Do Campaign Finance Reforms Insulate Incumbents from Competition?

[Nordberg]

The other part of the equation is who gets that money. It goes to TV networks to run ads, to companies that produce them, newspapers and the internet for ads. It is unlikely that TV and other media will come out for changing the system. It is a dependable cash cow.

 

[LV426]

The other part of the equation is who gets that money. It goes to TV networks to run ads, to companies that produce them, newspapers and the internet for ads. It is unlikely that TV and other media will come out for changing the system. It is a dependable cash cow.

Yep.

But also, a lot of that money goes to lobbyists, campaign officials, and "consultants" like Paul Manafort, a compromised Russian asset.

 

[Flash]

But none of this actually answers the non-rhetorical question of; if a candidate or elected representative didn't have to spend 90% of their time raising money, what would they do to attract voters and increase voter turnout?

They don't spend 90% of their time. And that was not the issue. You said the legislative votes of members are determined by campaign contributions. Now you have backed off that claim by claiming "but not for AOC." Partisanship determines your facts.

 

[Flash]

Early studies focused on the linkage between PAC donations and roll call votes in Congress. Some of these studies found contributions influenced votes, but many others did not. While methodologically it is difficult to estimate the causal influence of donations, the larger problem is that much of the influence of donations is likely to occur earlier in the legislative process, when decisions are made about earmarks and other details of legislation that matter greatly to donors.

This is what I said from the very beginning. Most of the studies find little or no relationship between legislative votes and campaign contributions.

I never said the time they spend fundraising is not a problem, but that was not the topic. When you found the studies agreed with my original point you switched the argument to calling time. Calling time could easily be eliminated without public financing.

 

[Damocles]

You seem to think that money is speech.

And if we go with that premise that money is speech, then we can't say that we have free speech. Because some people will have more speech than others. Does that sound democratic to you?

Money is speech, even you agree when it is Unions supporting a candidate that it is so. Everything they do costs money, and the money they are spending is covered by the First Amendment because they use it to buy ads, etc. which is Free Speech...

You can make laws that say you have to tell people who bought the ad, but you cannot make a law saying you can only say "this much" because money. The First Amendment applies...

The people with less money get to assemble and spend the money of the assembly on ads, etc. (unions, PACs).

 

[Flash]

Money is speech, even you agree when it is Unions supporting a candidate that it is so. Everything they do costs money, and the money they are spending is covered by the First Amendment because they use it to buy ads, etc. which is Free Speech...

You can make laws that say you have to tell people who bought the ad, but you cannot make a law saying you can only say "this much" because money. The First Amendment applies...

The people with less money get to assemble and spend the money of the assembly on ads, etc. (unions, PACs).

Some people already have "more speech" than others. If Trump or Pelosi say something a lot more people will hear it than what I say and that has nothing to do with money.

 

[Damocles]

Some people already have "more speech" than others. If Trump or Pelosi say something a lot more people will hear it than what I say and that has nothing to do with money.

Or some jackwipe reporting on MSDNC has more "speech" than I do as well.

 

[LV426]

This is what I said from the very beginning. Most of the studies find little or no relationship between legislative votes and campaign contributions.

Because the influence from the contributions happens earlier in the process, just like what you quoted says.

 

[LV426]

They don't spend 90% of their time. And that was not the issue. You said the legislative votes of members are determined by campaign contributions. Now you have backed off that claim by claiming "but not for AOC." Partisanship determines your facts.

What those votes are actually on is determined by the influence of wealthy donors, just like what you quoted says.

 

[LV426]

Money is speech.

Then that means some people have more speech than others, and it also means there is no such thing as "free speech".

 

[Damocles]

Then that means some people have more speech than others, and it also means there is no such thing as "free speech".

That is nonsense. Literally. It's a non-sequitur, it doesn't mean what you say it means, it isn't about that, and like anybody else they can assemble and use their voice (First Amendment is more than Speech).

 

[LV426]

That is nonsense. Literally. It's a non-sequitur, it doesn't mean what you say it means, it isn't about that, and like anybody else they can assemble and use their voice (First Amendment is more than Speech).

You're the one who says money is speech.

So if that's the case, then it's not free speech because you've literally ascribed a dollar value to it.

 

[Flash]

What those votes are actually on is determined by the influence of wealthy donors, just like what you quoted says.

According to your original claim, members are bribed by campaign contributions. How can AOC be spending her time on her constituents if she spent 90% of her time raising $12,483,912?

Was she bribed by the $23,982 PAC contributions from from unions (78%) and ideological groups? According to you those unions determined how she voted because of their contributions.

 

[LV426]

According to your original claim, members are bribed by campaign contributions

Which they were too, which was evidenced when Boehner handed out tobacco checks on the floor of the House to Republicans.

It's possible both things can happen, Flash.

How can AOC be spending her time on her constituents if she spent 90% of her time raising $12,483,912?

Because she doesn't do "call time", she doesn't attend fundraisers, and -as I fucking quoted earlier on this thread- chose to appeal to her small donors via e-mails and social media.

I literally posted and highlighted that for you right here, and you ignored it because all you do is act in bad faith simply because this is personal for you.

It's impossible to have a reasonable debate with you because the only tactics you use are sophistry and bad faith. Exclusively. You never act in good faith because you simply don't know how.

Was she bribed by the $23,982 PAC contributions from from unions (78%) and ideological groups?

Where are you getting that number? Are you misreading that? Why do you never show your work?

Here's her OpenSecrets page: https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00041162&cycle=2020&type=C

What are you talking about?

 

[LV426]

Some people already have "more speech" than others. If Trump or Pelosi say something a lot more people will hear it than what I say and that has nothing to do with money.

Both Trump and Pelosi are elected representatives. So it's their job to go out and say things.

Flash doesn't really get the whole democracy thing....