Campaign Financing - A Discussion

[GBFan]

Most are aware of the recent SCOTUS decision to take the handcuffs off business to fund political campaigns. We all complain that this means that business will decide elections, not the people. Most of us recognize the potential for that, but my question is different ...

I think we also recognize the exorbitant cost of advertising. A recent survey said that a 30 second spot on TV would cost from $50K - $3M, depending on content, time of broadcast, etc.

So, the question is simple ... if we don't want business to pay for political advertising, who should pay for it? Who is going to fund a national campaign, or even a local campaign?

How do we pay for it?

 

[dogtowner]

Wouldnt it be simpler to just discontinue ad campaigns ? Publish your platform, give some stump speeches, kiss some babies press some flesh and spare us all the rest of this annoying crap ?

 

[BigRob]

Most are aware of the recent SCOTUS decision to take the handcuffs off business to fund political campaigns. We all complain that this means that business will decide elections, not the people. Most of us recognize the potential for that, but my question is different ...

I think we also recognize the exorbitant cost of advertising. A recent survey said that a 30 second spot on TV would cost from $50K - $3M, depending on content, time of broadcast, etc.

So, the question is simple ... if we don't want business to pay for political advertising, who should pay for it? Who is going to fund a national campaign, or even a local campaign?

How do we pay for it?

What decisions exactly? Despite the rhetoric, none of the recent decisions really changed all that much - not even Citizens United. There was always a way around things.

As for advertising - political rates are different than market rates and are capped. In my opinion all donation and spending limits should be abolished.

 

[GBFan]

What decisions exactly? Despite the rhetoric, none of the recent decisions really changed all that much - not even Citizens United. There was always a way around things.

As for advertising - political rates are different than market rates and are capped. In my opinion all donation and spending limits should be abolished.

"April 2, 2014 WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court took another step Wednesday toward giving wealthy donors more freedom to influence federal elections.

The justices ruled 5-4, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, that limits on the total amount of money donors can give to all candidates, committees and political parties are unconstitutional. The decision leaves in place the base limits on what can be given to each individual campaign.

"The government has a strong interest, no less critical to our democratic system, in combating corruption and its appearance," Roberts wrote. "We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption — quid pro quo corruption — in order to ensure that the government's efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them."

The decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, which came nearly six months after it was argued at the beginning of the court's term in October, marks the latest round in the bitter national debate over the role of money in American politics.

More immediately, it alters the political landscape ahead of November's midterm elections and could transform state contests as well. Legal experts said the ruling also erodes aggregate contribution limits imposed by the District of Columbia and 12 states, ranging from Connecticut to Wyoming.

It's the most important campaign-finance ruling since the high court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts independently to influence elections.

The court's four liberal justices dissented vehemently from Roberts' ruling. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the minority, said the decision "understates the importance of protecting the political integrity of our governmental institutions."

"Taken together with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, today's decision eviscerates our nation's campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve," Breyer wrote.

The case pitted the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech – which the justices previously have equated with spending money in elections – against the government's interest in preventing political corruption. Roberts and the court's majority had little trouble siding with free speech.

"The government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse," he wrote."

 

[GBFan]

Wouldnt it be simpler to just discontinue ad campaigns ? Publish your platform, give some stump speeches, kiss some babies press some flesh and spare us all the rest of this annoying crap ?

Let's keep in mind that we're talking about 300 million people ... kissing a baby in PA won't get you a vote in New Mexico ... we already have a majority of uninformed voters ... it would only get worse.

How many stump speeches? Where? Where do you publish your platform?

Sounds simple ... but it ain't.

 

[dogtowner]

Let's keep in mind that we're talking about 300 million people ... kissing a baby in PA won't get you a vote in New Mexico ... we already have a majority of uninformed voters ... it would only get worse.

How many stump speeches? Where? Where do you publish your platform?

Sounds simple ... but it ain't.

Where to publush ? Media same as now PSA. Kissingnbabues in PA didnt do much in LA in the 1800s either but it sufficed and only applies to one elected office (since vp became a package deal). I would argue that despite the massive amounts spent today the public is no better informed. That is a frequent point made on this very board by you and others.

 

[GBFan]

Where to publush ? Media same as now PSA. Kissingnbabues in PA didnt do much in LA in the 1800s either but it sufficed and only applies to one elected office (since vp became a package deal). I would argue that despite the massive amounts spent today the public is no better informed. That is a frequent point made on this very board by you and others.

Making the information available ... and having a constituency that actually cares and reads the information ... are two decidedly different things.

Media doesn't do PSA for political offices .. all those ads are bought and paid for.

The approach you suggest ensures that only the rich can run for office ... because they are the only ones who can afford the cost.

 

[BigRob]

"April 2, 2014 WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court took another step Wednesday toward giving wealthy donors more freedom to influence federal elections.

The justices ruled 5-4, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, that limits on the total amount of money donors can give to all candidates, committees and political parties are unconstitutional. The decision leaves in place the base limits on what can be given to each individual campaign.

"The government has a strong interest, no less critical to our democratic system, in combating corruption and its appearance," Roberts wrote. "We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption — quid pro quo corruption — in order to ensure that the government's efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them."

The decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, which came nearly six months after it was argued at the beginning of the court's term in October, marks the latest round in the bitter national debate over the role of money in American politics.

More immediately, it alters the political landscape ahead of November's midterm elections and could transform state contests as well. Legal experts said the ruling also erodes aggregate contribution limits imposed by the District of Columbia and 12 states, ranging from Connecticut to Wyoming.

It's the most important campaign-finance ruling since the high court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts independently to influence elections.

The court's four liberal justices dissented vehemently from Roberts' ruling. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the minority, said the decision "understates the importance of protecting the political integrity of our governmental institutions."

"Taken together with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, today's decision eviscerates our nation's campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve," Breyer wrote.

The case pitted the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech – which the justices previously have equated with spending money in elections – against the government's interest in preventing political corruption. Roberts and the court's majority had little trouble siding with free speech.

"The government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse," he wrote."

I got all this - it was my friend that brought this case to begin with.

Let's face it though - even if this never existed, you could still get around it. Even before the previous Citizen's United ruling as well you could still run things through 527's. The landscape has not really fundamentally been changed by these rulings.

Ultimately, all contribution limits should (and will) be abolished.

 

[dogtowner]

Making the information available ... and having a constituency that actually cares and reads the information ... are two decidedly different things.

Media doesn't do PSA for political offices .. all those ads are bought and paid for.

The approach you suggest ensures that only the rich can run for office ... because they are the only ones who can afford the cost.

Medua seldom publushes platforms (papers being the exception) latgely because political ads pay a lot of the bills. But they be made.to. Regulation ensures that only the wealthy ever get into politics and legislators see to it that there will only be two parties. If you reduce it all to platforms you open it up to ideas. I dont want ads at all. Ban them or anything like them. We are not better served being slaves to this. Imagine a better way.

 

[dogtowner]

I got all this - it was my friend that brought this case to begin with.

Let's face it though - even if this never existed, you could still get around it. Even before the previous Citizen's United ruling as well you could still run things through 527's. The landscape has not really fundamentally been changed by these rulings.

Ultimately, all contribution limits should (and will) be abolished.

Mainly these decisions just made it cheaper to obtain money. Cut out one or more middlemen. Middlemen may not he happy (ergo the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the left). I personally feel that political ads are s major cause of voter disengagement. And they seldom make a difference.

 

[BigRob]

Mainly these decisions just made it cheaper to obtain money. Cut out one or more middlemen. Middlemen may not he happy (ergo the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the left). I personally feel that political ads are s major cause of voter disengagement. And they seldom make a difference.

As someone who works in the field, ads can have a big impact.

 

[dogtowner]

As someone who works in the field, ads can have a big impact.

As someone who works in the field you cannot possibly say otherwise. Not being mean spirited but ads work is your stock in trade. When I was working at Capital One we heard lots about the various ad vehicles they use. Some are projected to perform better than others of course but the ratws they place in "home run" outcome are pretty small. But then there are the mean joe green jersey ones or wheres the beef that just click. Among political ads thenonly thing i see as demonstrating any effect are the general meme ones played out across candidates areas and time. GOP hates women minorities etc. I realize I have a bee in my bonnet on the subject but if they are so great why do so many hate them and why are voters more poorly informed and engaged than Ive ever seen ?

 

[BigRob]

As someone who works in the field you cannot possibly say otherwise. Not being mean spirited but ads work is your stock in trade. When I was working at Capital One we heard lots about the various ad vehicles they use. Some are projected to perform better than others of course but the ratws they place in "home run" outcome are pretty small. But then there are the mean joe green jersey ones or wheres the beef that just click.

No, if they didn't work I would save the money and do something else. There are bad ads and there are good ads. A good campaign will already know going into it what messages work (based on polling) and the target audience that they work with. Good pollsters can further break down what crossover you can expect among your target audience pushing various messages.

I suppose we might be defining "worked" differently, but if you go into with a set goal, which you should, it's pretty easily to go back compare the voter file to your target and see an impact.

Among political ads thenonly thing i see as demonstrating any effect are the general meme ones played out across candidates areas and time. GOP hates women minorities etc. I realize I have a bee in my bonnet on the subject but if they are so great why do so many hate them and why are voters more poorly informed and engaged than Ive ever seen ?

So many people hate him them because they are not the target, and campaigns don't do a good job micro targeting , or don't have the money to do it at all.

It's amazing what you can do these days with ads outside of just TV. I can decide I want to run ads online to hard republican voters win like the NRA and only thst audience. I can basically do exactly that.

As for why voters are poorly informed, the bottom line is that I'm not going to spend campaign dollars to create a well rounded educated voter. I'm going to spend campaign dollars to get someone to vote for my client. There is a big difference.

 

[dogtowner]

No, if they didn't work I would save the money and do something else. There are bad ads and there are good ads. A good campaign will already know going into it what messages work (based on polling) and the target audience that they work with. Good pollsters can further break down what crossover you can expect among your target audience pushing various messages.

I suppose we might be defining "worked" differently, but if you go into with a set goal, which you should, it's pretty easily to go back compare the voter file to your target and see an impact.




So many people hate him them because they are not the target, and campaigns don't do a good job micro targeting , or don't have the money to do it at all.

It's amazing what you can do these days with ads outside of just TV. I can decide I want to run ads online to hard republican voters win like the NRA and only thst audience. I can basically do exactly that.

As for why voters are poorly informed, the bottom line is that I'm not going to spend campaign dollars to create a well rounded educated voter. I'm going to spend campaign dollars to get someone to vote for my client. There is a big difference.

Yes, there is a big differece. Which only highlights the pointkess accusation of being a low infirmation voter. There is no intent ti inform only influence.

 

[BigRob]

Yes, there is a big differece. Which only highlights the pointkess accusation of being a low infirmation voter. There is no intent ti inform only influence.

Well if someone is looking for a campaign to give them an unbiased take on something, they are an idiot.