Campaign Finance

So far as I can tell, Objectivism doesn't explicitly prefer democracy to other forms of government; it just says that governments should be limited to protecting individual rights, and that's that. So it comes as no surprise, thast it's rather quiet as to issues surrounding political voting. Onesuch issue is campaign finance, which is on my mind in light of the pending case of Citizens United v. FEC, aka the Hillary Movie case.

Now I'd expect Objectivists to be quick to say that government shouldn't restrict individual citizens from spending their money in connection with a political campaign however much and in whatever (Objectively legal) way they choose. But I'm not sure how Objectivists would answer with regard to the following would-be contributers:

(a) non-citizens. For example, is it okay under Objectivism for the U.S. government to restrict a Venezualan, Afghani, or Israeili citizen from contributing to a candidate's presidential run in 2012.

(b) non-individuals. For example, is it okay under Objectivism for the U.S. government to restrict , say, The New York Times or ACORN or Wal-Mart, from contributing to a candidate's presidential run in 2012.

(c) non-citizen, non-individuals. For example, is it okay under Objectivism for the U.S. government to restrict, say, North Korea, Mexico, or U2 (the Irish band) from contributing to a candidate's presidential run in 2012.

I'm going on vacation for 2 weeks starting tomorrow, but I wanted to put this out there before I left.

Jordan

Post 1

Monday, October 5, 2009 - 4:57pm

Just my take on these:

(a) No to non-citizens who are not criminals. Yes to international criminals wanted by the United States, or her closest allies.

(b) No.

(c) No, unless we are at war with a nation, then yes to that (those) nation(s).

Have a wonderful vacation!

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 10/05, 4:58pm)

Post 2

Monday, October 5, 2009 - 5:49pm

I see nothing wrong with a principle that only voters should influence elections. Non citizens cannot be said to have a right to influence elections.

However, there should be no limit on a person spending his own money to get elected. In so far as it is not illegal for a person to take money from a corporation or a foreign donor he could then spend it on his campaign.

I would simply require that a campaign be required to make available a list of all donors or all donors who give above a certain amount.

I see no principle that would forbid making accepting donations from hostile countries and criminal organizations illegal, but again there would be the problem of third party mediation.

Of course, if the government cannot distribute largesse and favor some party by its regulations there is little reason to bribe candidates.

I am in favor of a modified legislature. The House would consist of representatives chosen by lot from all tax paying citizens over thirty five to serve one four-year term, and the Senate would consist of one Senator per state elected by the state legislatures, or appointed by their governors, or perhaps best, consisting of the governors themselves. The Senate could veto or repeal any law or line item with a fifty percent vote. Only the president could propose legislation and a budget. That would solve a lot of problems with corruption.

Post 3

Monday, October 5, 2009 - 6:09pm

I'd add that no one who works for the government, or for a company that derives a significant part of its revenues from government can vote. Blatant conflict of interest. And all campaign donations must be made no earlier than 6 months before the election and all left over money must be returned to donors after election day. Further, no lobbyist is permitted to give any elected official anything ever. And severe criminal penalties (hard time) for taking money from a lobbyist or from anyone out of season.

Post 4

Monday, October 5, 2009 - 6:20pm

I see nothing wrong with a principle that only voters should influence elections. Non citizens cannot be said to have a right to influence elections.

I'm hitting the hay, but just wanted to say that citizens outside of the U.S. often have much to gain, or lose in the elections held here. Because I don't consider rights to have boundaries or borderlines, it follows for me that non-citizens should have a right to influence anything with the potential to affect life, well-being, and values.

Post 5

Monday, October 5, 2009 - 7:41pm

Individual rights have no boundaries - they are universal because they arise from human nature. To take them from philosophy and give them structure, we need to create laws - and legal rights.

A law-making body must define the legal right (and hopefully it will be a successful attempt to translate an individual right into law).

Legal rights all live within borders - because of jurisdiction (although treaties can extend legal rights across borders - but only through the agreement of two or more governments). The alternative to recognizing the border limits to a law, or legal right is tantamount to a declaration of war.

All of these suggestions we are playing with are good, And would be a way to begin attacking the corruption, but as Ted mentioned, "...if the government cannot distribute largesse and favor some party by its regulations there is little reason to bribe candidates." That is the only real solution.

Post 6

Tuesday, October 6, 2009 - 8:53am

Ted, that sounds good.

Steve, I like your idea of government employees not being able to vote. How many US citizens are either paid directly by the government or paid by a company who's major customer is the government? If the government spends say 36.7% of GDP, then thats quite a large portion of US citizens.

Post 7

Tuesday, October 6, 2009 - 2:40pm

The gov't employees not voting sounds interesting, although as a individual rights issue I would think the restriction would have to be limited to votes in which they might have a conflict of interest. It would mean a near complete restriction above a certain level, but rick the office worker just gets barred from any local issues relevant to his job.

I also support a requirement for elected officials to submit a declaration of intent clarifying how they intend to vote on certain issues. Failure to provide the service promised would result in fraud charges.

Dean, its damn near impossible to get away from gov't funding and intervention at this point. Its impossible to work in my field while avoiding gov't money.

Post 8

Tuesday, October 6, 2009 - 11:13pm

The right to vote is a civil right, granted by law - not an individual right. Individual rights are universal, independent of government, and arise from our human nature.

And the right to vote is not one of those civil rights that gives us a legal definition of an individual right.

Post 9

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 - 5:02am

I see your point. Still it seems like limited loss of privilege (better term?) of a vote in matters directly related to one's gov't position seems more in line with the way conflict of interest is handled in other fields. Unless my perception of the ethical resolution of personal conflicts of interests are to be handled. That being said, I wouldn't call a blanket ban on voting while in a gov't position an injustice, just a more aggressive civil protection.

I read in some recent reading that previous reasonably successful states imposed a mandatory bar from service between terms of high level officials. This seems like a great idea.

Although I hesitate to add any sort of gov't agency to the roster. I think it might be a good idea to have one charged only with monitoring high level gov't officials for corruption.

It seems like a good idea to me that filling a medium to high level position in the gov't should involve a long ban on holding a position in a different branch.

Post 10

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 - 7:40am

Alas, I'd have problems with some of the suggestions here. While the argument against government employees having a vote might serve some purpose, nevertheless differentiating civil rights from individual rights does not seem correct. It is still 'their' government too, and fitting that they should have the same opportunity as others to have a say in it.

I agree wholeheartedly with Ted that unused campaign funds should be returned (prorata) to contributors. Not sure of the tax code -whether or not campaigners have to declare excess funds as income or not - but I don't care. The money was (supposedly) offered to support a specific campaign, and should not be allowed to finance an ongoing political slush fund. Candidates who continue accumulating funds from individuals and corporations this way only become more and more beholden to them - an obvious and dangerous practice.

I'd also say that - yes, anyone, individual or corporation, domestic or foreign, should be able to contribute. However, I think that there are practical considerations that must be taken into account - i.e. there should be restrictions - so that improper influence, and the possibility of payback (quid pro quo) is at least minimized, if not made totally (preferably) impossible.

Todays political campaigns are dependent almost entirely upon the prospect of 'influence peddling'. I'm sure there are some imaginative and practical ways that government could be reorganized to minimize the destructive behavior - but the changes would likely be dramatic. Serious term limits is one method that comes to mind. I cannot see any one politician filling any one position for more than eight years - ever.

jt

Post 11

Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 11:45am

The opinion is in. Very briefly, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, ruled that corporate speech is protected under the First Amendment, thus overturning portions of the McCain-Feingold Act. "Speech" in this case refers to spending tons of money on campaign propaganda immediately before an election.

Jordan

Post 12

Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 12:38pm

"Speech" in this case refers to spending tons of money on campaign propaganda immediately before an election.

One man's free speech is his opponent's propaganda. There is no way the implications of the above statement can be squared with Objectivist politics. And the complaint is based upon an invalid package deal. The validity of an idea has nothing to do with who utters it, when, or how much he pays to advertise it. Campaign advertising does not amount to the initiation of force. Its suppression does. The only problem with the court's decision is that it should have stricken the entire law, and by not doing so it implicitly affirms what remains.

Post 13

Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 2:53pm

When I said "propaganda," I had in mind the Hillary Movie, which was the "speech" the case was dealing with. That Movie falls squarely in the realm of propaganda.

Jordan

Post 14

Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 3:03pm

Do you deny that the court should have stricken the entire law? If the word propaganda is defined neutrally it becomes indistinguishable in meaning from advocacy. Objectivism holds with free speech and with the separation of ideology and state.

Post 15

Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 3:23pm

Hi Ted,

I've only skimmed the Court's opinions. I don't know whether the majority got the law right, including whether it would've been more appropriate, under the Constitution, to strike the whole Act. I need to read up. But you're probably right that according to Objectivism the law should be struck down in its entirety.

I'm fine swapping out "propaganda" with "advocacy." I didn't mean to catch up the discussion on that term.

Jordan

Post 16

Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 3:32pm

I think the relevant reading, while it may require time consuming study, can be quoted here profitably.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Post 17

Friday, January 22, 2010 - 4:21pm

I'm reminded of Justice Samuel Miller's opinion in Ex Parte Yarbrough, 101 U.S. 651 (1884):

. . .[The U.S. Government] must have the power to protect the elections on which its existence depends from violence and corruption.

If it has not this power, it is left helpless before the two great natural and historical enemies of all republics, open violence and insidious corruption.

I'm still plowing through the opinions in Citzens United. I'm trying to figure out how the Court reconciles the protections of free speech with the government's "power to protect the elections." The answer is not patent. At some point spending money ceases to be protected "free speech" and starts being "insidious corruption," which the law might properly act against.

Jordan

Post 18

Friday, January 22, 2010 - 8:00pm