I need help with Clinton and her Citizens United position

[Rational Poster]

Money as a barrier is a real point of concern. And it's not just a political issue. Money is barrier in education. In housing and job access.

When it comes to politics, the trade off is supposed to be that rich people can get heard sooner but there are so few of them that you need the support of the middle class and the poor to win elections.

Extreme gerrymandering has destroyed that. Now, you can win your district/seat without ever having to actually convince the people in your district that you are really the best choice. If you're a (D) or (R) in the right district, you'll win automatically and so you can choose to focus on the rich.

If districts were properly set up then no politician could win without directly addressing the needs of the biggest part of the electorate...the poor and the middle class.

That is the issue that really needs to be fixed.

As it stands, unless you can beg, borrow, or steal a billion dollars or damn near it.. you aren't going to make it through the primaries.

 

[panamaican]

As it stands, unless you can beg, borrow, or steal a billion dollars or damn near it.. you aren't going to make it through the primaries.

At the Presidential level.

But your Presidential candidates are mostly drawn from people who had to first win smaller elections. And winning those smaller elections is where the need to connect with the poor/middle class matters...unless you're in a safe zone.

Money matters even at the lowest levels but it's not millions of dollars. It's tens of thousands. And it won't outweigh the need to actually get people to vote for you.

At the Presidential level, it's just one long advertisement and money definitely matters far more there. But you fix that problem at the local level first by making the local politicians more accountable to their poor/middle class constituents.

 

[Rational Poster]

At the Presidential level.

But your Presidential candidates are mostly drawn from people who had to first win smaller elections. And winning those smaller elections is where the need to connect with the poor/middle class matters...unless you're in a safe zone.

Money matters even at the lowest levels but it's not millions of dollars. It's tens of thousands. And it won't outweigh the need to actually get people to vote for you.

At the Presidential level, it's just one long advertisement and money definitely matters far more there. But you fix that problem at the local level first by making the local politicians more accountable to their poor/middle class constituents.

I think a large, large, large problem with local elections is that you can accept donations from donors that don't even live there.

This has been going on a lot lately where large corporate and political interests from outside of your district or state are donating large sums of money to win seats in the greater game of politics.

Quite simply, you shouldn't be able to accept donations from interests outside of the geographical context of that particular election.

 

[method115]

I quite simply do not believe her.

Pretty much this. I don't just apply this logic to her though I wouldn't believe any politician who said this. Not only that but I would doubt their ability to actually succeed. Sometimes we forget that the President doesn't just get to go in there and do whatever the fuck they want.

 

[waiguoren]

Hillary Clinton Pledges Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United In Her First 30 Days
The amendment is part of a series of proposals to increase transparency in campaign funding.
07/16/2016 11:01 am 11:01:54 | Updated 4 days ago


Hillary Clinton announced on Saturday that she would introduce a constitutional amendment within the first 30 days of her presidency to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which paved the way for unlimited corporate, union and individual spending on elections.

Clinton unveiled her plan in a video at Netroots, an annual progressive gathering taking place this year in St. Louis.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-citizens-united_us_578a42cfe4b08608d334c7bd

____________________________________________________________________


So, when I first heard this, my immediate response was I guess I have to vote for Clinton now. Any of the more recent posters here, know I am possibly the #1 Hillary hater in the WR. For some of the older posters, you understand why I would say, that now I am leaning towards voting for Hillary, as there has been no one more outspoken over bought and paid for politicians then myself.

I think we can take our country back if we reform lobbying and campaign finance, and I think that trying to fix anything else first, is a fool's errand.

I recently hit a snag here in my rational however. She only had me 9/10ths of the way there, as I need to see her put this into her stump speech, so that if she backs off this promise, she will be guaranteeing herself as a one term president.

Then yesterday it hit me. What if she does fight to overturn Citizens United, but cuts a deal for disclosure, instead of banning private money from elections.

Disclosure to me, is the most dangerous outcome, as it gives people the illusion that we know what is going on, and have done something to address the problem.

So, now I am torn. Bernie made this deal. He thinks this is the best bet. He has more knowledge on how these backroom deals go down then I do.

On the other hand, Clinton could be Pandora's box on this issue, cementing legal bribery into our system under the guise of disclosure.

Discuss......................

I absolutely love the idea of an amendment. The problem is that I do not trust Hillary Clinton to go through with it.

 

[panamaican]

I think a large, large, large problem with local elections is that you can accept donations from donors that don't even live there.

This has been going on a lot lately where large corporate and political interests from outside of your district or state are donating large sums of money to win seats in the greater game of politics.

Quite simply, you shouldn't be able to accept donations from interests outside of the geographical context of that particular election.

What I'm saying is that even if outside political interests donate money into a district...you still have to win the majority election. That means no matter how much money you get, you still need the little shop owner to vote for you. You still need the single mother to vote for you. You still the town lawyer to vote for you.

The outside donors don't vote.

 

[Rational Poster]

What I'm saying is that even if outside political interests donate money into a district...you still have to win the majority election. That means no matter how much money you get, you still need the little shop owner to vote for you. You still need the single mother to vote for you. You still the town lawyer to vote for you.

The outside donors don't vote.

It's a lot easier to convince those people to vote for you when you have an overwhelming economic advantage over your opponents, especially when it's an advantage that is unfeasible to compete with compared to the resources available within those districts.

 

[chardog]

I don't understand why conservatives conflate money with speech.

Not the same thing.

how do you feel about the NBA moving the all stars game over politics? CU seems like it would protect that sorta thing.

 

[panamaican]

It's a lot easier to convince those people to vote for you when you have an overwhelming economic advantage over your opponents, especially when it's an advantage that is unfeasible to compete with compared to the resources available within those districts.

Not really. At the local level, you're not winning those elections with blanket ads. You need some street level credibility. If you're spending money to build that credibility then you're going to spending it to benefit the people who will eventually vote and that means you have to be aware of their issues and address them.

Even if you're running for Mayor, you have to demonstrate what you've done for people. You have to be able to point to some kind of accomplishments.

 

[Rational Poster]

Not really. At the local level, you're not winning those elections with blanket ads. You need some street level credibility. If you're spending money to build that credibility then you're going to spending it to benefit the people who will eventually vote and that means you have to be aware of their issues and address them.

Even if you're running for Mayor, you have to demonstrate what you've done for people. You have to be able to point to some kind of accomplishments.

So a guy with a $100,000 warchest doesn't have an advantage over a guy with a $5,000 warchest?

 

[panamaican]

So a guy with a $100,000 warchest doesn't have an advantage over a guy with a $5,000 warchest?

That's not what I said. But if you don't want to actually address what I'm saying then I'll keep repeating myself.

No, he does not. Because the $100,000 does not vote and the $5,000 does not vote. If you have $5000 but an actual connection with the voting constituency then it's worth more than the $100,000 since you need people to actually believe in you to vote for you. And at the local level, that belief comes from what you've actually done in their communities, not how much you spend.

 

[nixkid]

do you really want the government to regulate what political speech can be broadcast on television or radio?

Money spent doesn't translate cleanly into wins. Its a clear advantage but it isn't a silver bullet that guarantees success either. As crazy as it is, Donald Trump sort of proved that. He was outspent massively by Jeb Bush.

I do agree that there should be more regulation over Super PACs though. They are supposed to be completely independent organizations that aren't allowed to coordinate with campaigns. However, most Super PACs in support of a single candidate were set up by that candidate before they announced their candidacy. You literally have politicians intentionally delaying their announcements to run so that they can set up their PAC and fill it with hundreds of millions of dollars in donations. Then step down and put one of their political allies in charge. Then they announce their candidacy. A Super PAC created by a future candidate should not be seen as an independent political organization exercising free speech. It should be seen for what it is...a way to bypass limitations on individual donor contributions.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I think you misunderstood me. I am saying the donation does not mean the union can buy political favor, they are simply helping the candidate that is already pro-union.

I disagree. My union created the Governor of my state, and he sold us out in the last contract we had.

My employer was obviously offering a better deal, then the union was.

Hell, my state gave the largest tax break in history by a magnitude of 4 to my employer with that contract, under the promise of jobs for the state. Since then my employer has cut employment by 5,000 jobs. My union keeps trying to pass legislation to tie the tax break to employment levels, and it can't get anywhere because of campaign finance, and lobbying. My employer has bought and paid for my states legislature.

 

[VivaRevolution]

@HendoRuaGOAT You have to ask yourself. Who do you see pushing harder to overturn Citizen United. Clinton, who at the end of the day is a Democrat, that party that has been fighting against this decision. Or Trump, running as a republican and a person that has used money to buy influence his whole life?

Clinton, even if she does benefit in many of the same ways as Trump. Her constituency makes her more likely to do something on this.

However, now comes my concern that the something she will do, is actually worse then doing nothing in making a deal for disclosure that the Chamber of Commerce, oops I mean RNC would support.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Where in the constitution does it say that your voice should not be less?

it doesn't, however, the declaration of Independence does.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

[VivaRevolution]

You keep going back to creating corruption but not explaining what that means. You should do so at some point.

Moving back to the hypothetical. How is my opinion on foreign policy speech that I can spend money on but my opinion who should win an election not something I can spend money on? Because a person involved?

What if only one candidate supports my foreign policy position? Is that now creating corruption? If so, how is that different than if no candidate supports my position? What if all candidates support my foreign policy position? Is it still creating corruption?

One creates a conflict of interest, and corruption. I clearly stated this. I also stated if it ever became clear that your other scenario did as well, then it should be banned as well.

I feel no need to define corruption, as if you don't know what I am talking about, I believe you are being intentionally obtuse.

 

[panamaican]

One creates a conflict of interest, and corruption. I clearly stated this. I also stated if it ever became clear that your other scenario did as well, then it should be banned as well.

I feel no need to define corruption, as if you don't know what I am talking about, I believe you are being intentionally obtuse.

How does it create corruption? I know what corruption is and what a conflict of interest is. I'm just waiting for you to explain how you know when it is "creating corruption" so that you can properly define when it should be banned.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I responded in an earnest attempt to address your questions multiple times. You've avoided mine, which happen to be my attempts to get to the heart of the matter. That's shit posting on your part. It makes your position sound weak and makes you look weak as a debater. Carry on though with educating Pan and I. I'm sure if you repeat the same shit over and over without addressing any of the thoughts put forth by others you'll brow-beat everyone into agreement.

My question was explain why a corporation's CEO, who has a legal responsibility to maximize profits, would give away money?

Please show me where you answered this.

 

[VivaRevolution]

How does it create corruption? I know what corruption is and what a conflict of interest is. I'm just waiting for you to explain how you know when it is "creating corruption" so that you can properly define when it should be banned.

It creates leverage over a politician in numerous ways. First, the money given gives a loud speaker to the politician to market their ideas.

Second, that money can be sent to primary opponents, or the other party to give their ideas a loud speaker.

That money being given can decide whether a politician is elected or not.

So in what world does that not create corruption, and a conflict of interest?

I want something, and have leverage over you to get it. That is the definition of corruption.

 

[panamaican]

It creates leverage over a politician in numerous ways. First, the money given gives a loud speaker to the politician to market their ideas.

Second, that money can be sent to primary opponents, or the other party to give their ideas a loud speaker.

That money being given can decide whether a politician is elected or not.

So in what world does that not create corruption, and a conflict of interest?

I want something, and have leverage over you to get it. That is the definition of corruption.

That's cute. But I'm asking how you know when it's happening.