Money won't buy you votes

[bemildred]

Campaign finance reformers are worried about the future. They contend that two Supreme Court rulings — the McCutcheon decision in March and the 2010 Citizens United decision — will magnify inequality in U.S. politics.

In both cases, the court majority relaxed constraints on how money can be spent on or donated to political campaigns. By allowing more private money to flow to campaigns, the critics maintain, the court has allowed the rich an unfair advantage in shaping political outcomes and made "one dollar, one vote" (in one formulation) the measure of our corrupted democracy.

This argument misses the mark for at least four reasons.

First, the money spent on federal campaigns is not excessive; quite the contrary. Second, elections — and politics in general — are inherently unequal for many reasons other than money. Third, incumbency is by far the greatest source of this inequality, and the limits on contributions — and thus on most candidates' spending — that reformers want to retain would only worsen it. Finally, the claim that generous donors and big independent spenders in effect buy federal elections and policies is contradicted by the empirical evidence.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-schuck-campaign-finance-mccutcheon-20140420,0,7723852.story

[mrdmk]

1. So says part of the media that would benefit from a bigger war chest!

Now we can have more bucks to collect, we can report less news and have a real horserace...

[bemildred]

2. Yeah, I have to disagree with it.

The power of incumbency is pretty much the power of money too. They buy it with tax money or they buy it with corporate money. But it's bought either way. The mediocrity of the product speaks to that, that it's bought, very well.

[elleng]

3. Yes, I see B.S.

[blkmusclmachine]

4. Disagree. Strongly.

[JayhawkSD]

5. Oh really? I'm from Missouri; show me

Well, metaphorically speaking. Actually I'm from San Diego CA.

"First, the money spent on federal campaigns is not excessive;"
You have to be kidding me. It's grossly excessive. Over $1 bilion in just the last presidential campaign, not including primaries.

"Second, elections — and politics in general — are inherently unequal for many reasons other than money."
Probably true,, but that doesn't mean that it's okay to make them even more unequal by throwing tons of money into the process.

"Third, incumbency is by far the greatest source of this inequality,"
Oh for God's sake. The main reason this is true is the ability of incumbents to extort money from contributors.

"and the limits on contributions — and thus on most candidates' spending — that reformers want to retain would only worsen it."
Reductions in contribtions would deplete challenger donations far more than incumbent donations.

"Finally, the claim that generous donors and big independent spenders in effect buy federal elections and policies is contradicted by the empirical evidence."
On the contrary, it is amply demonstrated by the empirical evidence, in that the biggest spenders invariably win elections.