I have such mixed opinions on regulating campaign financing. In general, I have to agree with you Sundance – I supported the CU decision at the time (mostly because it was a ruling against HRC) but am disgusted with how much money is now being spent on campaigns. It is out of hand and feels way too removed from the actual voters.

Having said that, though, I believe campaign dollars are like water running downhill. It will always find a way around any road block that you put in front of it. I believe that the punch bowl has to be taken away. How do we do that? If Congress does not have the ability to favor one industry over another or one business over another, then much of their power is removed. That is why I support a flat tax that cannot be tampered with. There are lots of issues with a flat tax, but I do believe it would at least put a lid on the punch bowl, even if it doesn’t remove it entirely.

It never made sense to me that allowing business “entities” to do what unions were allowed to do was the rational solution. If what the unions do is wrong — and it is, that was the justification for the tit-for-tat — then it is wrong for any entity “speaking for those dependent on it” to participate in an election. Doesn’t make rational sense to me to commit wrong just because someone else does. My grandmother always said, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

“Level playing field” would have simply been to disallow what the unions were doing! DUH!!

But all that ignores what the ostensible aim of the thing was to begin with! That SCOTUS took the issue in the first place negates their having any real value. They knew what they were doing. Always have. A “deliberative body.” HA!! It was deliberate, all right!

I don’t know how in practicality this can be brought about, but I think it’s a solution to this stupid spider’s web we find ourselves caught in:

One legal human individual citizen = 1 vote, 1 $20 donation to any candidate/campaign, and that’s the end of the “support” for any candidate/campaign. Candidates must also be legal, human individual resident citizens of the locality they would represent. No candidate may reside outside his/her locality – i.e., Senator Maxine Waters, who lives, and has, far outside the community she ostensibly “represents.” Jerrymandering must be abolished. A donation must be publicly recorded as conforming to the legal citizenship and ID of the human being making the donation, but without publicly naming the person or the candidate/campaign donated to.

Candidates/campaigns must be limited to the donations received only within their resident district. Campaigning, rallies, advertisements, must be only from those donations.

As many candidates as people donate to may campaign as donations allow. Left over funds must be donated to a charity completely without government participation, enabling, or afiliation. None may be kept to build up any candidate’s “war chest” for the future.

As these restrictions will necessarily hobble what most candidates “can afford,” interested parties usually providing venues, advertising, campaign and operating spaces and expenses, and media exposure will also necessarily have to rein in their spending and contributions, rendering more campaigns more evenly competitive. Every human being will have his/her legitimate voice restored. No candidate may profit from organized big-money lobbying.

Absentee ballots must be personally requested by a person qualified the same as an in-person voter, and the request and certified mailed ballot must be notarized when the request is received and when the ballot is mailed. Absentee ballots must meet these qualifications regardless of resident but unavoidably absent and/or physically disabled person or military personnel. All absentee ballots must be received and publicly stored in a transparent ballot box, sealed and certified and dated, by a deadline two days before Election Day. They must be counted on Election Day, with open, public supervision and certification at the appropriate polling place.

One 24-hour day set aside to vote on. Polling places must be open from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. to allow voters ample time to appear at their designated local polling place to cast their ballot. All paper ballots. Transparent ballot boxes. All ballot boxes must be continually observed by designated poll workers, at least two each, one from each political party, at each ballot box. When the polls are closed, no further ballots allowed to be put into ballot boxes except for the people remaining in line to vote at that time.

As ballot boxes are filled, they must be sealed with the signatures of the two observers and time-stamped, and set aside in plain sight, in chronological order, from earliest to latest. The room, especially around and under the tables, against walls, etc., must be free of all other boxes or containers where “ballots” may be pulled out and “counted” with those when the transparent and certified boxes are unsealed and counted. At publicly observed tables, without table cloths or other obstructing covers, poll workers will begin unsealing and counting ballots and hand-tallying. Two counters for each box. Public observers must oversee, and sign and date the tallies they observe as the counters submit them.

If a counter gets up from his/her chair, she/he cannot come back and resume counting. Two observers will then call over and certify one of the onlookers to resume counting at that empty chair.

Cameras must record all the proceedings from at least four strategic and unobstructed views. They must be powered at all times. The recordings must be openly visible, with publicly observable monitors placed near them, during the whole voting day and counting hours. Back-up cameras and other necessary recording equipment must be available and visible at all times to the public. Poll workers/certified observers must rotate guarding these cameras and equipment. They must be trained in how to quickly and efficiently replace and operate any of the cameras/equipment if there are malfunctions. Every public citizen has a right to record on their own private camera/recording equipment all proceedings. The polling place becomes a public place, where such recording is legal and a protected right. Only faces of voters may not be recorded at any time.

Tallies must be completed, certified, and published by 1 a.m. the calendar day after Election Day. Only these final tallies may be published. No tallies may be published after ballots are transported to any other “confirmation” destination. This is where much of the cheating occurs: Second and third tallying at other places than the original polling place. It’s not necessary. It shouldn’t be allowed. Official township, municipal, city, county, state tallies should all be made up only of those locally certified counts. And the same citizen observers and camera recordings must be used when those officials tally up all the official local counts. No counting or certification allowed to be done in secret. No counting or certification by these final officials may be conducted otherwise; no one may open sealed, transported ballot boxes. Those have already been certified and tallied. The final officials must only certify that the totals certified on the sealed boxes matches the totals of the final tallies submitted by all the local polling places. The certified final tallies must be submitted in a sealed envelop transported by certified official messenger selected by lot from among the poll workers and public observers, by the polling place officials, separate from the transport of all the ballot boxes, and ahead of the ballot boxes.

Polling places must be able to handle only the legal, IDed residents of a particular neighborhood. A “poll count” of every local community’s population, evenly designated for neighborhood accommodation, should be established as the optimal number of people a polling place can accommodate to keep within the 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. voting with a minimum of residual voters still waiting in line to cast their ballots after the official closing time (ideally, there shouldn’t be any still waiting by this time). Local elementary schools’ small auditoriums and churches’ basements/kitchens/fellowship halls, where hidden boxes, etc., can’t be separated and concealed from public view at all times, should be the rule; large warehouses or stadiums should not. High rise residential buildings will use the building’s lobby as its residents’ polling place. The idea is to reasonably accommodate local legal residents and prevent anyone from having to travel far; most should be within walking distance. No busing in “voters” from outside these counted and dedicated accommodations. Keeping polling places plentiful throughout a community is a way to prevent counting and tallying to go beyond 1 a.m. of the next day after Election Day. And prevent “invasions” of out-of-community and non-residents.

This isn’t perfect. But it’s far closer to what a “representative republic” is than what we have now. No one loses in this structure but those candidates the legal voting individual human being citizens sovereignly choose not to have rule them. And the winners will be personally accountable to those citizens alone.

And, if prudence, wisdom, and accountability are really what is desired, then insist on repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments, end the Federal Reserve System and restore real, hard money of impervious and steady value, abolish taxation, begin ending all the alphabet departments, agencies, programs, and projects by abolishing the IRS.

If fairness and accountability and full restoration of individual rights and freedom are really what is desired.

I believe that it CU is destroying our elections. I feel that since a union or a corporation doesn’t have an individual vote then they should not be allowed to donate in this way. There has to be a donation limit

My admittedly limited understanding of the legal fiction that corporations are considered people is to allow corporations to do things that people do like enter into contracts, sue in court and to enable courts to have jurisdiction over corporations. That all seems fine to me as long as its kept to that context.

I believe the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the people from government overreach or infringement. James Madison wrote the amendments when several states demanded greater protection for individual liberties from governmental power. The Bill of Rights was not written to protect legal fictions, they were written to protect real people. I’m not sure if there is any record of debate that may have addressed the application of the Bill of Rights to corporations but I rather doubt that the Founding Fathers were overly concerned with protecting the rights of corporations.

Since I don’t think the Bill of Rights protects legal fictions, I think Citizens United is a terrible decision. I also don’t believe organized unions have freedom of speech protections either. Again, the Bill of Rights are for people not corporations, unions or any other legal fiction entities.

I tend to look at things scripturally and spiritually. Scripture advocates individual responsibility – corporations were created largely to absolve individuals from responsibility (liability). Thus in my view, corporations are at best amoral and at worst, psychopathic. To advocate ‘free speech’ for amoral / psychopathic corporations would seem to have created a new breed of the Nephilim – giants, not beholden to God, who take what is most beautiful from among mankind. The sick and warped product of avarice. In the community of God-fearing men, such should never have been created.

Hated then, hate now.

Why do citizens have limits on spending but huge organizations do not?

Well, I know why, but to me that is the problem.

Get the money out of politics. Alow equal public access for policy position speeches and voter Q&As. Then vote. On one day. In person.

CU simply allowed another path for corruption and triviliazation of voters.

I was a very skeptical yes, more like a “well, ok…”back in the day because it leveled the playing field vs. the unions and that seemed helpful. Always thought the rationale was somewhat sketchy.

Having seen and learned so much in the intervening years (due credit to CTH) I now find it abhorrent. It poured gasoline onto the fires of corruption burning our Republic and liberties to the ground, leaving us with whatever this thing is; Fascism/Corporatism/Oligarchy/Kleptocracy – that now rules us.

It’s probably impossible to get the SCOTUS to revisit this without passing some tangential law like one that attempts to place the same spending limits individuals face on legal constructs (Unions, Corporations, etc.). Fat chance our politicians will jump all over that anytime soon.

One thing that might help offset the corruption money brings: Repealing the 17th Amendment. Wouldn’t stop the influence, but would insulate the Senate a bit from it. Even less likely to happen than legislation to attempt to restrict spending as mentioned above.

Money isn’t the only thing that determines outcomes, but up to a point it’s extremely important, though subject to diminishing returns once all significant factions in a contest have enough to get their message out or fund such logistics as they are able.

Wow, we’re really screwed…

I too have come to the conclusion that this has turned out all wrong. I think my opinion back then was more about seeing the playing field leveled but it’s gone all wrong. Corporations should not have that kind of influence in elections. Nor should unions for that matter. By allowing them to do this it minimizes the individual voters. Corporations are not voters and should not have the same rights.

Personally I have always felt that only Registered voters should be allowed to contribute a limited amount of dollars to any campaign. Whether through a PAC or as an individual. Corporate and union donations must identify donors and amounts donated.

My reasoning has always been that the candidate must get out their vote and convince people of their ability to support.

At first I thought CU would push in that direction, but I was duped!

I missed this post so I’m a little late to the party and have not read any other comments. I just believe there is too money wielded by non voting entities in our political elections. If only individual citizens can vote then only individual citizens should be able to donate to their candidate(s) of choice. I know that is too simplistic in this age of billionaires wanting to control the world! To me it would have made more sense if Citizens United had ruled that Organized Labor Unions couldn’t spend unlimited amounts in support of candidates. But the genie is out of the bottle now and I don’t see how the massive flood of dollars into all campaigns can be stopped at this point in time? The most egregious and in reality the most deadly political donations have been from Soros funded non profits used to get “woke” District Attorneys elected all over the country. Second would be Soros funding of the chief elections officer in each State generally the Secretary of State! Just another thing that needs to be fixed in this country to get back closer to the Republic our Founders gave us!! Godspeed Sundance!

I have never supported any unlimited campaign finance whether it was by unions, corporations, or individuals.

I think that any entity should be limited. No unlimited amounts given by any person, any union, or any corporation. The structuring of campaign finance needs to be legislated at the federal level for federal elections.

There needs to be election reform at the federal level. All states have the right to make their own election rules and procedures, but to make elections fair and honest, we need paper ballots, voter ID, citizens only, age 18 as of the day of the election, one day of voting, absentee ballots only for military, college students and the few people who cannot be carried/taken to the precinct to vote. They must apply to receive a ballot by mail. State elections should only be financed by people and corporate donors whose head office is located in the state.

.

Sorry for the late response; I’ve been away.

Citizens United:

“If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations ofcitizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

Note “citizens”.

Also Citizens United:

“We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national[s]”). Section 441b is not limited to corporations or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominately by foreign shareholders. Section 441b therefore would be overbroad even if we assumed, arguendo, that the Gov-ernment has a compelling interest in limiting foreign influence over our political process.”

A key to partly addressing the problems may be in looking more closely here. Perhaps a ban on donations in cash or in kind would be valid for any organization that is owned in any part — not merely “predominantly” — by foreign shareholders, and any PAC that is funded by such organization.

.

Money can be an individual’s free speech, but non profit and for profit corporations are not individuals. That money should be taxed at minimum.

I was mildly for CU, now against it. But the cash into politics had skyrocketed decades earlier. As Charles Keating said on his way to prison, when asked if he expected his payments to McCain and 4 others would make them help him steal money, “I certainly hope so”.

And we nominated that criminal for president. McConnell and others took note, and here we are.

I was never a supporter for allowing a corporation to be considered an entity or a “person” in funding political speech. It never made sense and I have struggled to see how it could possibly have made sense to anyone else. IMO, this was not the worst change in the law pertaining to political money.

Even more dangerous was allowing out of state money to be spent on Senate and Congressional campaigns. This took the power away from the citizens in our 50 states and gave it to big corporations, big banks and the various George Soros types out there.Now Idaho’s vote for a senator or representative is less about local, regional and anti-swamp issues, and more about the swamp looking to assert its control. Very bad for the average citizen.

This is all bunko. Seventy percent of this so-called government is compromised. Stop playing We the People. We are on to you. Too many so-called libs and conservatives are seriously compromised. I am no longer interested in playing these opinion games. Nothing changes if nothing changes. Nothing will change because both Republicans and Democrats belong to the same “club.” Hurts the most when apparently conservative writers pretend to be our friends. Thieves are pirating the United States of America, and you want opinion surveys. Really?

I was with you Sundance in originally celebrating this campaign finance division . Now I am dubious as to results. I now see with help of folks like Catherine Fitts that the corrupt satanist who control global banks, etc and act as Mr. Global to wield enormous power have stolen perhaps 21 trillion dollars from central bank over the last 20 years and they are now using this stash to overwhelm the democratic system here in US and Western world. I suspect the Dems now can outspend the true patriots by a wide margin -thus buying there way into totalitarian control of West.
I now favor campaign controls to stop this theft of our Const. Republic with use of dark money.

It’s time to stop complaining about how things are as it won’t change anything other than to create hopelessness. Instead, we should be asking ourselves how to take advantage of how things are now. Just like it is time to start focusing on ballots rather than voters, maybe, we should be asking how “we the people” can start forming our own PACs. There is no reason why we the people of a certain population area could not create a PAC. For example, Northern Minnesota could form “Northern Minnesota Patriot PAC” and support America First candidates. Its not that difficult to form a PAC and file necessary paperwork, if we had the training and given the tools to form such a PAC. We should be talking about training instead of focusing on the unfairness of it all. Who knows, maybe, a PAC could be formed with a focus to change the law. We have the money and goodness knows many Patriots are done with supporting the RNC circus.