No Proof that Limits on Speech Reduce Corruption

[Timshel]

Saying that money corrupts politics is kind of like saying a turd was defiled by the flies that land on it.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/weekinreview/24kirkpatrick.html

“There is no evidence that stricter campaign finance rules reduce corruption or raise positive assessments of government,” said Kenneth Mayer, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “It seems like such an obvious relationship but it has proven impossible to prove.”

It is not merely an academic question. The Supreme Court has consistently said that only fighting corruption or the appearance of corruption justifies laws that restrict political spending. Other rationales — like leveling the playing field between the haves and have-nots — are not enough.

...

In the United States, studies comparing states like Virginia with scant regulation against those like Wisconsin with strict rules have not found much difference in levels of corruption or public trust, several scholars said. Jeff Milyo, an economist at the University of Missouri, has compared states with strict bans on corporate contributions to political parties against those with no limits at all. “There is just no good evidence that campaign finance laws have any effect on actual corruption,” he said.

 

[Timshel]

Bump.

No comment? The only justification for CFR is that it will reduce corruption or the perception of corruption. There is no proof that it does.

 

[Bonestorm]

Bump.

No comment? The only justification for CFR is that it will reduce corruption or the perception of corruption. There is no proof that it does.

Actually, CFR is likely to increase corruption since legal means of enrichment are often outlawed. CFR is intended to reduce influence and to reduce the chances of having a government that is captive to industry. It may not have the best record on that score, but I doubt we'd be better off without it.

 

[Timshel]

Actually, CFR is likely to increase corruption since legal means of enrichment are often outlawed. CFR is intended to reduce influence and to reduce the chances of having a government that is captive to industry. It may not have the best record on that score, but I doubt we'd be better off without it.

The court's justification for CFR has always been to limit corruption or the appearance of corruption. Further, it has ruled that attempts to limit influence are clear violations of the first amendment. I don't think any CFR opinion has ever argued otherwise.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It's possible that it may not lead to corruption, but every million dollars nets a candidate about 1%. In competitive districts, two or three million in spending could easily swamp an opponent, and competitive districts are usually all that matters in elections. It's dangerous to have corporations choosing our government.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The most dangerous part of campaign financing is the quid pro quo possibilities, but corporations simply giving to a candidate in hopes that it will make someone favorable to them win is also dangerous.

 

[Timshel]

It's possible that it may not lead to corruption, but every million dollars nets a candidate about 1%. In competitive districts, two or three million in spending could easily swamp an opponent, and competitive districts are usually all that matters in elections. It's dangerous to have corporations choosing our government.

I don't see how any of this is relevant to the constitutional questions, except for the last sentence which clearly demonstrates your intent to violate first amendment rights.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I agree with Stringy, this whole debate is predicated on a false pretense. The problem is corruption in politics, and the solution is to prosecute and punish corruption harshly. Not saying I advocate such a thing, but imagine if it were a crime punishable by death, to bribe a public official? Don't you think the punishment and risk would deter corruption? Even with this, I don't think you could eliminate ALL corruption, there would still be some people who would risk death to do something corrupt. However, it would stop the vast majority of it.

What Liberals (and John McCain) have done, is successfully demonize "corporations!" Unwilling to accept the fact that "corporations" provide our jobs and economic prosperity, they have waged an all out war on them, painting this false portrait of "corporations" as evil maniacal out of control entities devoid of humanity, and acting on their own accord, and we mortals are powerless against them!

The truth is, not all corporations are corrupt, not all organizations want to corrupt politics or influence politicians to the detriment of society. Some corporations actually advocate things that are GOOD for society, and GOOD for our economy. In fact, I would venture to say, this is the case in the vast majority of instances. Corporations have no "evil intent" to destroy America, how would they make a profit and survive, if they destroyed America?

 

[Onceler]

I've gotta say, the most surprising thing since this whole debate started is how enthusiastically Dixie has supported the corporate takeover of American politics, and how he sees this as a good thing.

Redefining "rube" every day...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I've gotta say, the most surprising thing since this whole debate started is how enthusiastically Dixie has supported the corporate takeover of American politics, and how he sees this as a good thing.

Redefining "rube" every day...

There is no "corporate takeover of American politics" you nimrod! The SCOTUS did not rule that corporations assume the right to control all politics! They DID say that corporations are people, and people do have freedom of speech, and Congress can't pass laws to deprive them of it.

You think that is a bad thing!
No "redefinition" of rube is required, the regular one does just fine in your case!

 

[Onceler]

There is no "corporate takeover of American politics" you nimrod! The SCOTUS did not rule that corporations assume the right to control all politics! They DID say that corporations are people, and people do have freedom of speech, and Congress can't pass laws to deprive them of it.

You think that is a bad thing!
No "redefinition" of rube is required, the regular one does just fine in your case!

Corporations help decide our elections; they write legislation, and then buy the votes that they need to pass it. For the prescription drug bill, there were literally twice as many lobbyists for the drug industry on capitol hill as there were congresspeople.

They just got even more power.

And you're cool w/ all of it. That's nifty.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Corporations help decide our elections; they write legislation, and then buy the votes that they need to pass it. For the prescription drug bill, there were literally twice as many lobbyists for the drug industry on capitol hill as there were congresspeople.

They just got even more power.

And you're cool w/ all of it. That's nifty.

Wow, there were lobbyists there and congresspeople there, but not a single corporation showed up! Amazing, you would think as bad as corporations wanted to seize power, they would have been there among the lobbyists and congresspeople, but I guess they had other power to feed on or something, huh? I bet it's because the SCOTUS ruling hadn't come down yet, and the corporations knew better than to show up! Still, I would think at least ONE corporation would dare to show its face! ODD!

 

[Onceler]

Wow, there were lobbyists there and congresspeople there, but not a single corporation showed up! Amazing, you would think as bad as corporations wanted to seize power, they would have been there among the lobbyists and congresspeople, but I guess they had other power to feed on or something, huh? I bet it's because the SCOTUS ruling hadn't come down yet, and the corporations knew better than to show up! Still, I would think at least ONE corporation would dare to show its face! ODD!

Wow. You don't know what a lobbyist is, either.

That's pretty amazing...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Wow. You don't know what a lobbyist is, either.

That's pretty amazing...

Oh I know what lobbyists are, the SCOTUS didn't rule on their freedom of speech. You said corporations... and there wasn't a single corporation there, in fact, I bet you can go to Washington DC right now, and there isn't a single corporation lurking around the back door to the Capitol, trying to influence a politician!