2020 shows money can’t buy elections, so let's remove restrictive contribution limits

Washington Examiner ^ | July 13, 2020 | Nathan Maxwell

[karpov]

We should have learned our lesson by now. In elections, it’s not what you pay; it’s what you say.

Hillary Clinton spent almost twice as much as Donald Trump only to lose the 2016 election, even while independent groups supporting Clinton outspent those supporting Trump by 3-to-1. In the spirit of making the same mistakes, many 2020 hopefuls have taken “you get what you pay for” as a given. Billionaire Tom Steyer dumped more than $300 million from his own pocket into his campaign and failed to score a single delegate. Michael Bloomberg somehow did both better and worse, spending over $1 billion to score 49 delegates at $22.6 million apiece.

...

Maybe it is time to eliminate contribution limits and let citizens give what they want to candidates and political parties. That’s the system we had before Congress imposed contribution limits in the 1970s. With that system, underdog candidates have a better shot at raising enough resources for a competitive campaign.

Speech to a mass audience costs money, and the First Amendment protects the right to support campaigns. In that sense, a restriction on your contributions is a restriction on your speech. If voters think a candidate is in the pocket of some special interest, they can vote for someone else.

Traveling, advertising, and even yard signs are not free. Ditching contribution limits could have a positive effect on the democratic process by making it easier for candidates to get the resources they need. Fewer candidates would have to drop out early simply because they can’t pay the bills. Research also shows that races with more spending lead to voters who are better informed and more engaged.

[foreverfree]

bump

[a fool in paradise]

With the media “all in” on electing Democrats what difference does it make? 88 cable channels, Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube are deleting content and controlling the narrative.

[DIRTYSECRET]

Libertarian dittos but the left has the billionaires and they’re crazy.

[captain_dave]

I agree. Certainly the contribution limits should be raised if not eliminated. Say a $2M limit. Political contributions are a public record.

[Bon of Babble]

Love it when lefty politicians squander millions of dollars on campaigns only to lose.

Keep it up!

[Yo-Yo]

Sure, remove the contribution caps and just let Soros fund the Democratic party.

[Socon-Econ]

Of course money can buy elections. Look at all the Soros backed AGs and local officials who got elected. In Arkansas, Jones defeated Moore by spending a boatload of money. Republcan candidates are usually outspent when you add in the PAC money and union funds going to the Democrats. In this election, Republicans need to give as if their lives depended on it.

[ridesthemiles]

Political contributions are a public record.”””

The records of donations to Obama in 2008 election show money from “GA.

When the phone number was compared to Georgia, USA, it was found that those donations to Obama were coming from GAZA.

Totally illegal.

Nothing was done against Obama.

[backwoods-engineer]

In Arkansas, Jones defeated Moore by spending a boatload of money.

Correction, that was my sweet home ALABAMA, not Arkansas.

[2CAVTrooper]

IMO the only limitation to campaign donations should be prohibiting interstate donations.

For example, a liberal lunatic from Californistan such as Barbara Streisand or Cher should be prohibited from donating to a U.S., state, or local candidate from let’s say Texas, Alabama, or Georgia.

Someone running for Governor in Georgia isn’t going to be representing some socialist psychopath from Malibu. Someone running for the senate from Alabama isn’t going to be representing some communist screwball from Beverly Hills

[2CAVTrooper]

Yep, the Highway 31 shadow PAC who IIRC still hasn’t disclosed where they got the money from.

[Svartalfiar]

IMO the only limitation to campaign donations should be prohibiting interstate donations.

For example, a liberal lunatic from Californistan such as Barbara Streisand or Cher should be prohibited from donating to a U.S., state, or local candidate from let’s say Texas, Alabama, or Georgia.

Someone running for Governor in Georgia isn’t going to be representing some socialist psychopath from Malibu. Someone running for the senate from Alabama isn’t going to be representing some communist screwball from Beverly Hills

I would actually go a good bit farther than that. Contributions are unlimited, but may NOT be anonymous (not necessarily public, but id'd for audits, 10% of pols at random each year), and must come from within your district/State/voting area. Mayors can only fundraise from within their city. Sheriffs, residents of their county. Govs, Senators, their State. And so on. Making personal donations are thereby limited by your residence, and company donations are limited by the equivalent of the current IRS tax nexus definition. Oh, and all corporate donations are required to be public record for each candidate. Of course, foreign $$ are still a big no-no.

I could maybe see limiting corporate donations to the same total as personal donations, to prevent rich liberals from opening a fake store in every city just to funnel money to places they don't live.

Any non-campaign political groups (PACs, DNC/RNC, limited-issue groups like NRA or PP) pose an issue though. Maybe restrict them to general issues, they can't run ads for/against specific candidates. Something like that, I'm not too sure.

[2CAVTrooper]

Agreed.

If these candidates can’t raise enough money from the state/district/city they wish to represent, then they need to stick to flipping burgers, greeting people at Walmart, or whatever their “day job” is.