Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Campaign Contribution Limits

And what happens when that politician votes for X but 90% of his actual constituents don't support it? He loses the next election and is unemployed. The rich donor no longer needs him.

So the politician must make sure that his vote matches what his constituents want otherwise he's out of office the next term and there's no reason for the rich donor to give him any more support.

As I said in my last post, this assumes a certain type of issue. 99% of voters don't give a shit whether or not online poker is legal or not. So Sheldon Adelson buying votes to ban online poker isn't going to affect a candidate's re-election chances.

Yes, you are correct that if Adelson went to a GOP candidate and said "if you don't become pro-choice, pro-Obamacare, anti-war, pro-social services candidate, I'm not going to support you", then that GOP candidate wouldn't swap on all those issues. He'd lose his voting base.

And don't forget, we're not talking about money the politician gets to use for personal reasons. It's money that goes to buy his campaign things it needs. So the politician isn't getting rich here. To get rich...he needs to say elected and the rich donor can't provide that.

The donors money helps them get elected.

Sure he can. But then it's disclosed and the opposition can start attacking those politicians as being bought by the rich donor. Credibility is shot and re-election for those politicians becomes more difficult.

How is credibility shot when they're basically all doing it?
 
As I said in my last post, this assumes a certain type of issue. 99% of voters don't give a shit whether or not online poker is legal or not. So Sheldon Adelson buying votes to ban online poker isn't going to affect a candidate's re-election chances.

Ah, so the problem isn't that Adelson is trying to influence a politician. It's the voters don't give a fuck about the things that are happening in their government.

Yes, you are correct that if Adelson went to a GOP candidate and said "if you don't become pro-choice, pro-Obamacare, anti-war, pro-social services candidate, I'm not going to support you", then that GOP candidate wouldn't swap on all those issues. He'd lose his voting base.

Good. So you can acknowledge that the candidate isn't going to sell out his constituency to satisfy one man. You already answered the next question: Then what issues will the candidate be willing to change on? Ones that don't hurt his chance to be re-elected. Which means issues that his constituents aren't paying attention to or don't care about. And that goes back to the voters and their level of involvement.


The donors money helps them get elected.

Yes. But he still needs to keep the voters happy or he doesn't get re-elected. On that scale, it's simple economics. If he doesn't get elected, he loses his paycheck. The donor may fund the campaign but the politician still needs the votes to win the seat and the pay/power that comes with it. So he can never sell out the masses for the individual or he loses the votes and goes back to working for a living.

It's a dual sided beast. He needs rich donors to fund a successful campaign. But he needs the masses to actually win the election. He can never sell out one for the other. Ask Romney how his speech to rich donors helped him land the support of everyone else.

How is credibility shot when they're basically all doing it?

Credibility within his constituents. That means they'll be looking for a replacement. And it's easier to lose the party support in your district, the rich donor will simply switch to supporting the new guy with the best chance to win.

For example: Rich Donor supports Candidate A. Candidate A gets his credibility shot with his constituents. At the next primary, Candidate B can take Candidate A's popular support based on credibility issues. After winning the primary, Rich Donor now contributes to Candidate B. Candidate A has nothing - no Rich Donor, no popular support, no political career locally which means no political career nationally.

Corruption isn't going to come from campaign donations. It's going to come from actual illegal bribes. Money that illegally goes directly to the candidate, or his family, or friends, or business. Campaign money doesn't corrupt, it's the other money that does.
 
Ah, so the problem isn't that Adelson is trying to influence a politician. It's the voters don't give a fuck about the things that are happening in their government.

Those are both problems.

Good. So you can acknowledge that the candidate isn't going to sell out his constituency to satisfy one man. You already answered the next question: Then what issues will the candidate be willing to change on? Ones that don't hurt his chance to be re-elected. Which means issues that his constituents aren't paying attention to or don't care about. And that goes back to the voters and their level of involvement.

Let's be honest. Issues that most voters aren't paying attention to or don't care about is...nearly everything.

Yes. But he still needs to keep the voters happy or he doesn't get re-elected. On that scale, it's simple economics. If he doesn't get elected, he loses his paycheck.

You can keep voters happy and still be corrupt. That's not an argument against the corruption.


Credibility within his constituents. That means they'll be looking for a replacement. And it's easier to lose the party support in your district, the rich donor will simply switch to supporting the new guy with the best chance to win.

How does that really improve anything? The rich donors can buy off the next guy. And the politician problem doesn't have to worry that much about losing his job because he can fall into a cushy industry job with all the lovely connections he's made.

For example: Rich Donor supports Candidate A. Candidate A gets his credibility shot with his constituents. At the next primary, Candidate B can take Candidate A's popular support based on credibility issues. After winning the primary, Rich Donor now contributes to Candidate B. Candidate A has nothing - no Rich Donor, no popular support, no political career locally which means no political career nationally.

I'm unsure how you're going from step 1 to step 2. Why is his credibility shot? I'll grant you a situation where the paid access happens to be very obvious. So Candidate B puts out an ad where he says "Look at A doing favors for this special interest!". Candidate A is going to use his big funds to put out five attack ads right back at B. The corruption would have to be an extremely large scandal (which virtually never happens) to hurt their re-election chances.


Corruption isn't going to come from campaign donations. It's going to come from actual illegal bribes.

I don't know how you can believe this. How do you explain these rich people spending so much money on donations and campaigns if they're not getting something back? How do you explain all these laws and spending we have that benefit specific corporations and industries that just happen to come from politicians
who were supported by those same corporations and industries?
 
hiya Pan,

That would make sense if it wasn't wrong. These super wealthy individual donors all have the same goals and all support the exact same things and candidates?

actually, what i cited was both correct and factual.

591 Americans were able to exercise their "free speech" by maxing out on their individual campaign contribution limit, or to put it another way, .0001% Americans have this unusual and special way of influencing the party/candidates of their choice.

the ultra rich have as much in common with 99% of the country as you do with a panhandler grubbing for pocket change at an intersection.
the super wealthy have much more in common with one another (regardless of their party affiliation) than a GOP billionaire hedge fund manager and a right leaning lower income fellow working at Taco Bell.

- IGIT
 
Last edited:
Unless you're speaking in those most literal of ways and expect Sheldon Adelson to drag people to polls at gunpoint, of course there is - he can spend huge amounts of money that allow Christie's campaign to run better than opponent's campaigns.

Money => winning.

The cognitive dissonance displayed in the post you replied to is mind boggling. Yes - campaigns spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising with no expectation of gaining votes from it. Is that really going through Pan's mind when he says shit like "There's nothing Sheldon Adelson can do to make more NJ residents vote for Chris Christie."
 
Anyone who thinks a company would willingly donate money to a campaign without getting something back in return is either completely stupid to the real world or is the type of person who wants to buy these magic beans I have to sell.


Tell me one time that a major corporation donates money to anything without seeing a return on their investment..

Ill wait for the answer cause it doesn't exist.
 
Anyone who thinks a company would willingly donate money to a campaign without getting something back in return is either completely stupid to the real world or is the type of person who wants to buy these magic beans I have to sell.


Tell me one time that a major corporation donates money to anything without seeing a return on their investment..

Ill wait for the answer cause it doesn't exist.

Nah, they wouldn't actually want to buy your magic beans. They know there's no such thing as magic beans. In order to have faith in the legitimacy of capitalism and liberal democracy, there is no requirement to believe in magic beans. There is no contradiction between their faith in capitalism and the non-existence of magic beans. On the other hand, faith in capitalism and American liberal democracy requires a belief that congress is not up for sale to the highest bidder.
 
How do we make the game fair? That's the real question. To make it more fair would be to have limits for everyone.
 
The bribery was going the other way, moron.

This is yet another example of why contributions to PACs should be capped. Thanks for demonstrating facts in favor of the opposition.

The gubmint is bribing a special interest for a kickback, you stinkburger. That's the danger of a corrupt big gubmint.

If you don't like it and are vocal about it the IRS gets in your grill.
 
The gubmint is bribing a special interest for a kickback, you stinkburger. That's the danger of a corrupt big gubmint.

If you don't like it and are vocal about it the IRS gets in your grill.

You can try to spin it all you want, but caps on political donations would remove the incentive for such kickbacks. Yet you seem opposed to that in favor of maintaining the power of the wealthy. What a shocker.
 
Back
Top