Mega-Donors and Elections

[Jimmy Higgins]

Washington Post has this piece on the people in desperate need of a tax cut. These people are pumping tens of millions into political PACs.

The 50 biggest donors this cycle have collectively pumped $1.5 billion into political committees and other groups competing in the election, according to a Washington Post analysis of Federal Election Commission data.

If we had a tax on political contributions (ie, the people providing the contribution pay the tax), something like 0.5% up to $100, then escalating to 50% once you reach $10 million, I bet we could cut the deficit... a little. And this would be based on the total for the year, not individual contributions. Elections in the US are arbitrarily insane.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Bonnie Raitt said our elections are more like auctions.

 

[Toni]

I think your proposals are far too modest. End Citizens United. Tax income over $5M at 50% up to 80% over $20M.

Publicly fund election campaigns with set budgets for each race. No dark money.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Repubs would have no interest at all in that solution, and would call it an attack on free speech (because dollars equal speech, so if you have no spare cash, we can't hear you.) We would need a strong Democrat imprint on at least legislative and executive to pull that off, and then there'd be the Roberts Court to steer around. Nice to theorize about, though.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think your proposals are far too modest.

I only meant it in jest. The idea that any action would take place is clearly satire.

End Citizens United.

That'll require a constitutional amendment.

Publicly fund election campaigns with set budgets for each race. No dark money.

Again, constitutional amendment. We couldn't get ERA through. This wouldn't have a shot in heck. The other thing that should be done is contracting the election cycle, no earlier than August, and I think we could easily make that September for primaries. We pay the Government to run the Government, yet the US House only does their job for 50% of their term. Presidents are better at 75%, but OMFG! Enough!

 

[barbos]

That's the "democracy" you deserve.

 

[Toni]

That's the "democracy" you deserve.

Lol

 

[ideologyhunter]

That's the "democracy" you deserve.

Yeah, right, because unlimited dark money can't possibly warp the democratic process.

 

[barbos]

That's the "democracy" you deserve.

Yeah, right, because unlimited dark money can't possibly warp the democratic process.

Listening to the usual suspects one has to come to that conclusion.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

That's the "democracy" you deserve.

This is a mentality I always felt was weird. How is any change supposed to happen at all if the current state is "what we deserve"?

 

[laughing dog]

End Citizens United.

That'll require a constitutional amendment.

Or a rational SCOTUS. Of course one could wonder which is a more likely outcome in this day and age: a constiutional amendment or a rational SCOTUS>

 

[Tigers!]

Repubs would have no interest at all in that solution, and would call it an attack on free speech (because dollars equal speech, so if you have no spare cash, we can't hear you.) We would need a strong Democrat imprint on at least legislative and executive to pull that off, and then there'd be the Roberts Court to steer around. Nice to theorize about, though.

You really believe that the Democrats are unaffected by all the big money they get? And that they are truly interested in any reforms that would stop those rivers of money?

 

[Tigers!]

I think your proposals are far too modest. End Citizens United. Tax income over $5M at 50% up to 80% over $20M.

Publicly fund election campaigns with set budgets for each race. No dark money.

Trouble is "who determines the said set budgets"? Politicians would.
And amazing enough those limits would go up > rate of inflation each electoral cycle.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Repubs would have no interest at all in that solution, and would call it an attack on free speech (because dollars equal speech, so if you have no spare cash, we can't hear you.) We would need a strong Democrat imprint on at least legislative and executive to pull that off, and then there'd be the Roberts Court to steer around. Nice to theorize about, though.

You really believe that the Democrats are unaffected by all the big money they get? And that they are truly interested in any reforms that would stop those rivers of money?

Back in 2010, Obama brought up the Citizens United decision in his State of the Union -- right in the faces of SCOTUS, who were seated just below him. He said it would open the floodgates to special interest spending in our elections. Alito grimaced and shook his head. Quite a moment.
Hillary ran in '16 on a platform with a specific section on campaign finance reform.
Two years ago, Adam Schiff introduced a Constitutional amendment proposal to do away with Citizens United.
Yes, there's big money on both sides -- everyone has to spend a fortune on horrible political ads -- but do you hear any conservative voices who want to limit campaign donations? I don't. When someone talks about limiting donations, or even forcing public disclosure of donors/amounts, you can be almost 100% certain that's a Dem.
It's damn hard to amend the Constitution, so we're probably stuck with CU.

 

[Toni]

I think your proposals are far too modest. End Citizens United. Tax income over $5M at 50% up to 80% over $20M.

Publicly fund election campaigns with set budgets for each race. No dark money.

Trouble is "who determines the said set budgets"? Politicians would.
And amazing enough those limits would go up > rate of inflation each electoral cycle.

Going up the rate of inflation seems reasonable. I'd worry about more than that...

 

[ZiprHead]

Tax income over $5M at 50% up to 80% over $20M.

A lot people in those ranges don't have income, they have stocks and stock options they borrow against at quite advantageous interest rates. Their remuneration is done this way specifically so they can avoid taxes.

 

[Toni]

Tax income over $5M at 50% up to 80% over $20M.

A lot people in those ranges don't have income, they have stocks and stock options they borrow against at quite advantageous interest rates. Their remuneration is done this way specifically so they can avoid taxes.

True. It would take someone much more knowledgeable than I am to close loopholes.

I

 

[Elixir]

You really believe that the Democrats are unaffected by all the big money they get?

NO. I believe Democrats would support those things because they would force fairer elections per "the will of the people". Citizens United and privately financed elections, support tyranny by a minority (aka rich Republicans). But if you want any of that rich Republican money to run your campaign, you better not support getting rid of C U or you'll never be heard from again in those circles. And it can't pass without lots of Republicans.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Think how rich they must be that spending 1.5 billion dollars on the possibility of a tax cut makes more sense than just keeping that money. Yikes!

 

[Harry Bosch]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but changing this law would require supreme court sign off. The left lost the SC when Gore lost to Bush and Nader. If we get lucky this election, we get it back in another 10 years. If Trump beats Harris, there will be another fresh round of young far right judges on the bench that will be there for a generation or two.