(03-12-2012 02:35 PM)Max Power Wrote: That's not the reason for the holding in Citizens United. There had been that distinction previously but McCain-Feingold prohibited unions just as it did corporations. Regardless of the reason the Roberts court could have gone one of two ways--recognizing corporations/associations as people or not and their expenditures as speech or not.
The political activity prohibition on 501c3 corporations could apply to your "idea test." It's tricky though to determine when ads become political.
We need dollar limits. The only reason Newt Gingrich is still in the race is because he has this one sugar daddy casino owner in Las Vegas who keeps writing him 7 figure checks.
As you are certainly well aware, the stated reasoning in a Supreme Court opinion is often not the actual political reason behind the decision.
McCain-Feingold allowed certain non-human entities to make campaign donations. As I understand it, under McC-F unions could funnel contributions through separate single-purpose entities, as long as the funds don't come out of union general funds; correct me if that's a misunderstanding. All the Supreme Court did, in effect, was say that if you're going to allow some non-humans to contribute, you have to let all non-humans contribute. I think basic fairness demands that at a minimum.
As I said, my approach would be to allow NO non-humans to contribute. I think we agree that the devil would be in the details of defining exactly where the firewall gets placed, and I think we agree that there could be problems. But I still think we'd do better to implement the general principle and let the courts make law around that.
Everybody knows about Newt's sugar daddy. As long as it's known, people can make decisions honestly. I think he's less of a problem than Obama's unknown contributors from 2008, but I'm sure you disagree there, and neither of us is going to change the other's mind by arguing, so let's just agree to disagree on that one.
If you impose any sorts of limits, before the ink is dry people are already working overtime to figure out how to get around them. That means limits essentially never work. I don't think any objective observer would conclude that McCain-Feingold was a successful effort.
So do it with full disclosure, not limits.
And I would consider making political contributions taxable income to the recipients, but continue to be nondeductible to contributors. That way if there's any fraud, it's tax evasion which is an easy conviction. U would unquestionably require that any funds contributed indirectly (such as through PACs) be taxable income to the intermediary, without the expenditures being deductible expenses.
I would also impose a maximum spending cap on any election. You can spend, say, $1 for every person who voted the last time the position was contested. That's it. That would take the big money out of the equation. You could set it up so that any money raised over the maximum spending limit (and any taxes collected if you taxed contributions) went into a fund to a) run elections and b) provide equalization funding to less well-funded candidates.
