Who wants to be a millionaire?
June 26, 2008 3:55 PM Subscribe
Many people are up in arms (heh) over the Supreme Court's decision regarding gun control, but rather less press is being given to another opinion handed down today: Davis v. FEC. The issue was the constitutionality of the "Millionaire's Amendment", which allowed for political candidates facing self-funding challengers who intended to spend more than $350,000 to raise more money from individual donors than they would otherwise be allowed to do.
In a 5-4 decision, the court found the law unconstitutional.
Justice Alito writing for the majority, argues that the Amendment forces wealthy candidates to "choose between the First Amendment right to engage in unfettered political speech and subjection to discriminatory fundraising limitations.”
Justice Stevens, dissenting, writes: “The millionaire’s amendment quiets no speech at all. On the contrary, it does no more than assist the opponent of a self-funding candidate in his attempts to make his voice heard; this amplification in no way mutes the voice of the millionaire, who remains able to speak as loud and as long as he likes in support of his campaign.”
The decision will have a marked effect on the 2008 elections, if only because parties like to recruit wealthy challengers. Check out the .rtf at the end of that last link.
Incidentally, John McCain's reaction to the striking down of a section of one of his own bills is subdued.
Oh, and the law really helped out a certain politician back in 2004. You may have heard of him.
Justice Alito writing for the majority, argues that the Amendment forces wealthy candidates to "choose between the First Amendment right to engage in unfettered political speech and subjection to discriminatory fundraising limitations.”
Justice Stevens, dissenting, writes: “The millionaire’s amendment quiets no speech at all. On the contrary, it does no more than assist the opponent of a self-funding candidate in his attempts to make his voice heard; this amplification in no way mutes the voice of the millionaire, who remains able to speak as loud and as long as he likes in support of his campaign.”
The decision will have a marked effect on the 2008 elections, if only because parties like to recruit wealthy challengers. Check out the .rtf at the end of that last link.
Incidentally, John McCain's reaction to the striking down of a section of one of his own bills is subdued.
Oh, and the law really helped out a certain politician back in 2004. You may have heard of him.
The rich have earned the right to more and freer speech than their poorer opponents.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:06 PM on June 26, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:06 PM on June 26, 2008 [1 favorite]
In the last two congressional cycles here in Nebraska, we had two major candidates who spend an absurd amount of their own money to buy the election -- and both times it blew up in their faces. Nothing reeks of oily desperation more -- and once voters get a whiff, there is an invariable backlash. Sorta restores my faith in the electorate. Sorta.
posted by RavinDave at 4:07 PM on June 26, 2008
posted by RavinDave at 4:07 PM on June 26, 2008
Sweet! So Obama has a SCOTUS case to talk about too! :)
Well, I'm not sure I'd care much about the millionaire’s amendment. Here is another nice millionaire’s amendment : How about candidates must donate some percentage of their net worth to their political party? Say 1% for a representative, 2% for a senator, and 5% for a president. You pay three times that on anything extra you have when you leave office. p.s. No statute of limitations either, so if they ever find out you had more when you ran or left, then you must give it up.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:19 PM on June 26, 2008
Well, I'm not sure I'd care much about the millionaire’s amendment. Here is another nice millionaire’s amendment : How about candidates must donate some percentage of their net worth to their political party? Say 1% for a representative, 2% for a senator, and 5% for a president. You pay three times that on anything extra you have when you leave office. p.s. No statute of limitations either, so if they ever find out you had more when you ran or left, then you must give it up.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:19 PM on June 26, 2008
Heh, If this had gone through two years ago, Lamont might have won. Oh well.
How about candidates must donate some percentage of their net worth to their political party? Say 1% for a representative, 2% for a senator, and 5% for a president.
What would be the point of that? I mean, why should someone like Ron Paul be forced to give money to their party if they're not happy with it?
posted by delmoi at 4:34 PM on June 26, 2008 [1 favorite]
How about candidates must donate some percentage of their net worth to their political party? Say 1% for a representative, 2% for a senator, and 5% for a president.
What would be the point of that? I mean, why should someone like Ron Paul be forced to give money to their party if they're not happy with it?
posted by delmoi at 4:34 PM on June 26, 2008 [1 favorite]
Campaign finance is broken enough that I'm not sure this matters.
Personally, I don't think money should equal speech. I'd support a hard limit on campaign spending. (Yes, there are some first amendment issues there. Yes, it would probably take a Constitutional Amendment. No it would never, ever happen)
posted by meta_eli at 4:47 PM on June 26, 2008
Personally, I don't think money should equal speech. I'd support a hard limit on campaign spending. (Yes, there are some first amendment issues there. Yes, it would probably take a Constitutional Amendment. No it would never, ever happen)
posted by meta_eli at 4:47 PM on June 26, 2008
Hmm. This is an interesting point about the First Amendment. In general, Americans are proud of the First Amendment. In general, I think they should be. On the other hand, it means that anyone with a political axe to grind and money to spend can put whatever political advert he likes on TV. This clearly favours the rich in terms of political campaigns, especially in local elections.
In the UK, for example, political advertising is severely restricted. Party Political Broadcasts are the sole means of partisan broadcasting. Of course, the papers are free to choose sides as Rupert pleases. But it seems to me that in the age of broadcasting, and the age of the couch potato, it is not wise to allow he who is rich to dominate the airwaves. I would go so far as to say that if the US founders had envisioned a national or global communication network as currently exists, they would have enshrined in the constitution rules about media ownership. They were absolutely paranoid about the prospect of one voice dominating. When the rich can speak louder and longer than anyone else, you need to be careful.
there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling
John Stuart Mill
posted by Jakey at 5:09 PM on June 26, 2008
In the UK, for example, political advertising is severely restricted. Party Political Broadcasts are the sole means of partisan broadcasting. Of course, the papers are free to choose sides as Rupert pleases. But it seems to me that in the age of broadcasting, and the age of the couch potato, it is not wise to allow he who is rich to dominate the airwaves. I would go so far as to say that if the US founders had envisioned a national or global communication network as currently exists, they would have enshrined in the constitution rules about media ownership. They were absolutely paranoid about the prospect of one voice dominating. When the rich can speak louder and longer than anyone else, you need to be careful.
there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling
John Stuart Mill
posted by Jakey at 5:09 PM on June 26, 2008
just to check - self-funding means entirely self-funding, as opposed to not taking public financing in exchange for raising money from donations? So Obama is not self-funding?
That said, Britain has the right way to go. It's not just about the rich, it's about how in the United States now everyone has to get television ads, because the opposition has tv ads - and that just leads to a huge number of really bad local election ads. They used to come across the lake from upstate New York; they were terrible! and it's just begging to make politics about soundbites and smear campaigns.
I don't know what the Canadian rules are - I think we have political ads, but we don't get many local ads. So while we still have the soundbiting and smear campaigns, at least they are high budget soundbites and smear campaigns.
posted by jb at 5:54 PM on June 26, 2008
That said, Britain has the right way to go. It's not just about the rich, it's about how in the United States now everyone has to get television ads, because the opposition has tv ads - and that just leads to a huge number of really bad local election ads. They used to come across the lake from upstate New York; they were terrible! and it's just begging to make politics about soundbites and smear campaigns.
I don't know what the Canadian rules are - I think we have political ads, but we don't get many local ads. So while we still have the soundbiting and smear campaigns, at least they are high budget soundbites and smear campaigns.
posted by jb at 5:54 PM on June 26, 2008
Habeas corpus: upheld.
1st Amendment: upheld.
2nd Amendment: upheld.
Good job SCOTUS!
posted by vsync at 6:06 PM on June 26, 2008 [1 favorite]
1st Amendment: upheld.
2nd Amendment: upheld.
Good job SCOTUS!
posted by vsync at 6:06 PM on June 26, 2008 [1 favorite]
BTW this didn't just violate the 1st Amendment but the 14th. You can't say "you are allowed to spend so much, but you, you get to spend more".
Maybe this will cause people to rethink the idea of restricting people from speaking their mind on political issues.
Jakey, I share your concerns about media outlet consolidation but I strongly disagree that the founders would have had any part in such restrictions.
Don't forget that "libel" used to be a noun, and referred to pamphlets and newsletters. From their inception they were vehicles of strident political and even personal attacks. They were widely circulated and the person with more money to spend had more of a voice. Thomas Jefferson was even quoted as saying "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers". Yet for all that they found freedom of the press essential. Their respect for the jury even derived from such cases as the Zenger trial.
I find no credible argument for restricting the publications of one's opinions, political or otherwise. You say it is to protect the people from the undue influence of the aristocracy. I wonder, what of the citizen that works industriously all his or her life, with the aim of becoming financially independent enough to devote resources to publishing such opinions? What of someone like Mary Baker Eddy?
The only situation I can see for such restrictions to be legitimately employed is in the case of a limited public resource, such as the television and radio airwaves. Additionally one might consider cable television, where carriers are granted government monopolies to run cable to houses in the neighborhood. Yet satellite television is available and subscribers by law cannot be restricted from receiving it. Furthermore the Internet is widely available and some would argue it has become the new preferred format for libels. Finally, I believe it has been shown that such restrictions always become a tool of the aristocracy. Otherwise Fox News would surely by now have been censured, or censored, and the courts would not have decided that they have a right to lie to the public in their broadcasts.
posted by vsync at 6:25 PM on June 26, 2008 [3 favorites]
Maybe this will cause people to rethink the idea of restricting people from speaking their mind on political issues.
Jakey, I share your concerns about media outlet consolidation but I strongly disagree that the founders would have had any part in such restrictions.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.That's pretty clear, and for good reason. (Of course, so is "shall not be infringed" but people like to ignore that one.)
Don't forget that "libel" used to be a noun, and referred to pamphlets and newsletters. From their inception they were vehicles of strident political and even personal attacks. They were widely circulated and the person with more money to spend had more of a voice. Thomas Jefferson was even quoted as saying "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers". Yet for all that they found freedom of the press essential. Their respect for the jury even derived from such cases as the Zenger trial.
I find no credible argument for restricting the publications of one's opinions, political or otherwise. You say it is to protect the people from the undue influence of the aristocracy. I wonder, what of the citizen that works industriously all his or her life, with the aim of becoming financially independent enough to devote resources to publishing such opinions? What of someone like Mary Baker Eddy?
The only situation I can see for such restrictions to be legitimately employed is in the case of a limited public resource, such as the television and radio airwaves. Additionally one might consider cable television, where carriers are granted government monopolies to run cable to houses in the neighborhood. Yet satellite television is available and subscribers by law cannot be restricted from receiving it. Furthermore the Internet is widely available and some would argue it has become the new preferred format for libels. Finally, I believe it has been shown that such restrictions always become a tool of the aristocracy. Otherwise Fox News would surely by now have been censured, or censored, and the courts would not have decided that they have a right to lie to the public in their broadcasts.
posted by vsync at 6:25 PM on June 26, 2008 [3 favorites]
a huge number of really bad local election ads. They used to come across the lake from upstate New York; they were terrible!
Nowadays, if you have the zillion channels that Rogers offers, you can get bad political ads from everywhere. I was watching something forgettable and was suddenly blindsided by an attack ad against Ed Stelmach.
posted by oaf at 6:41 PM on June 26, 2008
Nowadays, if you have the zillion channels that Rogers offers, you can get bad political ads from everywhere. I was watching something forgettable and was suddenly blindsided by an attack ad against Ed Stelmach.
posted by oaf at 6:41 PM on June 26, 2008
Won't someone think of the voice of the millionaire!
posted by wemayfreeze at 7:09 PM on June 26, 2008
posted by wemayfreeze at 7:09 PM on June 26, 2008
just to check - self-funding means entirely self-funding, as opposed to not taking public financing in exchange for raising money from donations? So Obama is not self-funding?
You can do both: Take donations and spend your own money. John Kerry did this (he actually took out a mortgage on a house he owned with his wife), as did Mitt Romney. Self funding just means you donate some money to yourself. It has to be a large amount for the law to kick in, though, although now I suppose it won't kick in at all.
posted by delmoi at 11:13 PM on June 26, 2008
You can do both: Take donations and spend your own money. John Kerry did this (he actually took out a mortgage on a house he owned with his wife), as did Mitt Romney. Self funding just means you donate some money to yourself. It has to be a large amount for the law to kick in, though, although now I suppose it won't kick in at all.
posted by delmoi at 11:13 PM on June 26, 2008
How about candidates must donate some percentage of their net worth to their political party? Say 1% for a representative, 2% for a senator, and 5% for a president.
Wouldn't change much in funding, but it would end the two-party system, as suddenly every candidate will have their own party, with just one candidate.
posted by DreamerFi at 2:54 AM on June 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
Wouldn't change much in funding, but it would end the two-party system, as suddenly every candidate will have their own party, with just one candidate.
posted by DreamerFi at 2:54 AM on June 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
I don't see any evidence that self funded candidates are a significant problem with our political system. I'd imagine that a self funder must have some strong political beliefs, meaning their vote can be swayed more easily by appealing to these beliefs, and less easily by campaign contributions.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:28 AM on June 27, 2008
posted by jeffburdges at 3:28 AM on June 27, 2008
I'd imagine that a self funder must have some strong political beliefs
Like the strong belief in more money.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:45 PM on June 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
Like the strong belief in more money.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:45 PM on June 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
« Older “Please keep your ass crack covered at all times.” | When blogging goes nowhere Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ORthey at 3:57 PM on June 26, 2008