Do Campaign Finance Reforms Insulate Incumbents from Competition?

[Flash]

Sure it does! They don't have to do favors for their campaign donors anymore, and instead of competing for money, they compete for votes based on the merits of their policies.

That is just what you want to happen. Look at those states with public funding for state legislators and presidential public financing.

It did not change the way legislators (or presidents) behaved. The study I posted yesterday showed public financing actually caused increased polarization.

What you want to happen and what actually occurs are not the same yet you continue to push for reforms because you think it will help when we have already seen it does not cause all those wonderful things to happen.

You are like the parent who says if I whip my kid he will start behaving because he does not want to be punished. Sounds logical but it is not reality.

 

[LV426]

I don't know which group but I'm sure FEC data and Open Secrets will show they got campaign contributions from

Several problems with this quote, Flash.

1. It's specious
2. You're admitting you haven't put in the work
3. You're too lazy to put in the work
4. You shift the burden away from yourself to put in the work
5. You make a broad assumption

You've been given all the tools at your disposal to make your case, and the best you seem to be able to do is "because I say so".

 

[LV426]

That is just what you want to happen. Look at those states with public funding for state legislators and presidential public financing..

For the third time, we don't have a true public campaign finance system because candidates can simply opt out of it.

 

[Flash]

So again, you refuse to show your work.

What ""liberal groups" are you talking about?

Whichever groups are bribing them to vote the way they do based on your description about how the system works.

I'm showing more work than your lazy ass because you have shown no examples of a member of Congress being bribed to vote a certain way because he got campaign contributions.

But I have cited literature and posted studies showing all the research shows little relationship between these issues.

You don't believe in research because it might not support your partisan bias. It destroys your simple world.

 

[LV426]

It did not change the way legislators (or presidents) behaved. The study I posted yesterday showed public financing actually caused increased polarization.

No, the "study" you tried to quote said that candidates can -and do- opt out of public campaign financing all the time.

And no, it didn't say that...it hypothesized that...but that "study" of yours didn't include other democracies where they don't have our system of campaign financing.

What you want to happen and what actually occurs are not the same yet you continue to push for reforms because you think it will help when we have already seen it does not cause all those wonderful things to happen.

Well, you have shitty, awful instincts so I don't really know what you think you're adding to the debate here. Other than a slapdash, deliberate misstatement of a "study" you didn't bother to fully vet. We don't have a true public campaign financing system because candidates can opt out of it at any time.

You are like the parent who says if I whip my kid he will start behaving because he does not want to be punished. Sounds logical but it is not reality.

WTF are you babbling about?

 

[LV426]

Whichever groups are bribing them to vote the way they do based on your description about how the system works.

I'm showing more work than your lazy ass because you have shown no examples of a member of Congress being bribed to vote a certain way because he got campaign contributions.

But I have cited literature and posted studies showing all the research shows little relationship between these issues.

You don't believe in research because it might not support your partisan bias. It destroys your simple world.

What I don't understand is why you are so insistent on something you haven't bothered to do the work to understand?

You make these broad assumptions, after accusing me of making those assumptions, and you keep arguing those assumptions while refusing to do the work.

The only "literature" you cited excluded every other representative democracy and it qualified itself by saying candidates can opt out of public campaign financing.

Did you even read your link???????

 

[LV426]

I'm showing more work

No you're not. You posted one link that excluded other democracies, that qualified itself.

You keep talking about ambiguous "liberal groups", that you admit you don't even know if they exist. You just assumed they do because the Conservatives have them. So you made an assumption. Funny, you screamed that I was making assumptions, but here you are doing exactly that.

So on top of acting in bad faith, you're also a hypocrite.

 

[LV426]

you have shown no examples of a member of Congress being bribed to vote a certain way because he got campaign contributions.

Are you high?

I cited Obamacare and the lack of a Public Option.

I cited Medicare Part-D.

I cited the tobacco checks Boehner handed out on the House floor.

I cited the Wall Street bailout and no prosecutions for financial crimes.

I quoted Eisenhower who warned of a military-industrial complex, and then I cited our current Defense budget.

What more do you need to be accommodated?

 

[LV426]

Whichever groups are bribing them to vote the way they do based on your description about how the system works.

But those two, in particular.

You made this claim, and now you're refusing to back it up.

That's because the claim is bullshit, isn't it?

What "liberal groups"? You don't know, and can't say, but you're sure they did.

Sure, Jan.

 

[LV426]

However, full public financing and prohibitions on corporate independent expenditures significantly increase the probability of incumbent reelection."

Well, yeah, because if they're not having to spend 90% of their time begging for money, they can focus on constituent engagement and legislation.

So obviously a representative that passes legislation and is contact with their constituency they represent should win re-election.

Why is that a bad thing?

 

[LV426]

Whichever groups are bribing them to vote the way they do based on your description about how the system works.

I'm showing more work than your lazy ass because you have shown no examples of a member of Congress being bribed to vote a certain way because he got campaign contributions.

But I have cited literature and posted studies showing all the research shows little relationship between these issues.

You don't believe in research because it might not support your partisan bias. It destroys your simple world.

I think what upsets you most about a public campaign finance system is that people you consider "undeserving" or "illegitimate" will have just as much influence over their rep as you.

That would obviously drive a narcissist mad. The idea that you're not in a class above anyone else, whether that status was achieved through your birth or you bought it, is an anathema to everything you believe about yourself.

 

[Flash]

I think what upsets you most about a public campaign finance system is that people you consider "undeserving" or "illegitimate" will have just as much influence over their rep as you.

That would obviously drive a narcissist mad. The idea that you're not in a class above anyone else, whether that status was achieved through your birth or you bought it, is an anathema to everything you believe about yourself.

Typical LV426 debate. Resorts to diversion and personal insults when his own arguments are used to prove him wrong.

 

[Flash]

No you're not. You posted one link that excluded other democracies, that qualified itself.

You keep talking about ambiguous "liberal groups", that you admit you don't even know if they exist. You just assumed they do because the Conservatives have them. So you made an assumption. Funny, you screamed that I was making assumptions, but here you are doing exactly that.

So on top of acting in bad faith, you're also a hypocrite.

If you are not aware of many liberal groups and wealthy donors that give contributions you are truly uninformed about campaign finance and current American politics.

If members of Congress are voting liberal then they had to be bribed by liberal campaign contributions based on your entire premise in this debate. Apparently you are not even aware of the implications of your own unsubstantiated views.

 

[LV426]

If you are not aware of many liberal groups and wealthy donors that give contributions you are truly uninformed about campaign finance and current American politics.

You have every possible tool at your disposal to prove your case and you're choosing not to use them.

You made this weird claim that "liberal groups" donated to Warren and AOC and when asked "what groups?" you refuse to do the work.

So what am I supposed to take away from that?

 

[LV426]

If members of Congress are voting liberal then they had to be bribed by liberal campaign contributions based on your entire premise in this debate. Apparently you are not even aware of the implications of your own unsubstantiated views.

First of all, you can't even say what "liberal groups" donated to AOC and Warren, even when prompted with OpenSecrets.

Secondly, you're making my argument for me....that you can't really trust a politician who has to beg for money. So naturally to get trustworthy politicians, you have to remove fundraising from their job description. In fact, "fundraising" isn't a duty that the Constitution says elected representatives must do anyway.

You talk about incumbency like it's a bad thing, but it's not. Particularly if said incumbent keeps winning because they are engaged with their constituency and passing legislation, which makes them popular.

Why do you think we can barely achieve 50% turnout today?

 

[LV426]

Before I retired when I was teaching I would give my students a question about whether if they got change for a $20 when they only gave the clerk $10 would they return the money. I kept their anonymous answers until later when we discussed the money issue. I then asked whether they thought most politicians sell their votes for money and then matched up their answers.

Those who said they would not return the change were most likely to say politicians sell their votes. I theorized (with no evidence) that it shows those who are more financially motivated assume others are also.

Those who said they would not return the change were most likely to say politicians sell their votes. I theorized (with no evidence) that it shows those who are more financially motivated assume others are also.

Weird, because I was in the exact same exercise when I was in college and we came to the exact OPPOSITE conclusion you did.

So did you publish these findings in this experiment you claim to have run? No? You didn't publish? Have you ever published?

 

[LV426]

You are on ignore LV. I am sure you are whining like a bitch though because I am correct. You are getting your ass kicked.

So then you don't know if Flash is "kicking my ass" or not because you're too chickenshit to read my responses.

Way to self-own dumbass.

 

[Flash]

You have every possible tool at your disposal to prove your case and you're choosing not to use them.

You made this weird claim that "liberal groups" donated to Warren and AOC and when asked "what groups?" you refuse to do the work.

So what am I supposed to take away from that?

I shouldn't have to prove your point for you. Since you claimed legislative votes are determined by those who contributed to their campaign that would mean the liberal voting records of AOC and Warren must be due to their bribes by liberal donors.

You are too lazy to prove your own point and then throw doubt on your point by questioning whether AOC and Warren are bribed by campaign donations. This was your claim--I shouldn't have to prove it for you because you are unable to present evidence to support it.

 

[LV426]

I shouldn't have to prove your point for you..

It was YOUR POINT Flash.

You are the one who entered it.

Now you're backing away from it.

So lazy.

 

[LV426]

I shouldn't have to prove your point for you. Since you claimed legislative votes are determined by those who contributed to their campaign that would mean the liberal voting records of AOC and Warren must be due to their bribes by liberal donors.

Right, and who are those donors? Are they small donors or are they large donors that bundle? You don't even know because you won't do the work. Instead, you just lazily make broad assumptions and then run away from scrutiny of those assumptions.

It's not the first time you've done that either. It's habitual with you. It's a pattern. Every worst instinct of yours has been exhibited by you on this thread; broad assumptions, arrogant ignorance, sophistry, unverifiable anecdotes intended to bridge a credibility cap.

This thread should be called "Flash's Greatest Bad Faith Hits".