Do Campaign Finance Reforms Insulate Incumbents from Competition?

[Flash]

If money didn't do that, then there would have never been a Citizens United case for SCOTUS to hear.

Citizens United was not based on whether money is good or bad in politics but whether Congress can pass laws regulating money; or, whether that is a violation of 1st Amendment rights.

[LV426]

You are making the assumption votes in Congress would be different without the campaign contributions.

Of course they would be!

Flash, you're being ridiculous.

Look at the many studies over a long period of time examining these connections.

What studies? What are you talking about? Are those studies of OTHER countries, or just of the US?

Assume LV426 is a member of Congress. Medicare for All is coming to a vote. Supporters of the plan gave you no money and opponents gave you a lot of money.

Ummm...in a public campaign finance system, I wouldn't get any money....so I'd be free to vote how the people wanted me to vote. And I would know how they wanted me to vote by listening to them, which I can do because I don't have to spend 90% of my time begging for money from rich people and corporations.

[LV426]

You are making the assumption votes in Congress would be different without the campaign contributions. Look at the many studies over a long period of time examining these connections.

Assume LV426 is a member of Congress. Medicare for All is coming to a vote. Supporters of the plan gave you no money and opponents gave you a lot of money.

How do you vote?

You seem to think that money is speech.

And if we go with that premise that money is speech, then we can't say that we have free speech. Because some people will have more speech than others. Does that sound democratic to you?

[LV426]

Citizens United was not based on whether money is good or bad in politics but whether Congress can pass laws regulating money; or, whether that is a violation of 1st Amendment rights.

Right, so if you are going to argue that money is speech, then you cannot say you support free speech. Literally, you are putting a dollar sign in front of the speech. Which makes it not free.

Also, if money is speech, then that means some people have more speech than others. Does that sound democratic to you?

[LV426]

I think you are getting caught up in the semantics involved, what legally is a contribution and who makes it

I’d argue that none of that matters, since Citizens United anyone or entity can find an avenue to contribute to a candidate’s efforts, and considering corporations have more capital than the individual they are more influential. As I said, the incumbent has a say on policy, and in general, would be the more attractive target for a corporation than the new face

Flash would have us believe that a $100B corporation has just as much influence over an elected representative as a guy who makes $8.25/hr.

[Flash]

No, no...it doesn't do that. You just got done saying earlier in this very post that incumbents win most of the time...and many go unchallenged.

Why do you think that is? What is stopping Joe Six Pack from taking on an Establishment politician in a primary or general election?

Incumbents win most of the time because they have more support. Many opponents are poor qualify and have little name recognition meaning they attract few campaign funds.

But it is also because a congressional office spends most of its time on casework helping all constituents with problems with their Social Security, VA benefits, and thousands of other requests for assistance. Helping your grandmother get her disability corrected makes friends of her and her family--nobody is mad at him. When he legislates nobody knows what he voted on and if they do half of them are mad at him for it.

I agree about the time members must spend raising money (not just for themselves). "Swamp" is a good HBO documentary about 3 Republican House members and their fund-raising activities. They were having problems raising money until the impeachment which created a bonanza.

But, I don't think public funding is a solution to the time problem. With so many safe districts today it would be a huge waste of money to give tax dollars to some Republican in a heavily Democratic district who had no chance of winning.

[LV426]

Incumbents win most of the time because they have more support. Many opponents are poor qualify and have little name recognition meaning they attract few campaign funds.

AAHHH! Campaign funds! So the big obstacle to having Joe Six Pack primary an establishment politician is because of MONEY!

Because they can't do what? Raise enough money?

So how does public campaign financing make it more difficult for Joe Six Pack to run against an establishment politician?

[LV426]

But it is also because a congressional office spends most of its time on casework helping all constituents with problems with their Social Security, VA benefits, and thousands of other requests for assistance.

Nope. No. Not at all. Completely wrong.

Most representatives spend between 70%-90% of their time begging for money.

Look how much fun it is:

[LV426]

I agree about the time members must spend raising money (not just for themselves). "Swamp" is a good HBO documentary about 3 Republican House members and their fund-raising activities. They were having problems raising money until the impeachment which created a bonanza.

OK, but from whom did they raise that money? Not millions of individual donors...rather, a handful of very wealthy donors (and we can check that on OpenSecrets).

Now, you would have us believe that handful of very wealthy donors carries the same influence with that politician as one of their constituents who makes $8.25/hr.

Do you really, truly believe that, Flash?

[LV426]

But, I don't think public funding is a solution to the time problem. With so many safe districts today it would be a huge waste of money to give tax dollars to some Republican in a heavily Democratic district who had no chance of winning.

So this is circular now...

The districts are safe because the folks representing them get tons of campaign money; and most of that campaign money comes not from millions of small donors, but rather a small handful of large donors and shadowy groups that are unaccountable.

So you would have everyone believe that a wealthy guy who can donate the maximum allowed to a candidate several times over the election cycle, who also bundles donations from their wealthy friends (because they all travel in the same small circles), carries just as much influence with that politician as an 18-year old kid flipping burgers at McDonald's.

To believe that requires a suspension of disbelief so large, it makes atheists blush.

[Flash]

Of course they would be!

Flash, you're being ridiculous.




What studies? What are you talking about? Are those studies of OTHER countries, or just of the US?

Ummm...in a public campaign finance system, I wouldn't get any money....so I'd be free to vote how the people wanted me to vote. And I would know how they wanted me to vote by listening to them, which I can do because I don't have to spend 90% of my time begging for money from rich people and corporations.

No, I wasn't talking about in a public finance system but the current system. Are you saying you would vote against something you supported because you got money from the other side? If your constituents wanted you to vote for it wouldn't you win because you pleased them?

How many people do you think you could listen to in order to determine how your constituents feel about the issue? How do you know if they are representative of your entire district?

What if more people supported it but fewer of them are likely to vote than its opponents? If you are willing to change your vote because some group gave you money wouldn't you also be willing to change your vote to please the most voters?

Wanting to follow the wishes of your constituents sounds good but members seldom know what that is. They are more likely to hear from opponents measures. Of course, they should know their district well enough to know about major issues that would affect them. A clean air bill that would cause significant job loss (even if neither side gave any donations) is something most constituents would oppose.

But most legislation is not such an easy decision. Most voters will be unaware of most issues and have no opinions of most things you will vote on leaving the decision to you.

[LV426]

No, I wasn't talking about in a public finance system but the current system. Are you saying you would vote against something you supported because you got money from the other side? If your constituents wanted you to vote for it wouldn't you win because you pleased them?

I'm saying money would have no influence on my decision, and I think it's weird that you think that's weird.

It's almost as if you're trying to gate-keep democracy by charging access fees to your elected representatives. That's the system you seem OK with, and the one you're describing.

[Flash]

OK, but from whom did they raise that money? Not millions of individual donors...rather, a handful of very wealthy donors (and we can check that on OpenSecrets).

Now, you would have us believe that handful of very wealthy donors carries the same influence with that politician as one of their constituents who makes $8.25/hr.

Do you really, truly believe that, Flash?

A million donors who make $8.25 who give $5 each is much more than a wealthy donor contributes (current limit is about $2800) and a million more votes.

Obama is a good example of this where he raised much of his money on the internet from small contributors.

[LV426]

How many people do you think you could listen to in order to determine how your constituents feel about the issue? How do you know if they are representative of your entire district

Well gee, this is all about servicing constituents, isn't it? Hosting town halls. Doing interviews. Holding sessions in your offices for the public to come and chat with you. Reading and responding to constituent letters and calls. Basically, what the job is supposed to be. I know this probably foreign to you because of how lazy you are, but look at AOC and how she does it...she's out there, hosting town halls, hosting constituents in her offices, being active and connecting with them in person, via social media, etc.

It can be done, it just requires someone not to be lazy. So if you're lazy, politics is probably not the job for you.

You'd be amazed how many people you can talk to in 24 months.

[LV426]

What if more people supported it but fewer of them are likely to vote than its opponents? If you are willing to change your vote because some group gave you money wouldn't you also be willing to change your vote to please the most voters

Then they can vote me out in the next election if they don't like what I did.

So instead of competing for cash in that election, I would have to defend my record.

That's the point, Flash.