Still think you should limit campaign contributions?

[sudo]

You guys know how much it irks me that lots of you are in favor of limiting my free speech by limiting how much I can contribute to the politician of my choice by law. You justify your thinking by saying its unfair primarily because money to campaigns is how elections are won... or something along those lines. Well, Cantor lost big time last night to his tea party opponent didn't he? He out spent his opponent 10 to 1. "Cantor's campaign shelled out more than $1 million in television and radio ads to send its message that Cantor was "a strong conservative." It outspent Brat's by nearly 10-1.

In his victory speech, Bratt told supporters, "Dollars do not vote -- you do."

sudo

[Martin Atkins]

Yes, voters determine elections. We got that. I think that the points are as follows:

1). If two candidates are equal politically, the one who spents more likely will win.

2). Money can buy advertising that can cloud the issues, which allegedly should be the focus

3). In some races, the opposition is so unpersuadable that no amount of money will change the ultimate outcome.

4). Money will give a voice to those with money and not represent what voters would do if campaign funds were limited (or if the issues were relatively accurately presented from all sides). 

5). Voters may not hear many sides of the argument because so much air and press time is spent on one side.

6). And a few others....

MEMPHIS FREETHOUGHT ALLIANCE: Advancing reason, science, and secular government through education

--
Disclaimer: This MFA Forum is a public site and does not necessarily express the official opinion of Memphis Freethought Alliance, Inc. or its members. Posters on this forum include MFA members as well as non-members. People are encouraged to give their honest opinion about ideas and critique other people's ideas and not to attack people personally. Please keep posts open, honest, and civil. Please review the the rules and guidelines to this forum: http://www.memphisfreethought.com/DiscussionForum.html (copy and paste the web address into your browser if necessary)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/892a4ac1-9945-4905-b9f5-8e2fce525173%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Martin F. Atkins]

I think that the real concern is about making relatively informed voting decisions that will ultimately sustain a thriving democracy. I know. That is an ideal that we will always be striving for. By contrast, some allegedly think that the ideal is to bolster people with money.

[Leo Alessi]

And where the money is spent seems to be important. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/eric-cantor-blew-168k-steak-houses-brat-spent-122k-overall-n128126

“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.”

On Jun 11, 2014, at 6:51 AM, "Martin F. Atkins" <mfafree...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think that the real concern is about making relatively informed voting decisions that will ultimately sustain a thriving democracy. I know. That is an ideal that we will always be striving for.  By contrast, some allegedly think that the ideal is to bolster people with money.

--
Disclaimer: This MFA Forum is a public site and does not necessarily express the official opinion of Memphis Freethought Alliance, Inc. or its members.  Posters on this forum include MFA members as well as non-members.  People are encouraged to give their honest opinion about ideas and critique other people's ideas and not to attack people personally. Please keep posts open, honest, and civil.  Please review the the rules and guidelines to this forum: http://www.memphisfreethought.com/DiscussionForum.html (copy and paste the web address into your browser if necessary)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/de43fc32-b57f-4e23-b5cf-c238b463371f%40googlegroups.com.

[Shanon White]

Let me get this straight... your argument for money = free speech is that it doesn't matter?  If it doesn't matter then who cares if theres a limit?   Why would you give any money to the "candidate of your choice" then?  Youre making no sense at all.  Might as well give me the money.  Upside is there is no limit! Youll have maximum "freedom!" Lol.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/CAAtn96RP%3DG9zCh2%2B02pACcR_5DHo278teWaATWq_xBSv_v2XTQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Martin Atkins]

Yes, if money really does not help determine the outcome of an election, why do so many people and corporations contribute so much to campaigns? Is it really a complete waste of money? Money matters with a few exceptions and this Cantor vs Bratt election is one of those exceptions.

MEMPHIS FREETHOUGHT ALLIANCE: Advancing reason, science, and secular government through education

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/CAFCXz4x_%3DdiEk8MnF3RaWxay_B_XoBVmk0K588q1eEyM%3DUAJQg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Martin Atkins]

I don't think that extra $168,000 spent on food would've helped much, considering that he spent over $5,000,000 on the campaign. And I don't think that the restaurant expenses were astronomical considering the size of the operation.

I also am curious about the polls and wondering if there was any fowl play. The polls are usually not that off. Both a win like that is rare and the pre-election polls being off so much is also rare.

MEMPHIS FREETHOUGHT ALLIANCE: Advancing reason, science, and secular government through education

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/227231EC-5D0E-448A-B4D5-1D485EEFC2B4%40gmail.com.

[sudo]

It is my money and I can spend it where I damn well want is point number one. If I want to spend 20 gazillion dollars up billboards all over town saying "vote for Joe" then that's between me and Joe.  Can't you just see the Colonial government trying to shut down the pamphleteers before the Revolutionary war because they were spending too much money on printing presses?? The example I posted was just to counter the notion that money always buys an election.

sudo

[Matt Germany]

Sudo,

I agree with what many have said to point out the flaws in your reasoning here.

Put more simply though, it certainly seems your trying to go from the specific to the general here, in logic, that's a pretty big no-no.

On Jun 11, 2014 6:29 AM, "sudo" <sud...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
Disclaimer: This MFA Forum is a public site and does not necessarily express the official opinion of Memphis Freethought Alliance, Inc. or its members. Posters on this forum include MFA members as well as non-members. People are encouraged to give their honest opinion about ideas and critique other people's ideas and not to attack people personally. Please keep posts open, honest, and civil. Please review the the rules and guidelines to this forum: http://www.memphisfreethought.com/DiscussionForum.html (copy and paste the web address into your browser if necessary)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/892a4ac1-9945-4905-b9f5-8e2fce525173%40googlegroups.com.

[Martin Atkins]

I think that this is great. Money didn't work in this case. That is a good thing. I am not a big fan of the Tea Party, though.

MEMPHIS FREETHOUGHT ALLIANCE: Advancing reason, science, and secular government through education

--
Disclaimer: This MFA Forum is a public site and does not necessarily express the official opinion of Memphis Freethought Alliance, Inc. or its members. Posters on this forum include MFA members as well as non-members. People are encouraged to give their honest opinion about ideas and critique other people's ideas and not to attack people personally. Please keep posts open, honest, and civil. Please review the the rules and guidelines to this forum: http://www.memphisfreethought.com/DiscussionForum.html (copy and paste the web address into your browser if necessary)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/ee98d425-1187-4143-af56-d6e70584a6cc%40googlegroups.com.

[Shanon White]

It may be your money, but it's OUR democracy and we have a right to preserve it and protect it from the extenalities your money might cause.  Your money is worthless without a society to spend it in and a government to back up its value and thus you have to play by some rules.  Put up signs all you want on your own private island all by yourself.  

If you, for example spend your own money, to build a parking lot on your own property, this could and probably would cause flooding miles downstream on someone else's property unless you build some sort of stormwater mitigation facility as well.

Your freedom ends where mine begins, and I want to live in a democracy, not a plutocracy run by and for the rich.  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/CAAtn96Rei9qGaUk2U5%3DFmOHUk-qZ%3DsHruZF3F%2Bz69%2BLF-fsLVQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Leo Alessi]

I'm waiting for someone to take this to the Supreme Court: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/06/05/law-professor-to-senate-outlawing-prostitution-is-unconstitutional/

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/CAFCXz4z%2BppMRo52hCkJEegbNDSL0KZdj%3DSD7QHw_0j2YX3NpPg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Robert]

Your well-disguised straw man, “...to counter the notion that money always buys an election”, is a fallacy.  No one has claimed that money always buys elections.  “Always” and “never” are the handy tools for fundamentalists of all stripes.  Just because an exception exists does not invalidate the fact that money effects elections, large and small.

--

[Shanon White]

Now your splitting semantical hairs.  Money either has an effect on elections or it does not.  If it does, then the extent of that effect is the extent to which the election is "bought." 

All elections should be publicly funded.  Period.  No private fortune should have even the slightest effect on the outcome.  Anything less is corruption plain and simple.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/7EBCA163F01A4A58A104168BF68C814D%40Palantir.

[Robert]

Here’s an article from Robert Levy of the CATO Institute explaining why McCutcheon and Citizens United are so reasonable.  See if you can find his finger in the dike...

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2014/apr/27/robert-a-levy-untangling-campaign-finance-in-and/

 

Contributions, independent expenditures, super PACs, electioneering communications — the terminology and regulations governing campaign finance are incomprehensible to the average voter.

Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court’s last two major decisions on the issue — Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and more recently McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission — have been widely misinterpreted. Let’s dispel some of the confusion.

First, a few basics: Currently, federal limits apply to contributions of money, goods or services by individuals or groups to candidates, political parties and political action committees (PACs). For example, individuals cannot give more than $5,200 to a single candidate — $2,600 for the primary election plus $2,600 for the general election. Corporations and labor unions are forbidden from making direct contributions.

Prior to the McCutcheon decision, individuals were limited to aggregate contributions of $48,600 to all candidates plus $74,600 to all PACs and parties. Accordingly, anyone wishing to donate the maximum $5,200 per candidate would be constrained to nine candidates before encountering the combined limit.

In McCutcheon, the Supreme Court overturned the aggregate ceilings because they did not advance the anti-corruption rationale underlying campaign finance laws. After all, if $5,200 did not corrupt the first nine candidates, why would the same amount corrupt the tenth, or the 50th? Contrary to what some have written, McCutcheon actually left intact all the limits on contributions to single candidates, parties and political committees.

Additionally, our laws still require disclosure of independent expenditures, which are outlays for advertisements and publications that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for a federal office. Before the Citizens United ruling, a corporation would have violated campaign finance rules if it published a book containing the words “vote for Obama.” Of course, Americans are not supposed to be in the book-banning business. That’s why the Supreme Court invalidated the outright prohibition on independent expenditures by corporations and unions, despite retaining the disclosure requirement.

Citizens United also struck down the prohibition on electioneering communications, which are broadcast ads that even name a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. Under the new rules, corporations and unions can pay for those communications — as long as they are fully disclosed and independent; that is, not coordinated with candidates or their agents.

It should be noted that Citizens United had no effect whatsoever on contribution limits; it related only to independent outlays. Nor did Citizens United grant corporations and unions the same rights as persons; it simply established that persons may, if they wish, express their political views through the medium of those organizations.

What about super PACs? They were created by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington in a case called SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, which expanded on the Citizens United decision. Super PACs make no contributions to candidates or parties. They do, however, make independent expenditures. Before the SpeechNow ruling, individuals acting alone could spend as much as they wanted; but two or more persons jointly would be limited to $5,000 each. To correct that anomaly, the law now allows individuals to give unlimited funds to a super PAC, on condition that donations to, and expenditures by, the PAC be fully disclosed.

The logic of Citizens United and SpeechNow is that independent expenditures do not have the same potential for corruption as direct contributions to candidates. Besides, many Americans have come to realize three truths about campaign finance regulations: First, their stated reason — to prevent corruption — is too often trumped by their real motive, which is to protect incumbent officeholders from underfunded challengers. Second, each new regulation inevitably spawns an adroit means by which the regulation is circumvented. Third, campaign money is mostly designed to support candidates whose views agree with those of the donor — not to entice candidates to change their views in return for a donation.

Meanwhile, disclosure by corporations, unions and super PACs facilitates transparency. Only 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, 501(c)(5) labor and agricultural groups, and 501(c)(6) boards of trade and chambers of commerce can accept donations without disclosure, and none of those entities can contribute to candidates or engage in political activities as their primary purpose.

Furthermore, campaign finance abuse can be prosecuted under long-standing bribery and anti-corruption laws. Misuse of a government office — such as awarding federal contracts as quid pro quo for donations — and payoffs secretly contributed to a candidate, then spent on personal pleasures like a new car, are plainly illegal. But when a candidate discloses a donation and puts the money in a segregated fund that can be used only for constitutionally favored political expression, that’s not corruption; it’s free speech.

--

Disclaimer: This MFA Forum is a public site and does not necessarily express the official opinion of Memphis Freethought Alliance, Inc. or its members. Posters on this forum include MFA members as well as non-members. People are encouraged to give their honest opinion about ideas and critique other people's ideas and not to attack people personally. Please keep posts open, honest, and civil. Please review the the rules and guidelines to this forum: http://www.memphisfreethought.com/DiscussionForum.html (copy and paste the web address into your browser if necessary)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/892a4ac1-9945-4905-b9f5-8e2fce525173%40googlegroups.com.

[Robert]

Uh..I’m confused.  I am agreeing with you.  Sudo’s contention was that, “The example I posted was just to counter the notion that money always buys an election. “ My point was that one exception (Cantor) does not mean money has no effect on elections.  Matt said as much with his point about going from the specific to the general, inductive reasoning fallacious.  Indeed, I agree public funding would be the best.  Between limiting campaign contributions and, possibly, term limits, a clearer path to a truly representative democracy lies.

 

You may dismiss my point for being semantic, but broad strokes often gloss over crucial details. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/CAFCXz4zBH_VNDEqhEMv5ja%3DyZcOYcfK%3DuHyTj9_GWTWCc4f4MA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom]

A sample size of one isn't data.  Since 1968, only 130 representatives and 24 senators have lost primary contests, according to data compiled by Greg Giroux of Bloomberg news.  That makes this case an extreme outlier. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/163EEE9C3A7C43DAAC114CC93554EAC2%40Palantir.

[Shanon White]

Ah the CATO Institute.  Let's pretend for a moment it's not a fanatically partisan ultra-right-wing bullshit propaganda mill run by among others Scathe, Murdoch, Dupont and funded by the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.    

I mean let's say I cited an article from MoveOn.Org or MichaelMoore.com?  --would you take that seriously?  

But forget all that --let's examine the article on it's own merrit.

Apparently Levy is counting on his condiscending missive that finance laws are "...incomprehensible to the average voter."  <sarcasm>Thank goodness he's here to show us dumb average voters the light!  Hold on I have to change my drool cup... </sarcasm>  I sure hope he doesn't use big words!  We dare not look them up or think for ourselves because we wouldn't understand them thar laws and such anyhow! 

Levy's main assumption about McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission  is summed up here:

"...After all, if $5,200 did not corrupt the first nine candidates, why would the same amount corrupt the tenth, or the 50th? "  

This misses the whole point of the law  -or I should say  flat-out lies about the whole point of the law.  It's not about how much you are "corrupting" any particular candidate.  It's how much undue influence you are able to buy overall.  If this rhetorical slight-of-hand fools you, then I suppose his first paragraph is right.

Kind of begs the logical question: If violating campaign finance laws as they were before this horrendous decision wouldn't give McCutcheon greater influence, then why did they take it to the Supreme Court to get the right to do it?  Nothing on TV that day?  There must have been some benifit.  Hmmm.  Fighting for Democracy and Apple Pie I guess.

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Robert <rpresto...@comcast.net> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/163EEE9C3A7C43DAAC114CC93554EAC2%40Palantir.

[Matt Germany]

I also found interesting Levy's omission of the phrase "Super PACs" (which were brought into existence by the Citizen's United ruling) anywhere in his op-ed.

Gosh, those folks over at CATO must not follow current events or politics much.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/CAFCXz4zH54pFSkaR1ASi9ezwmhq%2BnxEJ8Ouc%2BFz5S8ggs2rybg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Martin Atkins]

Levy mentioned Super PACs several times in his article.

The gist of the article is that individual limits are still in place but corporations and people can give that limit to more candidates. Money is used primarily to keep and protect incumbent candidates who agree with the money people's views/goals.  In other words,  this money frequently protects these incumbents from challengers who may disagree with the money people's political views/goals. (This money is effective against less well funded challengers on average with, obviously, some exceptions.)

MEMPHIS FREETHOUGHT ALLIANCE: Advancing reason, science, and secular government through education

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/CANOrzx%3DEvJNMXEG5YutJSUmhBX1%2B6vi71bOs4d0UaCJQzvK%2BEQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Matt Germany]

My bad Martin. I see that now third graf from the bottom. I fail to follow his line of reasoning there though. As I read it, it seems he is arguing that because they don't give their limitless, undisclosed piles of cash directly to candidates that they couldn't possibly pose a corrupting influence on government.

I can almost see the winking emoticons while reading the through text.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/CAAtn96SyLmyCHR7w64La6%2Bx71DK6WhKs0oTX_4EafVh64VbrSg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Martin Atkins]

Matt, Ha! Ha! I understand that you are joking. Yes, Levy mentions the Super PACs in the very first sentence and other places in his article--not just the third paragraph from the bottom as you wrote.

MEMPHIS FREETHOUGHT ALLIANCE: Advancing reason, science, and secular government through education

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/CANOrzx%3DNu5m3B6AK9D_os6z-M4guYDARD44zRHsxX45tr4hzpw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Matt Germany]

I'm glad my bit of sarcasm wasn't entirely unnoticed.

My point is that he seems very dismissive of the notion that super PACs (often the thing advocates of campaign finance reform worry about most) pose any real corrupting influence in elections.

I, however (as an advocate of campaign finance reform) feel that super PACs are quite a worrisome thing indeed. Not sure if you guys watch Colbert much, but he illustrated in perfect satire the troublesome implications of super PACs during the 2012 election cycle by making his own.

When I get to a real computer (rather than my computer phone), I can post links to the clips if anyone is interested.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/CAAtn96QLjPyD3HsojVU91EA-gSzY%2BjzgWvcEFDzpwhCAf9_Tiw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Martin Atkins]

I think that Levy's definition of corruption is "dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.". These Super PAC members are honestly attempting to keep politicians who support their political views/goals and not using bribery to accomplish it.  Therefore, there is--according to Levy--no corruption. However, you may disagree with the Super PACs political views and goals even without corrupt behavior.

MEMPHIS FREETHOUGHT ALLIANCE: Advancing reason, science, and secular government through education

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/CANOrzxmwK4RHpvT83cnLH-PETvu9DzYg%2By9mRZ6bZ3pK%2BQ3jKA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Matt Germany]

Bribery is the operative word there, isn't it?

The way I see it, the issue at hand is that one man's bribe is another's "free speech."

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/CAAtn96RhRWRXqh8a_c8VF7AkF4ShvAjq%2BQQOTS8DaTVRDB07%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Martin Atkins]

Matt,

Bribery has a specific legal definition that is not considered free speech.  Free speech is a constitution right and bribery is illegal. The Super PAC supports politicians who already think like them. Just like voters vote for people who already support their political views. Politicians aren't bribed by voters with votes or the Super PAC with money. Bribery is illegal. Free speech is legal.

What is a bribe?

A bribe is offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties.The expectation of a particular voluntary action in return is what makes the difference between a bribe and a private demonstration of goodwill. To offer or provide payment in order to persuade someone with a responsibility to betray that responsibility is known as seeking Undue Influence over that person's actions. When someone with power seeks payment in exchange for certain actions, that person is said to be peddling influence. Regardless of who initiates the deal, either party to an act of bribery can be found guilty of the crime independently of the other.

MEMPHIS FREETHOUGHT ALLIANCE: Advancing reason, science, and secular government through education

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/CANOrzxmOWTH6weMxyXSwthtQcC0HTFNk2C8ADGPUykrnAGBnfw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Matt Germany]

Martin,

I don't believe we're at odds concerning the definition of bribery. Rather, my concern is that super PACs may offer contributions to candidates whose views are somewhat in line with theirs in order to ensure that their views align more favorably.

Or, more often, that an entity or individual could, by way of forming a super PAC and helping along the election or reelection of a candidate, set his/her/itself up to later gain an appointed governmental position that is beneficial (even lucrative) for the person or entity that formed the super PAC and supplied the elected official with the campaign war chest that would enable him/her to scratch the back of the person/entity with an appointment.

The current FCC debacle with Tom Wheeler sitting in a position to forever alter the Internet (on which we are conversing) as we know it--his telecom chronies saw to it that he was well set to become the FCC chairman by lining the pockets of the right folks, and he is now, in turn, in a position to ensure that Comcast/Time Warner get whatever restructuring of the Internet they'd like. Similarly, Goldman Sachs arguably reaped financial benefits from their backing of Obama.

It is my opinion that convoluted bribery is still bribery.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/CAAtn96Q7qnRqOaWf7L7tzd7aqqHuQiQuXf9rY_x1dBxZaNU%2BJg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Matt Germany]

The crux of my argument is that bribery--whether or not we call it that occurs to varying degrees all the time in the U.S. Federal government (and on state and sometimes local levels as well). I feel that semantic gymnastics geared toward legitimating our relatively crooked pseudo-democracy do little to curb the transparent stranglehold the wealthy (regardless of their political affiliations) enjoy over our country's politics.

That being said, I'm no longer naïve enough to believe that publicly financed campaigns are a tenable alternative (I don't think I'll see that in my lifetime anyway), given the way things are today. I do however believe the reversal of Citizen's United would lead to a more equitable electoral process (even then, I suppose, we'd still have to grapple with the perils of the redistricting process in most of the country--an entirely different and perhaps slimier can of worms).

[Martin Atkins]

Matt,

I think we basically agree.  My aasumptions are basically as follows:

Possible assumptions:

1). Campaign money influences elections with few exceptions.
2). We live in a democratic republic and want to maintain the will of the voters (not necessarily the People but voters is a close approximation if not negatively influenced) and the Bill of Rights to keep those people in check.
3). We also want to maintain a thriving democratic republic as measured by education, health, wealth, and accomplishments (and not solely wealth).
4). Campaign contributions can stack the politic deck so that primarily the political views of the money people are represented by deceiving, distracting and otherwise influencing voters.
5). Government should create somewhat of a buffer between citizens and organized groups of people pursuing money (aka, corporations)--or protect citizens against practices (pollution, land seizures, unsafe practices, attempts at complete government control, etc.) of these organized groups of people.
6). Keeping these money tribes (aka, corporations) and money people in check and continually challenging abuses  will ultimately sustain a functioning democratic republic. Or the corollary, not challenging unethical behavior in the pursuit of money may eventually undermine the democratic republic and eventually create large scale civil unrest. 

MEMPHIS FREETHOUGHT ALLIANCE: Advancing reason, science, and secular government through education

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/CANOrzxnbHet6wxyOOxnKoak-8DKiK2Gw-sOit%2BWjyk3WKLGaSA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Matt Germany]

Well said, Martin.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/CAAtn96QmRy3KXeBXOKtwV9TPrDgAVU%2BRwprY2KbfcqTXSP-2ow%40mail.gmail.com.

[Orson Zedd]

Just because this one exception occurs doesn't make it the rule, and
doesn't mean money has no influence. This is the exception fallacy.

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/memphisfreethoughtalliance/892a4ac1-9945-4905-b9f5-8e2fce525173%40googlegroups.com.

[Orson Zedd]

So yeah, I still think we should limit campaign contributions slash speech.