[EL] Curiouser and Curiouser. NY Times Survey on Money in Politics

[Steve Klein]

The article David is referencing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/us/politics/poll-shows-americans-favor-overhaul-of-campaign-financing.html?_r=0

David writes:

"What we seen here is an indication of the public describing how they think
> the American politics process should operate and such views do deserve
> significant deference."


Defer to what, exactly? From the article, let's take, for example, Elaine
Mann, 69, a retiree from Alma, Ga.: "Candidates should have to live for a
period of time the way their average constituents live." Is the deference
part where we all nod solemnly at this down-home wisdom before ignoring it
because its application to reality is, at best, balderdash?

Or take Sonja Rhodes, 57, of East Wenatchee, WA: “They should pass a bill
and instead of billions of dollars, spending should be limited to $10
million or so." Well, then. Is that across-the-board or per campaign? House
races? Senate races? Presidential campaigns? I believe we will largely
agree here that federal public financing isn't appealing in its current
state because the money is so low compared to what can be raised privately,
but deferring to Ms. Rhodes we must consider the near-$100 million
available to presidential nominees in 2012 was actually near 10 times too
much.

You may read some of my remarks as sarcastic, and you would be justified,
David. But that's not contempt for the American public. It's an
acknowledgement that in complex matters of policy such as campaign finance
the average American doesn't have a clue about its operation. That is not
to say I don't or won't listen to anyone's opinions on reform, but I must
actually consider how they are to be applied if at all and still conform to
free speech. More often than not, they can't.

"I also read the poll as rejecting what many on this listserv are
> asserting, i.e., conflating money as a perfect legitimate way to buy
> consumer with the legitimate way to allocate political power and influence."


If voters listen to a political message and act on it, they're not
"bought." What was that about *contempt*? And what's "the legitimate way to
allocate political power and influence" other than listening to people who
think and act on what they hear?

Of course, the lack of practicality is not limited simply to the opinions
of the average American. Rubber hits the road, there are ample ways to
truly put the Roberts Court in its place on campaign finance. We heard
about one in Reuters just the other day:
http://freespeechforpeople.org/the-amendment/democracy-for-all-amendment/

The trouble is, then we're back to banning movies. You could get me a 99.9%
popular poll for it, and the fact would not create in me a sense of
obligation to support such an amendment.

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Schultz, David A. <dschultz at hamline.edu>
wrote:

> Hi All:
>
> I found the silence deafening on this listserv regarding the June 2-3,
> 2015 NY Times survey finding that overall 84% of the American public
> believes money has too much of a role in American politics and that
> majorities (or near majority with Republicans) do not believe that money
> given to candidates is a form of protected speech.  Assuming this survey is
> accurate (and its results are consistent with one I had done in MN years
> ago) then the Roberts Court and views expressed by several on this listserv
> are clearly at odds and out of touch with what the majority of Americans
> believe.
>
> Now of course counter-majoritarianism is not always wrong.  Unpopular
> speech should be permitted despite what majorities believe.  But what is
> going on here is not about regulating content or viewpoint or suppressing
> unpopular groups or oppressing discrete and insular minorities.  What we
> seen here is an indication of the public describing how they think the
> American politics process should operate and such views do deserve
> significant deference.  I also read the poll as rejecting what many on this
> listserv are asserting, i.e., conflating money as a perfect legitimate way
> to buy consumer with the legitimate way to allocate political power and
> influence.  It is also a conflating the legitimate means or process of how
> a democracy should operate with how it does operate, or otherwise confusing
> money as a medium of economic exchange with that of seeing it as a
> permissible means of political exchange.
>
>
> No responses needed or expected to my post.  Just curiouser and curiouser
> about positions taken by the Court that really display contempt of the
> American public.
>
> --
> David Schultz, Professor
> Editor, Journal of Public Affairs Education (JPAE)
> Hamline University
> Department of Political Science
> 1536 Hewitt Ave
> MS B 1805
> St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
> 651.523.2858 (voice)
> 651.523.3170 (fax)
> http://davidschultz.efoliomn.com/
> http://works.bepress.com/david_schultz/
> http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/
> Twitter:  @ProfDSchultz
> My latest book:  Election Law and Democratic Theory, Ashgate Publishing
> http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754675433
> FacultyRow SuperProfessor, 2012, 2013, 2014
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>



-- 
Steve Klein
Attorney*
Pillar of Law Institute
www.pillaroflaw.org

**Licensed to practice law in Illinois and Michigan*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150605/2727db4f/attachment.html>