After this USSC decision, just heap the corpses and pray

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Wed Apr 2, 2014, 12:53 PM - Edit history (8)

I changed the headline from its less dramatic original form, which proved unpopular:

This decision may have peculiar effects.

Not so much peculiar *strange,* but formal peculiar... effects specific to the minutae of this ruling and only to this ruling which is not a full de-regulation, but a gutting of regulation along certain axises.

If I am understanding it properly, the most striking effect of this USSC decision is that an individual can now donate $2,600 (whatever the operative limit is) to every congressional candidacy. The cap remains the same, but there is no limit on the number of campaigns one can give that cap amount to.

Like any rules change, this has particular effects.

For instance, the financing of stalking horse parties. I have a zillion dollars and want to maximize my cause... anti-union, whatever. So I give the limit (eg $2K, whatever the limit is for the situation) to every single Republican running across the USA.

No now I really am maxed out on direct campaign contributions to Republicans. (Though not to all the other PACs or clubs or foundations etc.)

But I can still donate up to the cap to non-Republicans. For instance, I can still donate to fringe parties that draw from Democrats. I can still contribute to Republicans seeking Democratic nominations. I can even contribute to fake parties set up just to run negative ads against the Democrat...

If I have infinity money then the more candidates there are, the more personal influence I can wield. So one net result of this should be the use of "independent" candidacies as de facto PACs.

What other specific effects do you see, or not see, from un-limiting the number of candidacies one can donate to while capping the $ sum per candidacy?

How about party? $42,400/year, national and local. But you could give $42K to the Republicans and also $42K to the Hillary is the Antichrist Party, and TV stations will have to run your ads for the Hillary is the Antichrist candidates, who will be invested with the very highest 1st Amendment protections... those of a candidate to state his platform.

You can't give your local Hillary=Antichirst candidate $125,000 directly to run ads of Hillary shitting in Jesus' mouth? So what? A group of 50 of you can give $2,500 each to 50 such candidacies across the nation.

And, of course, there is strategic play with existing parties. If the green might pull 6% in some tight election you can fund that Green to the same tune you fund the Republican without it reducing how much you can give the Republican.

I think this is the cap structure (before USSC decision)

Individual may give
candidate: $2,600*
national party: $32,400*
local party: $10,000
political committee: $5,000

$123,200* overall biennial limit:
•$48,600* to all candidates
•$74,600* to all PACs and parties

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml

[cthulu2016]

1. ...and an OP discussing practical effects sinks.

People are actually fighting about whether this is the end of the world, but discussing what effects are implied by the change isn't very interesting.

Just another dumb prison riot.

If it's the end of the world then it should be of interest how it is the end of the world, right? One would think.

But questions like, "So what would an asteroid that size do when it hits," are just not interesting.

[KoKo]

2. I think some of us are waiting to see some articles about how this

work from the legal sources who can parse it out for us as to the ramifications.

If what you point out is true, though, then Sheldon Adelson and Koch Brothers are very happy along with everyone else in the Political 1%. It's a fight between the Big Boys and Gals to see which politicians they can run to fulfill their personal agenda. It's just fun and games and power play for them.

For those here on DU who've said "stop your whining and just get out and run for office"....this is quite a blow. It affects local and state elections. There's no way any ordinary person can get into politics if this ruling is what it sounds like on the first reports.


So...we shall see...

[cthulu2016]

3. This decision may facilitate a lot more people running for office...

...just not the right kind of people.

What the OP is about is that this change has the effect of privileging candidacies, which is odd. A person's influence power in an election increases the more candidates there are in the race.

So you get a consortium of 500 RWers willing to pony up $2,000 to each of 1000 candidacies. That works out the same as each of them giving $100,000 to one candidacy.

And the "Hillary is a criminal" Party is born. Because I don't see anything that limits the existence of a Party with the sole policy agenda of attacking Hillary.

And that Party, now funded, can operate the same as any other Party with all the powers we grant a cadidacy... like requiring TV stations sell them ads.

And so on.

It is a peculiar wrinkle, to limit donations based on the number of distinct candidacies.

[enough]

4. Yes, the effects for state and local elections will be profound. (nt)

[cthulu2016]

5. Question: Presumably this affects FEC limits most directly.

What are limits like in elections with no federal office involved?

[CJCRANE]

6. Interesting. How will this effect the Tea Party?

The Tea Party were getting to be a problem but now maybe the GOP/KOCHS will support more spoiler candidates.

[cthulu2016]

7. I don't know. Has there ever been an actual Tea Party candidate?

I do not understand the effects of this, flowing forward through time.

The point of the OP is that there will be very specific effects (intended and unintended), such as are implied by any rules change in anything.

[CJCRANE]

8. I'm thinking about the embarrassing/uneletectable GOP candidates that follow the Tea Party line.

In theory the Kochs and friends could pump in more money to support the Tea Party GOPers to counteract the negative press, or put up alternative candidates.

[cthulu2016]

9. Or visa-versa. Republican primaries do involve fighting.

I think the "mainstream" Republicans that get beaten by tea-party types in primaries are probably already much better funded than the whackos.

And a crazy billionaire can be a tea-partier. There are cases.

I don't have a strong feel for the tea-party factor in this—as of today I could argue either side of it.

But the creation of fake parties to take advantage of the fact of individual candidacies, as the money-limiting unit, rather donors as the limiting unit, is surely being considered as we speak, by some very odious people.

[CJCRANE]

10. If DU is anything to go by

expect to see the Kochs and their buddies support progressive third party spoiler candidates to split the Democratic vote.

(It also means that no GOP candidate will ever run short of cash).

[cthulu2016]

11. .