[aphextron]

It all comes down to campaign finance. We need pblicly funded elections with absolutely no tolerance for private money, and a set equal amount for each major party candidate. Until Citizens United is overturned, and we get some kind of legislation like this, money will continue to dominate everything. And as long as that’s the case, there will always be unethical behavior because the incentives are too great.

[orangecat]

money will continue to dominate everything

The Clinton campaign raised and spent much more money than the Trump campaign: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidentia...

[siidooloo]

How does that contradict what the other person said?

[bduerst]

It doesn't, it's just more whataboutism. It also ignores that one campaign was being assisted by a foreign power, the extent of which is still being investigated and not fully known.

The U.S. desperately needs campaign finance reform.

[orangecat]

It also ignores that one campaign was being assisted by a foreign power

To the extent that this is true, campaign finance laws couldn't have stopped it. If anything, restricting the ability of Americans to express their opinions makes foreign propaganda even stronger.

[bduerst]

>To the extent that this is true, campaign finance laws couldn't have stopped it

Again, the investigation is still underway and the full extent of the assistance is still unknown, meaning you can't assert that until the findings are released.

[thesis]

You can't assert that they were assisted by a foreign government until the investigation is over either... since the extent was unknown aka maybe not at all.

[stordoff]

That the two major candidates raised so much money means that other candidates barely even get a look in. Arguably a different facet of the same problem / part of a much broader problem that the two major parties are so entrenched.

[threeseed]

There was far more money spent by third parties e.g. PACs, NRA, Special Interests etc and so without including those this statement isn't a true reflection of the campaign.

[geowwy]

Do you have the figures? According to this Hillary got more support from PACs etc too:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/

[enraged_camel]

Yes, and?

This problem goes well beyond any single political candidate.

[orangecat]

The claim is that campaign spending is so determinative of election results that we have to throw people in prison for spending money to express their political opinions in unapproved ways. Both the primaries and general election in 2016 are strong evidence against this. (Sanders outspent Clinton: https://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476047822/sanders-campaign-ha.... Jeb Bush spent a fortune: http://time.com/money/4231669/election-2016-money-spent/).

[chillwaves]

Sanders outspent Clinton but Clinton (like Trump) was a well known and established public figure reaping in huge benefits from free media coverage.

You need to think about these things in nuance rather than just looking at hard numbers.

People say Sanders got crushed by Clinton, ignoring the media blackout on his campaign for the first half of the primary and the fact that he started in the low single digits for name ID and ended with 45% of the votes.

Context matters.

[orangecat]

Sanders outspent Clinton but Clinton (like Trump) was a well known and established public figure reaping in huge benefits from free media coverage.

Yes, that's part of my point. Suppose you overcome the many Constitutional and logistical problems and pass campaign finance laws that limit candidates to spending a fixed amount of money and prohibit third party spending. This would give an even bigger advantage to candidates who are already well known, political insiders, and those the media chooses to give attention to.

People say Sanders got crushed by Clinton, ignoring the media blackout on his campaign for the first half of the primary and the fact that he started in the low single digits for name ID and ended with 45% of the votes.

And the DNC blatantly putting their thumb on the scale. Sanders did as well as he did largely because ordinary people were able to contribute to his campaign and help get his message out.

[chillwaves]

This does not support the argument that money does not matter in politics. It clearly does. It is not everything, but it is something and something huge.

Money is a proxy to power. Power can be expressed in different ways, such as influence as seen by both Clinton and Trump.

How does this refute that money from any source can influence elections? We need campaign finance reform now.

[specialist]

Sure. If you exclude PACs, dark money, earned media...

[oblib]

"Citizens United is overturned, and we get some kind of legislation like this..."

My own opinion is that asking politicians who take "Big Money" to pass legislation to put a stop to that is unrealistic. It will never, ever, happen.

What is realistic is to personally pledge and publicly announce that you will stop voting for any politician who takes or uses Big Money and urge others to do the same.

When you get enough representatives elected who don't take that Big Money, and defeat enough who do, passing that legislation will be possible. But not before then.

This is happening right now. People are beginning to do this. We all need to do this.

[djrogers]

> a set equal amount for each major party candidate

So the government gets to decide which political parties can run candidates? That sounds a little too much like certain 'democratic' dictatorships. I don't think we want to (or can) put that much power in the hands of the government.