The current system allows the voters to select their representatives whether they get campaign contributions or not.
Studies show legislators do not vote differently than they did before public financing, some found increased polarization. And many studies over the years have failed to find relationships between legislator's votes and campaign contributions.
Corporate limitations varied by state. Independent spending is not a contribution given to the candidate. Contributions usually benefit the incumbent because the incumbent has the best chance to win. They get money because they have support, not vice versa.
The main reason is that groups (and individuals) tend to contribute (and vote) for legislators who already share their political views. They don't change their voting behavior because some union or corporation gave them money.
I didn't see any difference in governing or public perception when presidential candidates were prohibited from raising funds privately and given equal funding from 1976-2004 when both major party candidates accepted public financing for the general election.
I think you are getting caught up in the semantics involved, what legally is a contribution and who makes it
I’d argue that none of that matters, since Citizens United anyone or entity can find an avenue to contribute to a candidate’s efforts, and considering corporations have more capital than the individual they are more influential. As I said, the incumbent has a say on policy, and in general, would be the more attractive target for a corporation than the new face
You didn't? Then you weren't paying attention because there was a lot of governance between 1976 and 2004.
Such as:
Tax Cuts
Tax Increases
Clean Water Act (amended twice)
Americans with Disabilities Act
Violence Against Women Act
Welfare reform
The Iraq War
Medicare Part-D
Tax Cuts (again)
What are you talking about?
I said there was no difference in governing than before public funding
Anyone or any entity could find an avenue to contribute even before Citizens United. One reason campaign finance laws are seldom effective is because it is too easy to find other methods to funnel money. But the major reason they don't work is because they a based on false assumptions--that money buys elections and that money buys legislative votes
Uhh, yes they absolutely do. Obamacare is a great example of that. HIPPA and PHaRMA paid for no Public option and a mandate that people have to buy their product. It's why HIPPA donations to Democrats were so big in 2008. Or you can just look at Medicare Part-D when it was passed by Conservatives and see how it benefits drug companies, who were major donors to everyone that worked on that.
If money didn't do that, then there would have never been a Citizens United case for SCOTUS to hear.
You are making the assumption votes in Congress would be different without the campaign contributions.
Look at the many studies over a long period of time examining these connections.
Assume LV426 is a member of Congress. Medicare for All is coming to a vote. Supporters of the plan gave you no money and opponents gave you a lot of money.
You are making the assumption votes in Congress would be different without the campaign contributions. Look at the many studies over a long period of time examining these connections.
Assume LV426 is a member of Congress. Medicare for All is coming to a vote. Supporters of the plan gave you no money and opponents gave you a lot of money.
How do you vote?
Citizens United was not based on whether money is good or bad in politics but whether Congress can pass laws regulating money; or, whether that is a violation of 1st Amendment rights.
I think you are getting caught up in the semantics involved, what legally is a contribution and who makes it
I’d argue that none of that matters, since Citizens United anyone or entity can find an avenue to contribute to a candidate’s efforts, and considering corporations have more capital than the individual they are more influential. As I said, the incumbent has a say on policy, and in general, would be the more attractive target for a corporation than the new face
No, no...it doesn't do that. You just got done saying earlier in this very post that incumbents win most of the time...and many go unchallenged.
Why do you think that is? What is stopping Joe Six Pack from taking on an Establishment politician in a primary or general election?
Incumbents win most of the time because they have more support. Many opponents are poor qualify and have little name recognition meaning they attract few campaign funds.
But it is also because a congressional office spends most of its time on casework helping all constituents with problems with their Social Security, VA benefits, and thousands of other requests for assistance.
I agree about the time members must spend raising money (not just for themselves). "Swamp" is a good HBO documentary about 3 Republican House members and their fund-raising activities. They were having problems raising money until the impeachment which created a bonanza.
But, I don't think public funding is a solution to the time problem. With so many safe districts today it would be a huge waste of money to give tax dollars to some Republican in a heavily Democratic district who had no chance of winning.