Comments on: If I Had A Million Dollars… http://rochesterturning.com/2008/04/25/if-i-had-a-million-dollars/ turning the tide upstate Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:14:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: rochesterturning.com: turning the tide upstate http://rochesterturning.com/2008/04/25/if-i-had-a-million-dollars/#comment-147511 rochesterturning.com: turning the tide upstate Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:04:20 +0000 http://rochesterturning.com/2008/04/25/if-i-had-a-million-dollars/#comment-147511 [...] been MIA. And speaking of Davis, anyone have an update on his complaint to the supreme court that rich people aren’t getting a fair deal? I thought the Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy ™ would undercut that argument a little, but [...] [...] been MIA. And speaking of Davis, anyone have an update on his complaint to the supreme court that rich people aren’t getting a fair deal? I thought the Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy ™ would undercut that argument a little, but [...]

]]> By: Grievous Angel http://rochesterturning.com/2008/04/25/if-i-had-a-million-dollars/#comment-137833 Grievous Angel Sun, 27 Apr 2008 03:41:30 +0000 http://rochesterturning.com/2008/04/25/if-i-had-a-million-dollars/#comment-137833 Do you mean you'd trade funding limits in order to have more financing transparency? Actually, I think both of these are important. How can you not care about funding limits? Doesn't that mean you don't care if an election is bought? Do you mean you’d trade funding limits in order to have more financing transparency? Actually, I think both of these are important. How can you not care about funding limits? Doesn’t that mean you don’t care if an election is bought?

]]> By: Rottenchester http://rochesterturning.com/2008/04/25/if-i-had-a-million-dollars/#comment-137398 Rottenchester Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:26:08 +0000 http://rochesterturning.com/2008/04/25/if-i-had-a-million-dollars/#comment-137398 I'm probably a minority view on this point, but in my opinion the critical part of campaign financing is transparency, not funding limits. For example, right now bundling is a common practice, yet pretty opaque. Bundlers contribute hundreds of thousands to presidential campaigns and what we see on finance reports is a bunch of individual contributions. I'd trade extreme transparency for funding limits in a heartbeat, which would make Jack Davis' argument moot. I’m probably a minority view on this point, but in my opinion the critical part of campaign financing is transparency, not funding limits. For example, right now bundling is a common practice, yet pretty opaque. Bundlers contribute hundreds of thousands to presidential campaigns and what we see on finance reports is a bunch of individual contributions.

I’d trade extreme transparency for funding limits in a heartbeat, which would make Jack Davis’ argument moot.

]]> By: Historical Pessimist http://rochesterturning.com/2008/04/25/if-i-had-a-million-dollars/#comment-137339 Historical Pessimist Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:33:43 +0000 http://rochesterturning.com/2008/04/25/if-i-had-a-million-dollars/#comment-137339 Maybe in our lifetimes we'll see Buckley v. Valeo overturned, but, as much as I hope for it, I'm not holding my breath. But the notion that money equals speech is noxious in the extreme, I think. Maybe in our lifetimes we’ll see Buckley v. Valeo overturned, but, as much as I hope for it, I’m not holding my breath. But the notion that money equals speech is noxious in the extreme, I think.

]]> By: Grievous Angel http://rochesterturning.com/2008/04/25/if-i-had-a-million-dollars/#comment-137324 Grievous Angel Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:05:50 +0000 http://rochesterturning.com/2008/04/25/if-i-had-a-million-dollars/#comment-137324 Exactly right, HP. This phrase from the article caught my eye: "discussing whether the state's interest in enhancing competition was legitimate. " If Ginsburg is concerned about this I worry about the amendment. The irony is that Republicans tout the value of free market <b>competition enhancement</b> all the time as their primary raison d'etre. They pass all sorts of business-friendly laws that give small businesses and large alike room to grow. Exactly right, HP. This phrase from the article caught my eye:

“discussing whether the state’s interest in enhancing competition was legitimate. ”

If Ginsburg is concerned about this I worry about the amendment. The irony is that Republicans tout the value of free market competition enhancement all the time as their primary raison d’etre. They pass all sorts of business-friendly laws that give small businesses and large alike room to grow.

]]> By: Historical Pessimist http://rochesterturning.com/2008/04/25/if-i-had-a-million-dollars/#comment-137318 Historical Pessimist Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:16:35 +0000 http://rochesterturning.com/2008/04/25/if-i-had-a-million-dollars/#comment-137318 The thing that scared me the most about this article is that its author claims that, if the justices go the way they seemed to lean during oral arguments, they may very well invalidate the Clean Money Clean Elections systems in place in Arizona, Maine, and Connecticut (don't know if CT has implemented it yet or not). All those states have a "trigger" mechanism whereby publicly financed candidates get a boost in their funding if their opponent reaches a certain level of spending. You need that kind of assurance built into the system so that candidates will sign on. Otherwise, they face being blown out of the water by a well-funded opponent. And the Supremes had real trouble with the "trigger" part of the Millionaire's Amendment and could strike it down. The Nation piece suggests that that would invalidate state public financing laws. The thing that scared me the most about this article is that its author claims that, if the justices go the way they seemed to lean during oral arguments, they may very well invalidate the Clean Money Clean Elections systems in place in Arizona, Maine, and Connecticut (don’t know if CT has implemented it yet or not). All those states have a “trigger” mechanism whereby publicly financed candidates get a boost in their funding if their opponent reaches a certain level of spending. You need that kind of assurance built into the system so that candidates will sign on. Otherwise, they face being blown out of the water by a well-funded opponent. And the Supremes had real trouble with the “trigger” part of the Millionaire’s Amendment and could strike it down. The Nation piece suggests that that would invalidate state public financing laws.

]]>