Side effects of getting money out of politics

[Grummgug]

I hear it said often that we need to "get money out of politics". For example, there will be over $1 billion spent on this year's US presidential election. But have we considered the consequences of doing so?

Here's what I think happens.

Let's say we strengthen campaign finance reform and ban most money from elections. Now, you've got a LOT of people willing to put their money towards their political goals with no legal means to. You've also empowered the media. As the candidates no longer have the money to get their message out on their own, the media has vast new powers to control the narratives of the election cycle.

This seems to point to one obvious conclusion: Instead of donating directly to campaigns, people will use that money to control the media and get their message out that way. They may purchase TV networks and cable stations, popular websites, etc., and then control the content directly. The New York Times might be directly owned and operated by the democrat party. The Washington Post might be directly owned and operated by the GOP. Google's value is a little north of $100 billion. Not cheap - but when you already spend $1 billion per campaign, they could gather up enough money and buy the search engine in some hostile takeover.

In a world where money is no longer speech, that money will get diverted into buying every media outlet to get their political message out.

[Durandro]

You know what taking money out of politics will do?

Even the playing field. Independants might actually stand a chance if they aren't being crushed by the two major party's advertising drives.

And yeah, your examples aren't removing money from politics at all.

[semaphore]

Implying the media isn't already controlled by partisan factions pumping out campaign propaganda for their chosen sides.

[Grummgug]

Implying the media isn't already controlled by partisan factions pumping out campaign propaganda for their chosen sides.

Well I figure if the money is no longer allowed to be spent on the campaign directly, they will be sitting on billions of cash left unspent. The only logical course would be to either buy current media outlets directly, or use the billions to construct their own media outlets to shout down the others they didn't buy.

The end result of campaign finance reform would be the media getting more and more partisan.

[Ynna]

I know it's on a smaller scale, but in Belgium, political parties are mostly funded by the government, so they all have around the same budget to campaign.
And our media is rather impartial.

[Chrysia]

The answer to your side effect is actually pretty simple: Government mandated air time for all politicians running for office. The government could reimburse the networks for that time or whatever, but all candidates would get equal time allotments, and equal chance to defend their views.

I think we should also go further, and restrict attack messages, but that's a separate issue.

[Kraenen]

Well I figure if the money is no longer allowed to be spent on the campaign directly, they will be sitting on billions of cash left unspent. The only logical course would be to either buy current media outlets directly, or use the billions to construct their own media outlets to shout down the others they didn't buy.

The end result of campaign finance reform would be the media getting more and more partisan.

If that were the case, they'd have already done it. Why not just buy them out and profit even more?

[Grummgug]

If that were the case, they'd have already done it. Why not just buy them out and profit even more?

The obvious reason is that the money never piles up like that for them to do anything substantial. But if campaign finance reform types get their way, political parties will quickly pile up donations and have no outlet to spend them.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Implying the media isn't already controlled by partisan factions pumping out campaign propaganda for their chosen sides.

Also implying that such reforms wouldn't also have a ban on any sort of campaign advertising.

The obvious reason is that the money never piles up like that for them to do anything substantial. But if campaign finance reform types get their way, political parties will quickly pile up donations and have no outlet to spend them.

Why would political parties be getting money if the reforms forbade them from using it in the way that people who donate to said parties currently think they do?

Why do you think that people aren't rich enough to do both?

[DEATHETERNAL]

Restricting spending on political campaigning (on otherwise legal activities like advertising) is a violation of basic liberty and should not be done. If someone wants to give someone else money to go spend on a commercial, what right do you have to tell either of them they can't do that when it does not violate the liberty of anyone else?

[Wells]

Restricting spending on political campaigning (on otherwise legal activities like advertising) is a violation of basic liberty and should not be done. If someone wants to give someone else money to go spend on a commercial, what right do you have to tell either of them they can't do that when it does not violate the liberty of anyone else?

Do corporations have rights?

And I think the supreme court is wrong to define money changing hands for political messaging as speech. Its commerce, or at best, a donation.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Restricting spending on political campaigning (on otherwise legal activities like advertising) is a violation of basic liberty and should not be done. If someone wants to give someone else money to go spend on a commercial, what right do you have to tell either of them they can't do that when it does not violate the liberty of anyone else?

Because the way that it is done violates the concept of equality set down by the people who founded the country.

[Deleted]

I hear it said often that we need to "get money out of politics". For example, there will be over $1 billion spent on this year's US presidential election. But have we considered the consequences of doing so?

Here's what I think happens.

Let's say we strengthen campaign finance reform and ban most money from elections. Now, you've got a LOT of people willing to put their money towards their political goals with no legal means to. You've also empowered the media. As the candidates no longer have the money to get their message out on their own, the media has vast new powers to control the narratives of the election cycle.

This seems to point to one obvious conclusion: Instead of donating directly to campaigns, people will use that money to control the media and get their message out that way. They may purchase TV networks and cable stations, popular websites, etc., and then control the content directly. The New York Times might be directly owned and operated by the democrat party. The Washington Post might be directly owned and operated by the GOP. Google's value is a little north of $100 billion. Not cheap - but when you already spend $1 billion per campaign, they could gather up enough money and buy the search engine in some hostile takeover.

In a world where money is no longer speech, that money will get diverted into buying every media outlet to get their political message out.

As if your media isn't already controlled by political parties...
You'd think that would be extremely obvious to notice but somehow, you haven't.

[DEATHETERNAL]

Because the way that it is done violates the concept of equality set down by the people who founded the country.

The people that didn't let anyone besides white males vote, right?

Do corporations have rights?

And I think the supreme court is wrong to define money changing hands for political messaging as speech. Its commerce, or at best, a donation.

People have rights and corporations are generally made up of people and people’s property. Economic liberty is fundamental to a free state.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

The people that didn't let anyone besides white males vote, right?

Do you know who else had hair?!

People have rights and corporations are generally made up of people and people’s property. Economic liberty is fundamental to a free state.

And yet a corporation is still not a person.

[Wells]

People have rights and corporations are generally made up of people and people’s property. Economic liberty is fundamental to a free state.

Corporations are by design separate entities from the people who own and operate them. Economic literacy is as important as economic liberty.

[DEATHETERNAL]

Do you know who else had hair?!



And yet a corporation is still not a person.

What does that matter? A corporation is an extention of people and their assets and to limit its liberties is to limit the liberties of those people regardless. Let liberty be.

Corporations are by design separate entities from the people who own and operate them. Economic literacy is as important as economic liberty.

Again, your distinction is meaningless to the argument that to limit the liberty of the corporation is to limit the liberty of those who make it up. A single person can incorporate his small business for various reasons. If he does that, does that suddenly give the state the right to prevent him operating as he was before, to confiscate his property, to limit how he spends his money more so than it did before?

[Wells]

Again, your distinction is meaningless to the argument that to limit the liberty of the corporation is to limit the liberty of those who make it up.

I'm not sure what you don't understand about "separate entity". Corporations are not legally the people who make them up. That's like half the point to a corporation.

I swear, this shit is why people still claim that raising the top income tax rate will drive businesses out.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

What does that matter? A corporation is an extention of people and their assets and to limit its liberties is to limit the liberties of those people regardless. Let liberty be.

So you think it's fine for my message to count more than yours because I have more money?

Also, do you know who else had hair?

Again, your distinction is meaningless to the argument that to limit the liberty of the corporation is to limit the liberty of those who make it up. A single person can incorporate his small business for various reasons. If he does that, does that suddenly give the state the right to prevent him operating as he was before, to confiscate his property, to limit how he spends his money more so than it did before?

Except it doesn't limit their personal liberty, it limits the actions of the corporation.

[DEATHETERNAL]

I'm not sure what you don't understand about "separate entity". Corporations are not legally the people who make them up. That's like half the point to a corporation.

I swear, this shit is why people still claim that raising the top income tax rate will drive businesses out.

That will drive rich people out as it is doing in France with their new insane 75% tax bracket.