The United States is rare in the world for having a campaign finance system that is centered on candidates, rather than parties. In the U.S., for the most part, candidates must take primary responsibility for raising campaign funds. In most democratic countries, parties take on that burden for their nominees. Political Science Professor Raymond J. LaRaja has this article in The Forum. It suggests that U.S. government would work better if campaign finance was more oriented through political parties.
The U.S. Supreme Court is responsible for the current state of federal campaign finance law. The Court has struck down many campaign finance laws, but has left intact the inhibitions on political parties in the McCain-Feingold Law. Political parties have less ability to make independent expenditures than any other type of group. Thanks to The Mischiefs of Faction for the link.
1. Where is any dollar limit in the 1st Amdt ???
2. Are all artificial persons the same ???
3. How about a uniform income tax on all *donations* — for whatever purpose ???
Demo Rep –
Amen brother. Let the rich buy politicians, no matter how many tens of millions they have to spend.
Meanwhile…send ten bucks to your favorite candidate for prez. you MORON.
Demo Rep, I think you got it wrong on this one. It’s got to be public financing and/or small individual donations, otherwise you get corporations and rich individuals being able to ask favors of the politicians that they donate massive amounts of money to. It’d be detrimental to the very existence of fair democratic elections, and the idea that government works for the entirety of We the People instead of a small number of them. They would also just shrug the taxes that you suggest get put on them.
And that wouldn’t change much if campaign finance was focused on political parties. Those with large amounts of money would just be able to pour it all into two giant pots instead.
I’ve been saying for a long time that McCain-Feingold was the wrong path to take. It was apparent then as it is now that the wealthy will find ways to get their money where they want it. At least parties can serve as gatekeepers and give to somewhat reasonable and electable candidates. Under McCain Feingold, kooks give to their favorite kooks now.
I fear that expecting the true beneficiaries of the current (and increasingly) corrupt system of campaign finance – those who are presently buying politicians at every level of government – are about as likely to let their bought and paid for politicians institute reform of the system as the permanent members of the Security Council of the UN are to surrender their veto power. Why would they accede to leveling a playing field that’s tilted to their advantage? And even if there are a few incumbent office holders who may not be beholden to big donors, why would they agree to giving up the obvious advantage of the incumbency? The game is rigged, and the only change I see possible at the federal level is to make it more rigged.
But Joshua, DSZ, Richard…if any of you think I’m wrong, please tell me why. I’d like to have cause for hope on this topic.
Attention ALL math morons —
The remedies are P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.