[floatrock]

There's literally what a case decides, and there's effectively what it allows.

Effectively it opens the door for unlimited campaign spending by anonymous donors. Have you ever donated to a campaign? How much? $20, $100? Perhaps $1000 if you've got money to burn? What did it get you? A thank you form letter from some intern staffer? That's cute.

Now, if you allow unlimited anonymous donations, we're talking about order-of-magnitude $10k, $100k. NOW you've got the politician's ear. Think the people who donate on the order of your annual salary are going to be whispering the same thing the people who donate $20 want their representative to hear?

More importantly, if you're a career politician looking to secure $1M for your next campaign 4 years down the line, are you going to spend your time courting 50k grassroots donors, or are you going to just find 10 people to attend your $100k-a-plate fundraiser? (+/- PAC rules on staying "independent" of course... just "fire" your campaign manager and give him a recommendation for a consulting gig... the $100k is actually for the independent consulting organization). It's a no brainer who you're going to represent.

So, now we have very wealthy people who can effectively donate unlimited sums of money anonymously outside of campaign disclosure laws (and therefore outside of unwanted public spotlight that would otherwise discourage them) to push for their interests.

When the only people who exert influence are the absurdly wealthy, well that starts to sound more like an oligarchy, not a representative democracy. Seems like a good enough cause to amend the constitution to me.

[rayiner]

Citizens United absolutely does not allow for what you're suggesting. Citizens United says that the government cannot limit how people, organized into corporations or otherwise, spend their money supporting particular candidates. It does not say that the government cannot prevent candidates from taking unlimited amounts of money for their campaigns.

That is a key distinction: the first follows from the government's inability to restrict free speech, whether or not it takes money to produce that speech (in this case, a documentary). The second follows from the ability of the government to reasonably regulate the candidates themselves and their activities.

If Lessig wants to overturn Citizens United, I too hope he fails. Because that means the West Virginia legislature can ban Sierra Club from creating videos about the environmental destruction caused by coal mining. It means that the government could ban Sicko (produced by the Weinstein Company).

Citizens United was not a "money is speech case." It was a "movies are speech" case.

[floatrock]

  > It does not say that the government cannot prevent candidates from taking unlimited amounts of money for their campaigns.

Correct. Hence the "+/- independence" comment.

Sure, they're just making a documentary. That happens to come out during an election campaign. And it's advertised heavily with the same language as campaign slogans. And given away for free to anyone who will listen.

But it's not political spending, it's free speech.

The problem is it's both.

We're still effectively in a situation where large interests can collectively pool their resources together anonymously to win far more influence than the people who are supposed to be democratically represented here.

But more perversely, it's hijacking free speech as a backdoor loophole into political gerrymandering. For every Sierra Club citizen's group, there are far more WalMarts or Koch Industries with far deeper pockets. The Sierra Club dues-paying members are being drowned out by the voices of the few and wealthy -- again, it's looking like an oligarchy, not a representative democracy. Yes, you can't stop something like that without limiting free speech, which of course nobody wants either.

As far as I see it, once a loophole like this is identified, you can either argue for abolishing all campaign finance laws (since we've found ways around them), or you reconcile campaign finance laws with free speech that looks like and quacks like campaign expenditures.

What the legal framework for that would be, you're right, I don't know. Call it overturning McCutcheon vs. FEC if you don't want to call it Citizens United. Or just call it Campaign Finance Reform. There's no single boogeyman here, it's a refactor of the system we're talking about.

[head_stomp]

I'd call it overturning the first amendment. Freedom of the press specifically concerned a few wealthy guys printing and distributing pamphlets to unequally influence politics. There is no loophole. I very strongly oppose your political preferences.

[floatrock]

Candidates with the most spending win 8 of 10 senate races and 9 of 10 house races. It's there in the data: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/01/big-spender-always-...

The reality is money buys elections.

Given the choice between 10 donors that can afford to just drop well above the median annual salary (albeit as 'independent' documentaries) and trying to rally 50k mom-and-pop donors that contribute $20 each, it's a no-brainer which is the easier route to electoral success.

The question is do you want to be represented by the voice of the 10 or the 50k?

We're not talking about overturning the first. We're trying to figure out how to reconcile the first with decentralizing some very centralized influence over public policy.

You should be distrustful of any centralized political system. That's what we have, not by design but by reality.

[jessaustin]

Incumbents win most elections. They also raise the most money, because... they're going to win. Campaign donors are corrupt but they're not stupid.

You're not going to fix the problems you want to fix, because you don't see how they are reinforced by every other aspect of the system.

[floatrock]

You're right, it's a self-reinforcing loop: incumbents win most elections, so they raise the most money, so they run the most effective campaigns, so they win the incumbency.

The solution is to chip away at this self-reinforcing feedback loop. Decentralize the fundraising through effective campaign finance limits and you create more dependence on small donors. Small donors care more about having their beliefs represented than choosing the winning horse (and the influence that comes with the winning horse being indebted to you).

The incumbency bias is a circular result of centralized money going for the easy bet. Decentralize public funding and the easy bet becomes less clear, weakening the feedback loop.

[didgeoridoo]

This comment spectacularly misrepresents the impact of the Citzens United decision.

What the decision "effectively" does is acknowledge the fact that people don't lose free speech rights when speaking as a group. Without it, political speech by companies, unions, nonprofits, etc. would be stripped of First Amendment protection, and thus could be deemed illegal at the whims of politicians (most likely the ones already in power).

I assume that's not what you want.