[bsbechtel]

I realize I'll probably get downvoted in this thread for saying this, but allowing more money into politics is actually giving people more choice in elections, and Lessig is becoming a victim of the problems with the system before Citizens United. Between both parties, we have over 20 people running for President. We have more choice than ever. Why? Because these individuals can afford to do so, and don't need to rely on getting mainstream media attention to find donors they need to finance their campaign. Lessig, on the other hand, is running a campaign to fix campaign finance, and is running into issues with what hobbled the system before - media gatekeepers who aren't giving his campaign any attention. Yes, I understand that allowing the free flow of money into politics favors the wealthy, but at least now there is some sort of counterbalancing force to the media basically deciding who becomes our President. I don't know what would be a true democratic equalizer (maybe eliminating political parties), but Lessig's way of doing things had more problems than many want to acknowledge.

[Svip]

Oh how quickly we forget. The 20 candidates between the two major parties isn't actually significant. I decided to check out the primaries from the U.S. Presidential elections since and including 1980 to see how many mayor candidates were fielded in each of the parties' primaries.

Which 20 (or 22 if you count the time when Scott Walker and Rick Perry was still running, which is only fair), then yes, 2016 is in the upper bracket, but not an outlier. Both 2008 and 1988 had 22 candidates running for president.

Here is a handy list:

    2012: Democrats: 1,  Republicans: 13. (Total: 14.)
    2008: Democrats: 10, Republicans: 12. (Total: 22.)
    2004: Democrats: 11, Republicans: 1.  (Total: 12.)
    2000: Democrats: 2,  Republicans: 13. (Total: 15.)
    1996: Democrats: 3,  Republicans: 10. (Total: 13 + 1.)
    1992: Democrats: 8,  Republicans: 7.  (Total: 15 + 1.)
    1988: Democrats: 13, Republicans: 9.  (Total: 22.)
    1984: Democrats: 8,  Republicans: 2.  (Total: 10.)
    1980: Democrats: 4,  Republicans: 10. (Total: 14 + 1.)

The reason there are 15 candidates on the Republican side has little to do with Citizens United and unlimited money in politics, but rather because the Republican Party is in disarray lacking an ability to field a strong candidate.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have a pretty strong hand with Hillary Clinton.

The 2008 book The Party Decides pretty much runs down how the primaries are mostly a show, and it's really the party leadership that decides who gets to be the nominee. No presidential candidate since and including 1980 have become their parties' nominee without endorsement from the party leadership.

Additionally, you are not getting more choice. Unless you live in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina. If you live elsewhere, the primaries are likely to have been decided, so your vote will have little meaning. And by the time you get to the general election, you will - as in any U.S. presidential election - have two choices.

Money are not creating all these candidates, chaos is. And either way, you are not getting more choice.

A better solution to your problem might be encouraging third parties by abolishing your First past the Post system. Switch to party-list proportional representation in Congress and have the popular vote decide the presidential election.

[mtgx]

I disagree. Do you want "more choices" that are paid and pre-selected by the same 200 richest families? Or do you want actual choices supported by the People, who get their money not from few large donations, but from many small ones.

In the latter's case, you can have serious campaign finance reform, without restricting your real choices. What we want is for the money "vote" to be an equalizer just like the regular vote. If 200 families can pick a "winner", despite millions of other people actually wanting someone else to win, then something is seriously wrong with that democracy, and the money vote is way too skewed in favor of a few.

[yummyfajitas]

Your reply is completely nonresponsive to bsbechtel's point.

The point, stated more explicitly. There is a relatively small overton window permitted by the media - this is essentially what Chomsky would call "flak machines" and Moldbug would call the "cathedral". The "People", as you call them, will simply support whoever the media chooses to anoint. This set of candidates will basically be nothing but a few left wing Republicans and establishment Democrats (think Bush/Romney/Hillary) and we'll get more of the same.

In contrast, the richest 200 families are far less monolithic than the media. Money actually makes it possible for choices that the media establishment dislikes to get real traction. For example, Ross Perot or Donald Trump. If the People like such a candidate, they can then vote for that candidate.

tl;dr; The media has network effects which enforce a narrow overton window. In contrast, one eccentric rich guy can - if he chooses to spend lots of money - break through that and get other ideas out there.

[marincounty]

Actually, I don't know what an election, without money, would look like. The rich have been telling the poor/middle class what's good for them forever? Or capitalizing on fears/ignorance of the average voter; to get their guy in?

"Between both parties, we have over 20 people running for President."

That really isn't a lot of people considering our population size? The allowance of large swaths of money just widens the pool of Wackadoodles we are forced to pick from. Yea, the candidates eventually show off too many warts, and we are stuck voting for a person who seems slightly better than the other guy?

With money, we sit back and are spoon fed these candidates.

Without money, I wonder if we would really take these elections/candidates seriously? Would their be popular websites devoted just to candidates? Would we be up late debating one candidate, over the next? Or would be at some fun website? Probally the fun website? Maybe we haven't had it bad enough to really care?

I just don't know.

I look at it this way; would medical researchers be a lot father along curing real illnesses, and diseases if drug companies weren't allowed to advertise to the idiots?

I believe--yes. These drug companies would be forced to look beyond the quick dollar curing a limp weenie, baldness, or pimping a happy pill that's slightly better than placebo in bad studies.

Without advertising Doctors(trained, educated people in alleviating serious disease) would be calling the shots. Trained doctors would be telling researchers what their patients need, not the other way around?

Maybe this is not the best analogy? I really don't have an answer.

I just don't feel money and politics need to go together.

We got luckey with Obama, but that was a fluke. (yea, I know a lot of you don't like the man, but I feel like he tried. He originally tries to do the right thing, but is/was derailed by politicians controlled by big money. His original health care bill was great, until the Rebublicans got their hands on it. He was forced to change it, or we wouldn't have anything.)

Bye-I'll try to get some sleep. Or, wish I could sleep well.

[Zelphyr]

Yes, letting the media decide was a problem. But is letting the ultra-wealthy decide any less of a problem?

[snowwrestler]

The point is to maximize the avenues for differing points of view to be heard. Some are heard through traditional news media platforms like TV and newspapers. But now others can quickly construct their own platforms (which are expensive) to directly compete with the news media.

Ultimately it is the voters who decide. No matter how much money a billionaire puts into ads, when he or she goes to vote, their vote counts as much as mine. A greater diversity of platforms and opinions simply feeds more information to more voters. I don't see how that is a bad thing for democracy.