Election Law

[TheMercenary]

This would be a bad move by the Supreme Court. We have enough influence already by special interest groups. If it changes and allows big business to directly enter the spere of influence of the electoral process it could change things as we know them forever.

Editorial
A Threat to Fair Elections

The Supreme Court may be about to radically change politics by striking down the longstanding rule that says corporations cannot spend directly on federal elections. If the floodgates open, money from big business could overwhelm the electoral process, as well as the making of laws on issues like tax policy and bank regulation.

The court, which is scheduled to hear arguments on this issue on Wednesday, is rushing to decide a monumental question at breakneck speed and seems willing to throw established precedents and judicial modesty out the window.

Corporations and unions have been prohibited from spending their money on federal campaigns since 1947, and corporate contributions have been barred since 1907. States have barred corporate expenditures since the late 1800s. These laws are very much needed today. In the 2008 election cycle, Fortune 100 companies alone had combined revenues of $13.1 trillion and profits of $605 billion. That dwarfs the $1.5 billion that Federal Election Commission-registered political parties spent during the same election period, or the $1.2 billion spent by federal political action committees.

continues:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/op...8tue1.html?hpw

[DanaC]

Personally, I like the idea of a limit on what can be spent during an election.

We have that here. It isn't perfect: the rest o fthe year political parties can spend what they like; but once an eection is called every last penny of a campaign (local and national) has to be counted. In my local election I was allowed to spend a little under £1000. That included 'nominal expenses': i.e if I use a supporters office for free in the evenings I have to work out what that would cost if I was having to pay for it and that gets written down and counted as an expense. It works the same way in each parliamentary seat as well, but with a higher limit ( I think it's about £30k, but I may be wrong on that).

It does make you a lot more careful in spending during an election and it does go some way to levelling the electoral playing field a little.

[classicman]

I too like the idea of putting limits on what candidates can spend. It only seems fair to me. Perhaps it would reduce all the negativity and allow candidates to explain what they plan on doing instead f simply bashing the opponent.

[DanaC]

It does make you much more careful in how you campaign. You have to be very selective in your strategy and use of resources.

[xoxoxoBruce]

On the other hand, it may bring corporate support out in the open for public view, rather than the convoluted way money is now funneled into back door of campaigns.

[TheMercenary]

The other thing I think would be good about limiting spending is that it may allow some of the other parties to enter the fray without the overwhelming smothering by the democrats and repblicans.