This isn't necessarily an original idea, but here it is:

Let me preface this by acknowledging that money has been determined to be as protected as free speech (I'm not necessarily arguing that this is a morally 'correct' stance, but it is the assumption that we have to work with in the wake of the McCutcheon v. FEC Supreme Court case).

I propose that the existing web of regulations be scrapped, and that campaign donations should be unlimited, but public record over a certain dollar amount (say, $1,000 USD).

Rationale: Money has been determined to equal speech. But if that is the case, then don't we (the people) have a right to know who is doing the "speaking" and how much "speaking" they are doing? The price of speaking freely has always been a modest compromise of individual privacy. That same logic should apply to "speaking" with political donations.

Why it would be a compromise: Most left-wing people want campaign finances to be either capped or public record. Most right-wing people want campaign finances to be relatively unregulated and private. I say that we make it unlimited (thus pleasing the right) but public record over a certain dollar amount (thus pleasing the left).

It would be a lot easier to expose corruption if we know who is giving money to which candidates. The current super-PAC money laundering scheme is antithetical to the idea of freedom.

To be serious:

We have federal campaign finance disclosure rules now. They are not well enforced, mainly due to Republican obstruction at the FEC.

Your "compromise" not only lowers the bar for disclosure (currently set at $200 or more for 501(c)3s), but it removes the $2600 limit for individuals. Hardly a compromise at all!

Alright, then let's move the bar down to $200, ban super PACs, and enforce the laws better. How's that?

If politicians are going to be getting sponsored by the rich and corporations, then they shouldn't be allowed to launder their money through PACs, and we should know damned well who is sponsoring who.

Why would this be a left/right split? Surely everyone wants a fair and representative democracy, with a 'one person, one vote' system.

Why should the super-rich have disproportionate say?

Public financing of electoral campaigns is the way to go. Vote Bernie and make it happen.

It sounds like you're operating on the assumption that unlimited donations is a good thing. Care to explain why this is the case and why its better than a strict limit on any and all donations?

Imagine someone who is pro-abortion in a small southern town run by Baptists, or someone who is pro-gun working on a liberal West Coast college campus, or whoever you want with a belief in opposition to a strongly held belief of a hostile majority. Requirements for public disclosure of campaign contributions would force people to risk their own well-being in order to support their chosen causes. I can easily imagine, say, a pro-gay marriage school teacher in small-town Alabama or an anti-gay marriage school teacher in San Francisco not supporting their cause if it became public knowledge.

Unless you're going to forbid the wealthy from spending money on their own campaigns, this won't end wealth influencing elections, just alter it. Public financing of electoral campaigns would potentially mean that my money would support Sheriff Joe or some other loathsome individual running for office. No thanks.

I also think almost all limitations on electoral spending are manifestly unconstitutional, but SCOTUS disagrees with me.

2ndWhiteLine: Presumably that was directed at Gunfighter06.

ckroberts: Who are you talking to? Laws requiring public disclosure of private campaign contributions are not the same as public financing of elections. Nobody in this thread has yet explicitly argued for both.

Those "risk their own well-being" examples are unrealistic and sensational.

The real reason campaign finance disclosure reform is difficult is because extremely wealthy individuals don't want the public to know exactly how much they can afford to manipulate the system.

JECE, you specifically said that public financing is the way to go. And the thread is about disclosure laws. I don't think I linked those together specifically, although I guess putting them together in a single paragraph could be confusing. But, to be clear, whoever argues for either of these proposals, I am against both, for the reasons stated above among others. I do appreciate your policing who is exactly talking to who, though.

Jeff Kuta, I am a historian, and the history of the United States is full of hostile groups trying to force organizations like the NAACP to provide lists of members or donors. And do you really find it difficult to believe that being, say, pro-abortion in Mississippi or anti-gay marriage on a liberal college campus couldn't be professionally or personally risky?

The "risk their own well-being" thing also penalises people who support minorities. If you support a majority (ie., a popular and status quo) candidate then you're safe. If it gets out that you supported a gay person, or an atheist, or a muslim, or a communist, then that opens you up to all sorts of targeting.

@ckroberts: I agree with you for certain types of organizations. There is well established precedent for 501(c)(3) organizations such at the NAACP. Those charitable, non-profit organizations should and do have protection for their member and donor lists. They should have protection precisely because they are supposed to be apolitical and non-partisan with respect to political parties, campaigns and elections.

That level of secrecy shouldn't apply to member and donor lists for corporations which are created specifically to exert direct political influence on elections and the government. That's where Citizens United and McCutcheon are flawed.

ckroberts: Well then yes, the main point of public financing of elections is to "forbid [or put strict limits on] the wealthy from spending money on their own campaigns". I would argue that forbidding/limiting campaign donations is a secondary (though also necessary) consideration.

This is just a matter of common sense. Think about school/university elections. Does it makle sense to allow students to spend thousands of dollars on campaigns to bombard everyone else on campus?

When I say "public record" for all donations above a certain dollar amount, I don't mean addresses, locations or any realistically compromising personal information. Just names.

A pro-gun schoolteacher in San Francisco who donates above a certain dollar amount to Republican candidates would be in no real danger of retaliation, since he/she would just be another name on a long, LONG list. On the other hand, a well-known CEO of a multinational conglomerate would be vulnerable to well-deserved scrutiny.

This is a tricky issue for me. The populist in me says that unlimited (or loosely regulated) campaign finance opens the door to oligarchy. The libertarian in me says that the government has no more of a right to restrict campaign spending than it does free speech.

Vader, come to the light side.

@Gunf : Does the libertarian accept that living under an oligarchy might not suit their livertarian ideals?

Or maybe your problem is 'money = speech' leads to election not being fair ( they can still be free )

Jeff, that's a trivial workaround for the richest - buy or start a newspaper. Co-opt an existing union or corporation. Given that so few of these types of organizations that you mention are actually apolitical and nonpartisan, it doesn't seem tough to manage. Fixing the problem would be worse: I do not like the idea of some bureaucrat, likely put into office by one party or the other, going through a list deciding whose political speech is allowable and whose is not.

JECE, here's a big problem with what you're saying, at least for me. I believe strongly in some issue, and I want to exercise my right to do so honestly, peacefully, and with the consensual aid of some newspaper or TV station. You are saying essentially that because you do not like the peaceful outcome of me exercising my right to free speech, it should be limited. Even if I didn't think that was unconstitutional, just as a practical matter we should err on the side of protecting rights. Also, if we public financed elections, you wouldn't mind your tax dollars supporting, say, a white supremacist or Stalinist or some other terrible person?

Think about what you're all saying. People want to organize and make their voices heard in politics, and they want to do without risk of retribution. That is the essence of free speech. Saying you have this much free speech, but no more, is wrong.

ckroberts: White collar crime, bribery and abuse of public office are also "peaceful". This doesn't mean we should allow them. I don't see your initial point there.

"you wouldn't mind your tax dollars supporting, say, a white supremacist or Stalinist or some other terrible person?"
This hardly dignifies a response. There are already terrible people like the Sheriff Joe you mentioned in office. Limiting public financing so that it extend to every extremist or cuckoo bird is relatively easy and there multiple ways of going about it. For instance, public financing can be afforded to candidates who gain ballot access (which is determined via signatures or performance in a prior election, etc.). Write-in candidates can be allowed to spend private funds up to the amount publicly financed to more mainstream politicians.

"People want to organize and make their voices heard in politics"
That would be precisely why people want public financing of elections. You can't hear third party politicians right now.

"I do not like the idea of some bureaucrat, likely put into office by one party or the other, going through a list deciding whose political speech is allowable and whose is not."

Organizations know the rules when they choose how to incorporate. If you decide to be a 501(c)(3), you agree to obey the rules as a 501(c)(3). If you want more freedom to use your speech politically, organize as a 501(c)(4) or a 527 or SuperPAC. There are plenty of options. This also means you agree to appropriate oversight by the entity under which you incorporate: the IRS branch of the federal government. The corporation *agreed a priori* and can't just back out because they don't want to. They must accept the responsibility and obligations which they agreed to from day one!

Public disclosure shouldn't exist for individuals simply because you don't need to know or should care about the political opinion of every random rich person. We already know they are donating millions of dollars to a politician. Which one is hardly important. Money is the way to make people pay attention, but in the end they still only get one vote, just like you.

demon321x2: Just the Koch family has promised to spend more money in the next election than the entire Democratic Party and the entire Republican Party did in the last election. Why stick your head in the sand? The exact figures should of course be public knowledge.

Fuck all that.

How about this:

INTELLECT TESTING for people that want to cast a vote.

How about this:

Be a TAX PAYER if you want to cast a vote...and/or a property owner, because you....as Obama famously said...have "skin in the game"...

How about this:

Don't be a fucking LOSER SHEEP....and before you cast a vote...RESEARCH YOUR CANDIDATE. A website is damned near FREE....therefore you should be able to research ANY legitimate candidate by going to their website and understanding their ideology.

THEREFORE....vote based upon INFORMATION....not advertising.

I've NEVER EVER EVER voted for a candidate based upon bullshit advertising. I ONLY vote for a candidate because I research what they stand for.

And if I don't know any candidate for an office...I DON'T VOTE.




So how about that.....quite being retarded fuckwads and instead be a RESPONSIBLE VOTER and RESEARCH THE CANDIDATES before you vote and IGNORE ADVERTISING.


(WTF???!?! OMG!!!! Did krellin just suggest I take responsibility for my own actions!?!?!? What a fucking moron krellin is....)