There are 100 senators. 34 or so come up for election every two years. Each election is won, 75 - 90% of the time, by the candidate who spends the most. The most expensive campaigns spend about $20M; the tenth most expensive campaign spends about $5M. The margin between D and R in the Senate is 8. Form a SuperPAC and fund it with about $75M.
Ensure the election of a crop of senators who know what the key issues are for their big contributors... and that if they step out of line, they won't be getting those contributions next year.
If you think about it: lot of issues we can probably solve by writing a check of $20M to anyone who becomes senator and signs oath for not entertaining any lobbyists representing commercial interests. That would be a drop in a bucket in US Gov budget but would prevent lot of these guys from being lobbied by private interests or even cold calling them to funds their campaigns.
> Each election is won, 75 - 90% of the time, by the candidate who spends the most.
Source? Tell that to Meg Whitman.
The biggest problem I have with the argument about limiting the amount of money that can be spent in elections is that it essentially implies that the electorate is uneducated and easily swayed. So shouldn't the solution be a more informed (however you want to do accomplish that) electorate?
> The biggest problem I have with the argument about limiting the amount of money that can be spent in elections is that it essentially implies that the electorate is uneducated and easily swayed. So shouldn't the solution be a more informed (however you want to do accomplish that) electorate?
This is true in somewhat the same way that the solution to teenage pregnancy is just to get all the teens to practice abstinence. Where that view falls down is that not all problems are equally tractable. Attacking a tractable problem generally gets better results even if attacking an intractable one seems more noble.
I grant there are problems that are relatively more tractable or intractable, but I challenge the notion that limiting how much money can be spent on political campaigns is the solution to a problem of an uniformed electorate. Why does limiting every candidate to some level n of spending necessarily lead us to better governance?
Further, in your analogy, I'd argue that the equivalent to teaching abstinence is the idea that we can somehow legislate political contributions and then large political contributions will disappear from the surface of the earth.
I imagine it's a whole lot easier to pass campaign finance regulation than it is to transform a population of hundreds of millions of people into an intelligent, knowledgeable, rational group.
You mean restrict who can vote? The public wouldn't go for it. Which is good, because if people were okay with having their right to vote taken away, we'd be in a much bigger mess.
Correlation is not causation; most Congressional races have either an incumbent or a structural advantage in registration for one party (often both, favoring the same party) and whichever party has one or both of those advantages will usually also gain more donations.
There's plenty of cases were elections where for one reason or another the money tips the opposite direction of those advantages -- and the money loses, while the structural advantages win.
Money is nice, but there's plenty of reason to think that it is more likely to be the product of structural electoral advantage than the source of it.
It doesn't necessarily imply that the electorate is uneducated and easily swayed. I think it's more likely that most of the time these elections are a close call and campaigning sways people who are in the middle or motivates people who might not otherwise vote.
The argument basically just implies that advertising has some influence. Which is true - even for an educated and informed audience. Nothing you do to the electorate can make them immune to advertising. So money will always be a motivation for politicians. Especially since extra campaign money can always be spent on all kinds of fun expenses, and giving well paying jobs to friends and family.
Also, bear in mind that even the most well informed educated electorate has a very limited feedback mechanism. Many people care so strongly about particular issues that they will never change their vote. Which means people in the middle ground only really get to choose between the two main political parties. In practise, it works out a bit like a price fixing cartel. Basically both parties take turns screwing everyone over. Candidates only have to make the appearance of being better than the last guy during election time. During their last term they can do whatever they want, which sets the bar really low for the next guy. It's a race to the bottom.
As long as the influence of money is present, politicians will behave as corruptly as they can get away with. Improving the education level of the electorate reduces the amount politicians can get away with, but because of the two party system, they'll always be able to get away with a lot.
A big problem is candidates with little cash might have problems getting their existence out there. More than limiting spending, providing more airtime for registered candidates might go a long way.
The system should work like jury duty - much like in ancient greece where they had a system of lots (based on black + white balls) - you get chosen then have to do your best for your alloted time.
Seems like riders would become a huge problem under that system. I guess you could try to make them unconstitutional, but a rider is hard to define; it seems like you would always be able to sneak unpleasant but tangentially-related things in.
This would result congress becoming a body whose major action was reaffirming existing laws that were expiring, and would minimize their ability to take on further responsibility.
There are many cases where they have in the past given laws a time limit, and most of those either
- get up/down extended, at which point why bother with the limit, or
- mire congress for weeks because someone decided to pick a fight over a normally non-controversial law.
I'm not sure that would improve the system or help us move more power back from czars and appointed directors toward our elected representatives.
One of the first things Obama did on entering office was write an executive order contractually banning lobbyists for working for the administration for 2 year after their most recent lobbying job, or going ot work from the administration into a lobbying job in the same field for 2 years after leaving office, as well as posting a list of such restrictions publicly. It's somewhat effective: http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/01/19/obamas-revolvi...
However, at the moment it has to be contractual because constitutionally it's quite hard to restrain people from taking whatever job they want, and also because many voters want elected representatives to 'bring home the bacon' by getting government subsidies for business that will lead to more job creation. I don't think this should be the role of representatives or senators, but a lot of people do. Even people who argue for smaller government and campaign against 'pork' seem quite happy when government largesse lands in their own community.
A) Of course, how do you know they'll do so until you elect them?
B) Many politicians who get into office are quite busy, so they tend to trust the people they actually talk to, which are often the people at campaign fundraisers. Cronies may just be people who, conveniently, are always at fundraisers, hence are familiar to politicians.
I don't think that's proper, obviously, but easy explanations rarely capture the complexity from which corruption arises.
Not to mention that a major skill in politics is to hide who pulls your strings. It is anti-democratic for Obama not to call this kind of thing out when it happens, to speak for the citizenry rather than the industrialists. If Obama was on the customer's side at all, he would be leaking information. "Sorry guys, but the way it actually works is..."
So with only two parties, both of which are corporatists, and money=speech means those with the most money buy the best laws (for themselves), you end up blaming the voter?
Remember in 2000 when Ralph Nader was prevented (by both parties) from attending debates? How many third parties get any visibility from the corporate-funded media?
Oh, c'mon, that's just an excuse. In fact, it's the same excuse people use to avoid entrepreneurship.
Money helps you run a campaign, just like it helps you run a business. But sometimes the scrappy, bootstrapped startup still beats the big entrenched enterprise. That's why we're on HN, right?
Kind of ironic that you're making this statement on this thread. The Net was indeed supposed to democratize the world, including, presumably, politics. A candidate would then be able to run a bootstrapped, grassroots campaign.
But, that didn't happen, and for reasons very similar to the subject: entrenched interests use their money to continue advancing their own agenda through the media, other corporate gatekeepers, and regulatory capture.
It will soon take $1B to run for the presidency, and about as much to pay ISPs in order to launch a competitive streaming company.
So, you might just have it backwards: the current rules have to change in order to allow for a viable bootstrapped candidate. This, instead of such a candidate miraculously making her way to success, then changing the rules.
Who says it costs $1B to run for President? Obama didn't exactly win the 2008 primary by being the rich establishment candidate. He wasn't personally wealthy. He did have a very internet savvy campaign staff, though...
Why don't you ask Linda McMahon how much it costs to buy a Senate seat? Not only did she spend tens of millions, she lost to a guy who is still paying back his student loans.
There's nothing stopping a candidate today from using the Net to spread their political message and, as odious as the alleged FCC changes are, they won't really change that.
>Obama didn't exactly win the 2008 primary by being the rich establishment candidate.
You may be confusing personal wealth with campaign wealth.
Obama raised nearly a quarter billion during the primaries and 3/4 billion overall in 2008. Sure, he used the Net to raise a significant amount, but the extent to which small donors fueled his fundraising was greatly exaggerated [0].
In any case, Obama was certainly rich as a candidate, and wildly so.
>Not only did she spend tens of millions, she lost to a guy who is still paying back his student loans.
Certainly, no one is saying that the candidate who raises the most money always wins. On average, however, money matters--big time, and has an outsized impact on our electoral process. This is why so many incumbents confess that they spend an inordinate amount of their time on fundraising.
>There's nothing stopping a candidate today from using the Net to spread their political message
Well, there's nothing stopping them from trying any moreso than a startup can try to market online without a budget. In practice, it is insanely difficult to be heard and/or gain momentum in the political world without a ton of cash to spend on exposure. And, rulings like Citizens United exacerbate that problem.
Yes, there will be outlier underdogs who miraculously scratch out a win from time to time. But, the Net is nowhere near the democratizing force it could be. It is trumped handily by plain ol' cash. And, it shouldn't take a miracle for an otherwise better-qualified candidate to win an election simply because of a financial disadvantage.
>as odious as the alleged FCC changes are, they won't really change that.
Apologies for the miscommunication. I am not saying that the FCC changes will prevent candidates from trying to use the Net. I was simply noting that both our political process and the FCC have been co-opted by entrenched interests.
Not really. It's a chicken-and-egg problem, not causality. This is a problem that predates the concept of America. Monarchies addressed it by having a three-way tug-of-war between the monarch, the entrenched interests, and the masses, and American politics have tried very hard to ape that with a very powerful central executive.
With, you know. Predictable results.
Changing the rules won't actually make a difference, much respect as I have for Lessig's Rootstrikers' efforts. That is, as Colbert put it, rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenberg. The fundamental problem isn't that no one gets elected without spending oodles of cash; the fundamental problem is that oodles of cash have to be spent at all.
We live in an age where democracy requires marketing. That's the rule you need to change.
Not coincidentally, that's also the rule that makes free markets impossible.
Well, what I was trying to do was point out a bit of irony in the GP comment. Judging by your and eli's responses, obviously I wasn't successful. I'll give it another shot.
At a time when our political process is broken, full of cronyism, regulatory capture, and co-opting by moneyed interests, we get this new position from the FCC. The position itself is about giving those with money (e.g. Netflix) advantages on the Net. The Net, of all things, which was supposed to be a democratizing, equalizing force.
So, what did the GP say in response? "Hey, money doesn't matter. Scrappy bootstrapped campaigns can overcome!"
This, even while the very topic of this thread is moneyed interests' de-democratization of the single greatest potential tool for making scrappy, bootstrapped campaigns an actual possibility.
I mean, at what point do we consider that democracy is losing and money is winning?
>Changing the rules won't actually make a difference
>We live in an age where democracy requires marketing. That's the rule you need to change.
You're not going to change the need for candidates to communicate with the electorate, nor should we want that. Instead, you change the rules such that candidates simply do not have the money to spend, then you watch as the media, parties, candidates, and entire political process re-structure themselves to allow for viable candidates to be identified and subsequently engaged with the electorate.
Here's where the Net can truly be a democratizing force, and even moreso when combined with other media. There's no need for candidates to spend money on marketing. They are the story, and the media clamors endlessly to get their messages out.
> The Net, of all things, which was supposed to be a democratizing, equalizing force.
No, it wasn't. You were made promises, not by politicians, but by a powerless counterculture who spoke loudly and had no clout. There is nothing democratizing or equalizing about the Internet.
> I mean, at what point do we consider that democracy is losing and money is winning?
Well, I would have put it somewhere in the 19th century, but that's just me.
> You're not going to change the need for candidates to communicate with the electorate
Why not? Why does this need exist? We have the Internet now. There is no such need anymore.
Let me ask you a different question: why do we need to have any candidates whatsoever? What are they for? Or the more important question: what is a public office for? What is the purpose of that concept?
> Instead, you change the rules such that candidates simply do not have the money to spend, then you watch as the media, parties, candidates, and entire political process re-structure themselves to allow for viable candidates to be identified and subsequently engaged with the electorate.
If you don't subscribe to Rootstrikers, you are seriously out of touch. Unlike you, Lessig has actually been doing things along this line, and unlike you, he has some notion of how to build political capital.
>You were made promises, not by politicians, but by a powerless counterculture
No. The promises were made by the technology and its potential. But, you're reading my statement out of context anyway.
>We have the Internet now. There is no such need anymore.
Wait. So, you're now a representative of the powerless counterculture? You just said "there is nothing democratizing about the Internet. Now, you're hailing it as the solution to what is arguably the single biggest threat to democracy in U.S. politics today: money.
Make up your mind, man.
>what is a public office for?
Direct democracy has its place, but you're not seriously suggesting rule by referendum, right? I mean, I'm having trouble seeing any implied alternatives in your question that don't lead to utter silliness, so please feel free to make your point.
>If you don't subscribe to Rootstrikers, you are seriously out of touch
Says who? But, hey, color me seriously out of touch. If you put any stock in third party traffic analysis, I'm in good company (unfortunately). But, thanks for the pointer.
>Unlike you, Lessig has actually been doing things along this line, and unlike you, he has some notion of how to build political capital.
Awesome that you know me so well. I feel like we're old pals from way back. But, of course, your opinions of my capabilities in this area--even if accurate--have nothing to do with the merit of the statements to which you are responding. In fact, I'm trying to name all of the fallacies there: Appeal to authority? Red herring? False dilemma? Am I missing any?
> The promises were made by the technology and its potential.
Still bullshit. By this measure, the machine gun and the IED are also democratizing and equalizing forces. An armed society is a polite society, yeah? Technology amplifies. A pen makes it possible to communicate with someone you cannot be face-to-face with, but it still comes down to the way you formulate and express your ideas. A sword makes it possible to cut and stab in ways that your hand can't, but it's still your hand being raised against another.
If you want to invoke technology, then all technology is a "democratizing and equalizing force". And, while we're at it, all technology becomes a tool for elitism and oppression when it fails to be equally distributed. And is it ever, really equally distributed to begin with? You have to pay people a profit to receive internet. There is no possibility of equality there while wealth and income inequality remain significant.
> So, you're now a representative of the powerless counterculture?
"Representative" is going too far. How about we stick to calling me powerless, rather than give me credit for participating in an actual culture?
> Now, you're hailing it as the solution to what is arguably the single biggest threat to democracy in U.S. politics today: money.
Hahaha. No. But it's funny that you can't read. I'd certainly take advantage of the Internet as part of the solution, but I would also take advantage of the fact that we have bookbinding technology.
And money is not the biggest threat. Democracy? Doesn't exist in America. Not really. The media is right: we are a country ruled by elites. Those elites might be liberal or conservative, but they're not us. There is no government by the people, because the people don't give a shit. That's why Dubya went up and thought that getting some elections happening in Iraq would make democracy happen.
I repeat: The fundamental problem isn't that no one gets elected without spending oodles of cash; the fundamental problem is that oodles of cash have to be spent at all.
> Direct democracy has its place, but you're not seriously suggesting rule by referendum, right? I mean, I'm having trouble seeing any implied alternatives in your question that don't lead to utter silliness, so please feel free to make your point.
No, if you can't answer the question one way or another, then I have no point worth making. My ideas aren't coherent enough for people who don't already have the solid grounding in what democracy actually is. Which you demonstrably don't, because you keep saying that the Net will save democracy or something. Indeed, you can't seem to get your mind off it.
> But, of course, your opinions of my capabilities in this area--even if accurate--have nothing to do with the merit of the statements to which you are responding.
It's pretty convenient, then, that I wasn't responding to any of the statements you were making there, right? It's almost as if I was responding specifically to the section I quoted. I mean, it's great that you feel we're in high school debate club or something, but I graduated from high school a while back. I assume you did, too?
Really? Because immediately after you dismissed hopes that the Internet might be a force for democratization, you said the following in reference to candidates' corrupting (and incompatible with democracy) need for money:
"We have the Internet now. There is no such need anymore."
Were you thinking of something more democratizing than that?
The rest of that paragraph and the next are ridiculous strawmen.
>If you want to invoke technology, then all technology is a "democratizing and equalizing force".
That argument is just plain stupid. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Trolling? Or are you really that prone to committing such gaping logical fallacies?
FWIW, I didn't just "invoke technology". I referenced the Net.
>And money is not the biggest threat. Democracy? Doesn't exist in America. Not really. The media is right: we are a country ruled by elites
And who are the elites? The poor?
You know, this is pointless. Your entire comment is void of any introspection and is not even internally consistent. It just argues with itself. Worse, you sincerely can't seem to follow a thread. It's so bad that I really do hope that you are just trolling. But, in any case, I'll leave you to your "self-stimulation".
