Political scientists Ray LaRaja and Brian Schaffner here make a case for easing limits on donations to political parties, both to lessen corruption and ease polarization. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
Political scientists Ray LaRaja and Brian Schaffner here make a case for easing limits on donations to political parties, both to lessen corruption and ease polarization. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
Yup. More money. THAT’S the solution. More money in our political system. Why didn’t I think of that? It’s so freaking obvious that we need a lot more money in our political system. That will solve all of our political problems. Certainly corruption will certainly go away. Excess cash killed the Mafia, after all.
We should all read their book. I hope to get their book and read it.
The thrust of the article is based partly on the premise that allowing more contributions to parties will counteract the effect of Super PACs. I reject that premise since I hold out the hope that something else can and ought to be done to counteract the noxious effect of Super PACs – like eliminating or at least severely restrict them.
Kennedy was simply wrong in his assertion that “uncoordindated”, anonymous and unlimited contributions to Super PACs do not establish even a tacit quid pro quo between the Super PACs, their contributors, and the campaigns they support, or even the appearance of same.
Probably his poorest reasoning in all of his decisions. I’m not sure what the proper legalese is, but the word “bullshit” comes to mind.