Constitutional Amendments Say No

[peristaltor]

Some time ago, I asked the forum in the Friday Lulz tradition to imagine a world where money was excluded from the political arena. Few bit, most of those dismissed, probably for the same reason that people don't sit around dreaming of what the sky would look like green instead of blue.

Ah, it turns out (through NPR, of all places) that others

Comments

[soliloquy76]

I like Lessig's version better.

[peristaltor]

I think both fall flat in practice. It would be more effective, IMNSHO, to ban the spending of money on campaign ads of any kind rather than proscribe the raising. A truly effective law would probably involve both.

[ford_prefect42]

I'm against that amendment.

Money *has* a legitimate place in electioneering. It allows interests that have no voting rights to have some influence in the proceedure. It also allows the interests that contribute the most to the well-bieng of society (businesses) to have influence.

Barring "money" from the public sphere would have the effect that this quote
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. "
would take effect more rapidly.

[soliloquy76]

Is there any room for striking a balance in your opinion? I heard on the news earlier that one man is responsible for 50% of Rick Santorum's donation, and then there's that Vegas casino tycoon who is supporting Newt. Should one person's voice carry more weight than another's? Lessig's version of the amendment seems more reasonable to me, in that every citizen would still get to support their candidate of choice with monetary donations, but they are limited to amounts that most people can afford.

[ford_prefect42]

Yes, there's room for striking a balance.

Yes, one persons voice should count for more than others. But not to an unlimited degree.

Lessigs version is *better*, but still not good IMO, in that it allows no voice for *business*. Which is important in this context, since it is what runs the economy, and is frequently scapegoated and maligned in discourse.

I should also mention here that the current arrangement has tilted too far the other way (toward the moneyed interests).

TBH, I kinda like the earlier versions, such as "only landowners get to vote", Universal suffrage is a questionable call.

[soliloquy76]

Business interests would still be represented. Corporate employees and shareholders would be able to donate to their candidate of choice.

Anyway, at least we're in agreement that moneyed interests have too much influence. That's a start.

[kayjayuu]

So how do people get elected in this Brave New World?

[peristaltor]

Differently, one would assume.

[a_new_machine]

Probably via publicly financed elections.

[squidb0i]

DING DING DING
A winner.

[jerseycajun]

*Puts on broken record* Think outside the box. Put the restriction on the conditions for qualifications for office, not on the public, or private groups. Take money from non-individuals, disqualify yourself from the office being sought. If the 'monied interests' want to funnel money through individual bank accounts, I will gladly offer my own, with fingers crossed behind my back, and several checks pre-made out to some charities I like.

[jerseycajun]

"I would go further, making it a felony for any entity in broadcast or print from taking money from a supporter of a candidate, and I certainly wouldn't limit the exclusion only to Federal offices."

Well, there goes all the advertising, not that I would be particularly sad over not having it, but in principle, I'd still be pissed at the precedent being set that political advocacy is something that must be shut down in the media.

By the by, it's no exaggeration to say that nearly all of us here on the internet are now entities in broadcast (youtube) and print (blogging, independent news orgs). But maybe there's some arbitrary line that one would draw to discern how big is too big to accept money.

[peristaltor]

Accepting money is not the problem. Even smaller to middlin' bloggers get in trouble when they take money from companies and thenceforth blather on about the goodness of these companies without disclosing the connection. Accepting money is not the problem; how is