the only defense we have now is to pass LIMITS on campaign funds that can be amassed

[Lerkfish]

and make the limits ridiculously low,

OR make it so no one can contribute to any one politician, but contribute to a general fund that is distributed equally.

I like the second one because it would make us have to pay attention to platform.

[Deep13]

1. Or regulate the use of that $$ in TV ads.

AFAIK, Congress may still regulate the content of the public airways. A fairness doctrine is still allowed for now.

[Eric J in MN]

2. The Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that spending limits are unconstitutional.

Though some politicians adhere to spending limits in exchange for federal matching funds.

[Jamastiene]

3. Also, we can support the Buycott...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=145510&mesg_id=145510

A buycott is the opposite of a boycott; that is, an active campaign to buy the products or services of a particular company or country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buycott

[gateley]

4. Bushco seemed to do whatever they wanted, and found ways to "justify" the

actions. Maybe we can do something creative, too. Only in this case, the justification would be valid.

[mzmolly]

5. Barney Frank said they're going to approach it from a corporate regulation

stand point? Not sure what specifically, but I hope it will be soon!

[Ganja Ninja]

6. How about a 100% tax on all corporate donations over and and above

the limits for individuals.

[Spheric]

7. Campaign financing rules will not fix this...

The Court determined that money spent to directly campaign for a candidate is free speech and is protected by the First Amendment. It cannot be limited in any way.

They also said, "This confirms Buckley’s reasoning that independent expenditures do not lead to, or create the appearance of, quid pro quo corruption. In fact, there is only scant evidence that independent expenditures even ingratiate. ... Ingratiation and access, in any event, are not corruption."

Corporations can now spend unlimited sums directly campaigning for their candidates without any restrictions whatsoever. So, direct contributions to the campaign don't really matter as much anymore.

I don't see any significant difference in outcome from giving the candidate the money to spend on campaigning, or in just spending the money directly themselves.

Of course to be truly effective, they will have to "coordinate" their spending with the campaign, and there isn't even any restrictions on that. The candidate can tell them where they want the money spent and the corporations can expect to "ingratiate" the candidate to their position when it comes time to legislate.

All honky-dory and above board. And now totally legal.


EDIT: To fix misspelling typo.

[Lerkfish]

9. so then we're screwn

[Spheric]

12. It couldn't be more obvious if theyda kissed us....

...which they didn't.

[anonymous171]

8. $1 should be the limit. nt

[tranche]

10. That doesn't stop "Hillary the Movie"

[Orangepeel]

11. The ruling allows corporations to advertise directly. Doesn't affect campaign funds

The best thing to do now (while we try to fix this corporate personhood bullshit) is to make disclosure regulations very, very strict. Ads should have to say out loud "this is a paid political advertisement paid for by __________" before and after the ad and to have it printed on the screen throughout the entire ad.

[Lerkfish]

13. and how will that be enforceable?

[Orangepeel]

14. FTC, FCC, Federal Elections Commission. Same as any other disclosure requirements

the ruling explicitly says that Congress can set disclosure requirements.

[Spheric]

15. The Court ruled this was allowed...

Only that shithead Thomas dissented on that point. He wanted them to be able to bribe the government anonymously.

[deaniac21]

16. I don't think that would pass the free speech standard.