The worst part is the richest ones that can fund their own campaigns are still out their begging for money.

Who else could afford to give up their job to spend money to try and maybe get another job that doesn't really pay an equivalent to how much work it really requires besides people already wealthy?

When has a government NOT been run by rich people?

@Random - The law requires them to. They are actually forbidden from spending shitloads of cash on their own campaigns. The idea is to prevent someone richer than God outspending his opponent with no real support from the populace.

"@Random - The law requires them to. They are actually forbidden from spending shitloads of cash on their own campaigns. "

Actually, Draug, that's completely false. They can spend whatever they want of their own money.

(The Supreme Court held in Buckley v. Valeo, in 1976, that it would be a violation of the First Amendment to limit what an individual office-seeker can spend of his own money on his campaign).

No, I think we should take Dr. Draugnar, Exq. at his word here. He's got a JD from SVU, after all.

Semck - Any cases *since* campaign finance reform? Didn't think so. That is a 45 year old case and campaign finance reform has happened since then.

And I should point out this is about congress, who had their own set of rules and don't appear to have to answer to SCOTUS when it comes to their rules.

50 richest members of congress combined networth is 1.8 billion. 50 richest members of governing body in China combined networth is 90 billion.

It takes money to get into power, no matter where you are.

A very cursory Google search shows the case is still good law.

In fact, it's the governing case on the constitutionality of campagin finance laws.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1593253

This is why I make fun of you, Dragnaur.

Yep, just did it. The law it overturned was from 74 and nothing has changes. But in 74, individuals were prevented from spending personal money.

Also, the Presidential candidates are still restricted *if* they receive any tax payer money. They can only spend unlimited personal wealth if they don't accept money from the federal presidential election fund.

Where's the proof of that? Or does it just sound right to you?

That's true. See http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml#Expenditure_Limits .

However, it's not really relevant to Congress, obviously, which was the original discussion; and moreover, any candidate who has access to exceptional wealth (whether public or personal) has a fairly good inducement not to take the public funding, as Barack Obama showed.

The question is, should they be paid enough so that anyone can afford to live on the salary? I'm guessing most poor americans would be pretty happy on a congressman's salary.

So the second question is, how do you finance your campaign, i guess being rich already and meeting the right people (at fancy parties perhaps) makes getting your finance together a little easier... I mean, one face-to-face with a lobbiest from mega-super-rich-corp takes less time/effort than one thousand meetings with kilo-super-rich-corp... (or whoever their poorer allies are)

@ILN, do you have a point?
@Faeces, do you have a source, or indeed, are you saying 'Red' China is infact just like the US in many important ways?

@Invictus - So you male fun of me then turn right around and prove yourself an even bigger moron. OK. As Semck showed while I was taking a shower, that is a *fact* with regards to presidential campaigns.

"So you male fun of me then turn right around and prove yourself an even bigger moron."

Well, let's not get carried away, Draug. Invictus just asked for a citation, he didn't state a non-fact as a fact with cool authority.

Yeah, I'm a moron because I didn't pretend to know whether a hypothetical hyper-wealthy presidential candidate could legally spend unlimited amounts of his own money if he accepted public funding. That's a fairly specific situation without an intuitive answer.

Actually, it is co.mon knowledge since the last election where there was debate about Romney wanting to self-campaign or use the fund. So yeah, you *are* a the weakest link. Goodbye.

I don't remember that being issue at all. Even Romney is nowhere near rich enough to bankroll a presidential campaign endgame by himself. From my recollection, the thing you're thinking of was whether to use public financing or rely on unlimited contributions from donors, which itself was a strategy to try and shame Obama into taking the public money and therefore nullify his edge in fundraising. So an entirely different sort of thing, since it dealt with donated money rather than the candidate's own.

And how can anyone with an ounce of self-respect make a Weakest Link reference in 2014?

We could look back at Ross Perot's campaign (also common knowledge then for a tone over 40 now).

Anyone, not a tone.

Anyone not a tone should just stay out of this discussion. It's for tones only!

Proof on the Ross Perot angle? I was but a lad in 1992, but I do have a political science degree and if there's one thing those professors love to blabber on about it's the 1992 presidential election. Again, I don't remember any legal controversy about Perot spending his own money.

He was slandered by his opponents for spending so much because he refused the public funds.

Well, that doesn't sound like it's slander but, leaving that aside, do you have any links which show any legal controversy over Ross Perot largely self-financing his 1992 campaign? If all you're saying is Clinton and Bush used the fact he was really rich in political attacks on him then you're not really saying much.

Actually, Draug, if Ross Perot was "slandered by his opponents for spending so much because he refused the public funds," it raises the question how on earth you came to your initial conclusion that it is illegal in the US for somebody to spend unlimited personal funds.

@smeck, didn't draug already say he'd thought the rules had changed... given that 92 was over 20 years ago, i'll leave you come to your own conclusions.

Draug said: 'Semck - Any cases *since* campaign finance reform? Didn't think so. That is a 45 year old case and campaign finance reform has happened since then.' (he may have been wrong on this, but at least he made it clear what he thought)

I was also, at the time, referring to congressional campaigns. But I do see (and admitted already) that I was wrong about that. It was only a couple of years in which congressional campaigns were limited on funds before SCOTUS overturned it.

So you just gonna not respond to my question?

@orthaic, my point is i have no idea why everyone is so surprised that people in power have money.

ILN, i'm not saying it is a surprise, i'm saying it is class-ist.