Hacker News Reader

Comment by onelastjob | Hacker News Reader

The USA needs a law that limits individuals to only donating something like $5,000 per person to any political campaign entity such as PACs, Super PACs, and political campaigns. Companies should not be able to contribute anything, only citizens. CA Props should also have this limit. Otherwise, the USA will be defacto ruled by whichever entities are able to contribute the most to campaigns and advertising for politicians. If the Koch brothers are allowed to put up 1,000 billboards for their candidate, but I can only afford to put up 1 billboard for a candidate, then politicians will only serve wealthy individuals and companies that contribute the most financially to their campaigns. The result will be that the government will not adequately protect ordinary citizens or the environment, which, in my opinion, is already happening.

View on HN

The USA had exactly such laws, before they were struck down in the Supreme Court as unconstitutional in the landmark case Citizens United. The reasoning was that the right to free speech was protected at all scales and all categories absolutely, and thusvspending any amount on any political speech like buying ads was protected. The only way for such a law to pass now would be to either have the Supreme Court overturn this decision (unlikely, its still recent) or to change the constitution to specify political speech spending as unprotected by the right to free speech, which is even less likely given the supermajority needed, the natural conflict of interests with the entire existing political class, and thr sacredness with which the American people view the constitution, and that part of the document specifically.

I personally think Citizens United is the worst thing to ever happen to democracy, but I fear a revolution after a prolonged slide into deep oligarchy might be the only way it ever changes.

And to bring this back to the topic at hand, the Koch brothers helped fund that lawsuit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_(organization)...

Edit: When the Supreme Court had an Activist majority.

Except that studies show that (at least above some relatively low threshold), money spent on a campaign doesn't correlate with election success. There's no point in throwing out the First Amendment (and possibly the most important aspect of it at that) for something that's not going to make any difference.

If I contribute $2000 to a party or a politician, and Charles Koch contributes $2M, which one of us is going to get the ear of our representative when we call?

In my case, some intern will dutifully take my call. In Charles Koch's case, he will have that congressperson's direct phone line. When he goes to Washington, they'll have a sit down meal together. Hell, if he wanted it, he could have asked for and received a cabinet position or an ambassadorship.

That isn't just free speech -- that is derailing democracy. By limiting contribution amounts, it will make the elected less beholden to big donors.

such a rule would be very difficult to make. let's say that there is a NGO that advocates for the rights of illegal immigrants. can a fundraiser donate more than $5,000 to that NGO? if not, I doubt that many NGOs would survive, so let's assume so. if that NGO wants to endorse Biden, are they allowed? if not, can they hint that people should vote against the candidate who wants to build a wall? If they are allowed to endorse Biden and they want to place an ad on TV, the production and placement could cost itself over $5,000

I think for the NGO to accept donations of greater than $5,000 from an individual, the NGO would have to agree not participate in political campaigning in any way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com