Getting rid of Citizens United wouldn't stop what Bloomberg and Steyer are doing

[CalFione]

Even before the Citizens United decision, there was never any limit to how much PERSONAL wealth a candidate could spend on their own campaign.

If Citizens United were thrown out tomorrow, Mike Bloomberg and Tom Steyer could still spend as much money as they wanted on the campaign.

And I don't believe there will ever be a SCOTUS, even if it were made up of 9 liberal justices, that would rule it is constitutional to block a person from spending their OWN money on a campaign.

So... the only way to beat billionaires is at the ballot box. We can keep them from funding other people's campaigns by overturning Citizens United, but we can't stop them from funding their own.

[HerbChestnut]

1. This is why we need public funding of elections.

[Quixote1818]

6. Bingo! nt

[CalFione]

10. Even if elections were publicly funded....

... an rich individual could still spend their OWN money on top of any public funding. And therefore, dwarf their competition.


The only way to stop a billionaire from spending billions on his own campaign is to make sure there are no more billionaires.

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. Actually it could, if congress had the courage to pass a law prohibiting it

If Citizens United were thrown out, or rendered moot by a Constitutional Amendment that declares that money isn’t speech, then Congress could pass a law restricting the maximum amount that could be SPENT in an election.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Campaign Finance Reform Now!

[CalFione]

7. Campaign finance reform won't ever be able to impact how one spends their OWN money

...only on how they acquire and spend OTHER PEOPLE'S money.

[CalFione]

5. I don't believe any possible SCOTUS court would rule that....

...a person couldn't spend their OWN money however they see fit.

Buying TV commercials with one's own money is not something any justice would rule could be blocked. Because if they say that a person can't spend their own money to buy ad time, they could say that they could restrict how you spend YOUR dollars.

[Fiendish Thingy]

15. If the Constitution was amended, and the SCOTUS expanded by the next president, it could

Those are long shots, but there is a path to setting things right.

[CalFione]

17. Hard to think of how an amendment could restrict how an individual spends on themselves

...without violating other parts of the Bill of Rights.


But we need to find some way.

[Merlot]

19. The amount of money spent on campaigns could be restricted.

which would not be limiting how a person spends their money.

[CalFione]

20. There would be massive loopholes that could be jumped through

How much he spends on staff salaries.

How much he spends on travel.

It would be really hard to define what is a "campaign expense" and what is perhaps a "business expense" or "personal expense".

[dsc]

4. Buckley v viejo is what controls here

and that decision is decades old.

[turbinetree]

8. Lets compare ...............................

https://www.mic.com/articles/118598/7-facts-from-the-around-the-world-show-how-absurd-america-s-elections-really-are

7 Other Nations That Prove Just How Absurd U.S. Elections Really Are
By Zeeshan Aleem
May 19, 2015

Is there a greater example of American excess than the presidential campaign process?

From the formation of exploratory committees until the inauguration of the next president, the American election frenzy lasts about two years, a vast majority of which is spent talking about little of substance. Along the way, the U.S. easily outspends every other country in the world, a trend that has only been accelerated by the gutting of restrictions on corporate contributions to campaigns in recent years. Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign could cost up to $2 billion, according to early estimates.

What's even worse is that the exceptional amount of time and money doesn't produce an engaging democratic process. The U.S. ranks near the bottom in terms of voter participation when compared with other developed nations. Issues like obstacles to voter registration and the ability to simply get to the polls without missing work contribute to strikingly low turnout in the world's most powerful democracy.

None of this is inevitable, and some of these problems could be easily fixed. Here's a brief look at some practices in other democracies that the U.S. could learn from, if not replicate:

1. The longest campaign in Canadian history was 10 weeks.

The election process in other countries is typically far shorter than in the U.S. Even though there isn't an official limit on maximum campaign length in Canada, the longest election campaign in Canadian history was in 1926 for 74 days — about 10 and a half weeks between when the date of the election was announced and voting day.

They're usually significantly shorter. Party positioning and discussion of election scenarios precede the official election campaign period, but it's a matter of months rather than years.

2. In the U.K., political parties can only spend $30 million in the year before an election.

Election spending is strictly limited in the U.K. Each party cannot spend more than $29.5 million in the year before the election. The New York Times reported that the combined spending of both major British political parties in 2010 came out to around the same amount as the American presidential candidates spent on money on expenses related to raising money in 2012.

3. In Germany, political parties release just one 90-second television ad.

Many democracies around the world place strict regulations or outright bans on how political parties can advertise on television. In Germany, parties are given airtime on two public television networks based on their performance in the past election and the size of their party, according to Politico. Each party usually only makes one minute-and-a half-long ad to convey their message during those slots.

Politico reported that in the 2013 election, this amounted to eight ads on each channel for the major parties — for the entire campaign. Parties can purchase more ads to run on private television channels, but limits on spending budgets and the high cost of television spots place huge constraints on their use. Negative ads are rare.

4. In 2013, over two-thirds of income to Norway's political parties came from the government.

Many countries successfully use public financing of campaigns as a way of regulating their cost and relieving the need for reliance on wealthy donors. In Norway's 2013 elections, 67% of political party income was provided by the government.

The U.S. does have a public financing system for presidential campaigns, but in 2008 Barack Obama opted out — the first candidate to do so since its creation in 1976 — citing concerns that it was a "broken" system and that the spending limits it imposed put him at a disadvantage against his opponent's ability to marshal corporate resources that circumvented its limits. In 2012, both presidential candidates opted out of the system.

5. Voter registration is automatic in Sweden.

?w=646&fit=max&auto=format&q=70

Voter registration is one of the tedious details of the democratic process that has enormous consequences for election outcomes. In Sweden, the government automatically registers all eligible voters using data from the national population database.

The U.S., on the other hand, is one of few democratic countries in the world that places the onus of voter registration entirely on citizens themselves, leaving about a quarter of eligible Americans unregistered to vote. Most states do not allow same-day registration, which boosts turnout.

6. In Australia, voting is compulsory.

In Australia, citizens are fined a small sum of money if they don't vote, and if they don't pay that fine, then the penalty grows more serious. Since making it mandatory in the early 20th century, Australian voter participation has never fallen below 90%.

Compulsory voting diminishes socio-economic bias in voter turnout (typically poorer voters are less likely to vote) and allows campaigns to focus on messaging without nearly as much time and money spent worrying about mobilizing voters. Requiring citizens to visit the polls is certainly not every country's cup of tea, and is not without its major flaws — the question of forcing ignorant or apathetic citizens to choose candidates is a serious one. But it is effective in getting voters to the polls. Obama has even suggested that it would be an easier fix than reforming campaign finances in the near future.

7. In Brazil, Election Day is on the weekend.

Brazil votes on Sundays. The fact that people don't have to find a way to skip work or school when voting is likely one of the reasons that Brazil has a significantly higher voter turnout rate than the U.S., which votes on Tuesdays and has limited early voting options.

In the U.S. there have been calls for weekend voting. The current calendar was designed in the 19th century to accommodate voters who relied on horse and buggy to get back from the polls before market day on Wednesday.

These are just a handful of examples of differences in the way elections are conducted around the world that could provide some valuable insights into how to make American democracy saner and more responsive.

[Xipe Totec]

9. Getting rid of polio doesn't stop tuberculosis, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't. nt

[CalFione]

12. Oh, I agree!

I'm just saying that getting rid of Citizens United does nothing to stop the Bloombergs and Steyers of the world from self-financing their campaigns.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. We'll just need to find other ways to stop billionaires from self-financing.

[Xipe Totec]

13. Don't link the issues, then. nt

[CalFione]

16. They're linked because of the common misconception that Citizens United is responsible for this

Citizens United is responsible for SuperPACs.


But we need to think of other solutions to keep billionaires from self-financing.

[DrToast]

11. I'm not really opposed to what they're doing

At least it’s transparent.

[empedocles]

14. Bloomberg & Steyer not quite the same problem as Citizens United.

[Merlot]

18. Why couldn't those hypothetical 9 liberal judges

rule that only so much money may be spent on any campaign? If elections were only publicly funded all candidates would be on equal footing. Of course that would also mean getting rid of PACS.