The Citizens United decision will be a cancer in American politics and a boon for the ultra-wealthy for generations.
I joke, but the current system is so much more vastly corrupt than this imagined scenario where small potatoes money gets handed out equally to all candidates in a race, that I just can't really imagine what your actual nightmare scenario might be.
If corrupt incumbent politicians have complete control of the finances of an election, how could they be held accountable? Anyone wanting to run against them on this issue would simply be denied the money to do so.
The exact same way any relief is sought against the government: the court system.
But what you are proposing is a different government, one in which leaders could operate without the primary accountability that they face now: that anyone can organize a campaign against them.
In fact, this money would be available to anyone who met whatever threshold was legally enshrined, a far better alternative than having to kiss the ring of an oligarch, as you propose.
I will be waiting for the American exceptionalism arguments on why a thing that well functioning democracies/countries do wouldn't work in the USA.
The only candidate in American politics that lives up to your idealised, independent politician of the people, is Bernie Sanders. And guess what? He strongly opposes billionaires buying themselves a government.
You can also establish campaign spending limits without it being funded by taxes. In other words anyone can raise money for their campaign but only up to X amount (and no PACs).
What's not limited is independent expenditures. You can, for example, organize rallies or put up billboards advocating more serious efforts to combat climate change without limit.
Really? Because there are many countries with far stricter regulations on campaign financing than the US had pre-Citizens United, that also have much more working class representation in their politics than the US.[0]
If you read my comment as a response to the parent, I believe it will make more sense.
---
CU opened the floodgates of anonymous, unlimited political contributions to "independent", but not really independent, organizations which can campaign on behalf of candidates.
The goal was/is to replace our democratic republic with an oligarchy. And we're now in the end game.
Wrong, if the candidates are directing or otherwise leading ostensibly-independent donations this is illegal. Independent donations are exactly that: independent of a candidate's campaign. If they're carried out on behalf of a candidate, they're not independent donations.
You can put up billboards saying, "X candidate's record is the best on climate change, tax policy, etc.". Your spending in this manner is not subject to limits. If the candidate calls you up and says "It'd be really good if you put up billboards saying X, Y, and Z" then that's breaking election laws.
Citizens United is not even remotely close to replacing our republic with an oligarchy. You can't buy elections, no matter how much people try to say so. Clintion received about twice as many donations as Trump in 2016, but still lost the election.
A lot of people have a, let's say filtered understanding of the decision, which has become a sort of shibboleth rather than a direct reference to the Supreme Court's ruling.
I encourage reading up on the ruling itself, at least the Wikipedia summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
Or should you prefer primary sources (as ideally you should) just read the ruling https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/
The canonical source, just for completeness. Justia has the same text https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
The vast majority (97% ?) of voters are low-information voters. 1 such vote is equal to 1 high information vote (3% ?), those who research, read bills, etc.
So the process is already not maximally equitable - in fact, the system severely punishes high information voters via opportunity cost.
At that point dollars positively affect your outcome because with paid mediums , low information voters can now get more information, despite being unwilling to inform themselves via hard work. So that's a benefit. That information flow is subject to competition, so the best ideas (and information) will win out. That's another plus. Money competes for eyeballs, and your dollars are just as good as mine. If you have more $$, i can pool my friends and beat you. There's nothing more equitable than that we have discovered so far.
Now, enter someone with a ton of money, Musk. You could argue that he would tilt the game. But we then observe the opposite: Billionaires are also subject to the law of diminishing returns. 'Donations' will only buy so much favor, and then they become a losing proposition. So, do you want a billionaire burning his cash in the political process? The answer is absolutely: it signals a level of credibility and conviction, when business opportunity is already a loser.
So in short, you want people to risk all their chips in something they believe, instead of limiting their bets and just get rich off the house, playing the long game .
Perhaps we start from the other side of the table. Maybe money is not the problem. Perhaps it is the power concentrated in too few individuals ? How about cutting off power from those that are selling favors to the highest bidders ?
Our constitution does not begin, "We, the highly-informed people..."
Anything else, and you are no longer talking democracy.
I don't believe in this rosy view of the "marketplace of ideas", fear wins out, populism wins out, not the best ideas. The best ideas have nuance, they demand to be understood in context, they aren't catchphrases nor explore scapegoats for societal problems. All of that demands a high-information voter to parse through and judge what's the "best idea" within their context, environment, community, etc.
No, I do not believe that allowing ideas to fight it out inevitably leads to the best ideas raising to the top, people don't vote intellectually, they vote emotionally and the person who tries to fight strong emotions (such as fear) with ideas will lose out.
Did you miss all of COVID era on social media?
I didn't make a claim on how long conflict would last, but money is not infinite.
Noise is part of the system, and the system is not perfect, but that's a reflection of our imperfections, vs anything wrong with the final outcome.
Add to that the fact that bullshit is cheaper to produce than truth. Sprinkle in the notion also that bullshit is likely more profitable too. Consider what might happen if the bullshitters control orders of magnitude more money in the first place, and then filter through Brandolini's Law:
Add to that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
Democracy is too sacred to be left to the loudest.
To even get power you now need to nod to crypto, nod to a certain middle eastern country and so on. Eventually politicians will be entirely impotent suits. Look at the current "choice" the electorate has.