ever received full public financing
    Corporations could make independent expenditures before Citizens United. I assume some states must have full public financing because of the study. Incumbents often set campaign contributions and total spending limits too low because it limits competition.

    The U. S. presidential general election was fully publicly funded from 1976 until 2008 when Obama chose not to take the public funds because he would be limited in total and per state spending. The D and R nominees could accept public funding and could raise no outside funds. They could spend only the total amount of the federal grant and each state had a limit based on population.

    The nomination process was partially publicly funded. The federal government matched privately raised money up to set limits.

    This is not the complete article but a short summary (not much more than was in the abstract).

    https://phys.org/news/2020-07-campai...mpetitive.html

  15. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,958
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,035 Times in 13,845 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Corporations could make independent expenditures before Citizens United. I assume some states must have full public financing because of the study. Incumbents often set campaign contributions and total spending limits too low because it limits competition.

    The U. S. presidential general election was fully publicly funded from 1976 until 2008 when Obama chose not to take the public funds because he would be limited in total and per state spending. The D and R nominees could accept public funding and could raise no outside funds. They could spend only the total amount of the federal grant and each state had a limit based on population.

    And weren't those prior public funding campaigns you highlighted actually matching public funds up to a certain amount? The candidate had to swear that they wouldn't spend over a certain amount and then the Gov't would match up to that amount? And it only addressed campaigns, not the PACs or other supporting entities. Regardless, it's history since Citizens United

    The nomination process was partially publicly funded. The federal government matched privately raised money up to set limits.

    This is not the complete article but a short summary (not much more than was in the abstract).

    https://phys.org/news/2020-07-campai...mpetitive.html
    But weren't those independent expenditures limited, in fact, severely limited, now, limitations are rare, and seemingly an incumbent, given they have had time in office, could benefit the corporation's interests so that funding next time was easier, something a new candidate would not have the ability to do. Can't see unlimited corporate money in an election not benefiting an incumbent

    And those

  16. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,291
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,406 Times in 10,036 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    They don't legislate on behalf of constituents any more with these reforms than without them.
    Flash, if a politician is no longer getting campaign contributions from corporations or PACs, how is that politician going to get re-elected? By legislating on behalf of their constituents...you know...doing their actual job.


    The point is that reforms reduce competition and benefit incumbents.
    What competition? If a politician is elected and passes legislation their constituents want, why wouldn't they be re-elected? Why shouldn't they be re-elected?

    Part of the antipathy towards elected politicians is the perception that they don't work for their constituents.

    So in a system where they don't have to beg for campaign money, how would they go about getting re-elected? BY DOING THEIR JOB.


    All constituents are special interests
    Stop.

    This is sophistry.

    Expanding the definition of "special interests" to say that every voter is a special interest.

    Yes, Flash, precisely.

    So to get re-elected, a politician must do...what, in this reform scenario?


    most legislation benefits some groups and hurts others.
    Well that's a broad, vague thing to say.

    How does Medicare for All hurt you?


    It is impossible to avoid this outcome.
    So then you would prefer a system where your choice of elected representatives is made for you? Sounds anti-democratic to me.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  17. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,654 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    But weren't those independent expenditures limited, in fact, severely limited, now, limitations are rare, and seemingly an incumbent, given they have had time in office, could benefit the corporation's interests so that funding next time was easier, something a new candidate would not have the ability to do. Can't see unlimited corporate money in an election not benefiting an incumbent

    And those
    Corporate limitations varied by state. Independent spending is not a contribution given to the candidate. Contributions usually benefit the incumbent because the incumbent has the best chance to win. They get money because they have support, not vice versa.

  18. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    28,688
    Thanks
    26,423
    Thanked 14,244 Times in 9,790 Posts
    Groans
    563
    Groaned 606 Times in 573 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    We have often heard that reforms will cure certain political problems--limit campaign contributions or spending, repeal the 17th Amendment, abolish the electoral college, automatic voter registration, public financing of elections...........
    Yep, ... and a "politburea", where the political bureaucrats are all the same party, ... one party rule.
    "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
    — Joe Biden on Obama.

    Socialism is just the modern word for monarchy.

    D.C. has become a Guild System with an hierarchy and line of accession much like the Royal Court or priestly classes.

    Private citizens are perfectly able of doing a better job without "apprenticing".

  19. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,510
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,554 Times in 17,084 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    It is also that once you are in office, you meet the people who want something. That makes raising money much more efficient.Unfortunately pols spend over a third of their day asking for money.
    We need campaign finance reform. Only funded by tax payers, no outside money.

Similar Threads

  1. No Campaign Finance Violations by Trump
    By hvilleherb in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 12-20-2018, 04:27 PM
  2. Day 8 - Still no indictment for campaign finance violations
    By canceled.2021.2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-29-2018, 07:15 AM
  3. APP - Democrat commits campaign finance crimes
    By canceled.2021.1 in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-10-2018, 08:22 PM
  4. Obama Campaign In Finance Trouble
    By RockX in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-02-2008, 03:42 PM
  5. Obama re:Campaign Finance
    By Blackflag in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 06-20-2008, 11:07 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •