Until then…well, with the information that was available, they voted for this guy.

if you think my support for the First Amendment with respect to campaign finance is dependent on who wins elections, you haven’t been reading me very long. I believe people should be able to spend money to criticize politicians because I think political speech is sacred.

Radley, I can’t speak for Kilgore, but the objection in progressive quarters to Citizens United is that it allows for the spending of very large quantities of money by very few people in order to influence voters, or, more charitably, in order to criticize (or valorize) politicians.

One would prefer that Massie have been bankrolled by 5,000 Kentucky residents donating $100 each, rather than by (chiefly) one guy from out of state putting up $500,000. The latter situation amounts to one guy buying the largest megaphone; I, at least, am not in favor of a society run by the moneyed few. It’s not at all clear to me that it’s an improvement over the influence held by establishment politicians.

(I can’t even blame #3 on a lack of coffee – I know I’d had at least two cups by the time I wrote it…)

Which is exactly what happened in WA, twice, giving Gregoire the win. I think this practice is rampant among most of the States.

Yes, by all means it’s critical that we not allow civil workers to resist, or strike against, or opt to stop doing the job of government.

So, you quote Roosevelt on the hallowedness of the “operations of government”? I’m a left-winger, but I’m a left-winger libertarian (small l), so Roosevelt’s not really an authority I tend to pay attention to.

I would like to hear Radley’s distinction between public sector and private sector unions and not because I’m ready to disagree with him automatically (although I think that I’m rather more sympathetic to unions, particularly teachers’ unions than he is–not that I don’t think they’ve devolved into wallowing pits of self-interested corruption) but because I’m generally curious.

“Elections and campaign finance are, to me at least, a complicated issue for which there are no simple answers.”

My choice of starting points may be simplistic, but I’d still like to try;

Repeal all limitations on U.S. citizens spending on political expression, wait through at least one four year cycle, and see where the hell we are. I think that most people concerned with campaign finance reform would agree that the laws we have now do not work as we would like them to. So let’s return to basics, and start again.

But seriously: most voters make their decisions based on limited information – no, scratch that, all voters make their decisions based on limited information. Emphasizing or introducing certain information, obscuring or omitting other information, is power over what voters will do because it is power over the basis for how they “make up their own minds.”

When the gatekeepers for that information are disproportionately absurdly wealthy people with an axe to grind, that, to me, is a problem. (And yes, before you ask, when the gatekeepers are disproportionately journalists who frequently act on their own overt and implicit biases, that is also a problem.)

Why are you not just as worried about the political machinery that ensures incumbents get reelected at a rate o 90 percent and higher?

I’m worried about that, too. Elections and campaign finance are, to me at least, a complicated issue for which there are no simple answers. (Getting rid of incumbents en masse can be just as bad as retaining them indiscriminately, of course; when most of the elected legislators are inexperienced, the permanent class of unelected staffers and lobbyists who are experienced become all the more influential.)

There’s a half-dozen teaching unions* in the UK, for instance…three major transport ones and so on. The biggest Unions are the ones which cross many fields.

(*Many of which represent both government and private workers)

And yes, it’s a simple absolute. The moment you have people worthy of basic rights, and people unworthy, without it being a necessary prerequisite of their job (again, the armed forced is a great example of where it IS necessary to give up certain rights), you’re making those rights conditional.

(What about employees of a company which outsources to the public sector? Private companies, who have a contract with an education authority….you end up having to stretch the definition though a massive percentage of the workforce)

And if you think some people won’t use that as a basis to attack basic rights…hah! You’re giving the stateists (it’s downright FUNNY when people accuse me of being one, given my views) a massive wedge.

And labour organisation, as I said, is one of the keystones of the most successful EU countries. It’s a counterbalance to corporatist interests, but frankly you never seem to worry about those.

Anyone who speaks of getting the money out of politics is not to be taken seriously. All policy moves toward this goal are ultimately partisan and self-serving. The only effective way to control the influence of money on politics is to keep the politics out of our money. Our Constitution, as written and ratified, achieved this (temporarily) by restricting the delegated sovereign (federal govt.) to the powers expressly given in the document, as amended. Ratification would not have happened without this enumerated powers limit. Of course, that limit has been eroded to a point of near non-existence and we live in an age of MASSIVE incentive for monied parties to put their money into politics as a means of taking your money by force.

freedom fan

….if I decide that I am part of The Church of Libertarius, God of Freedom and apply for tax-exempt status….

OTOH, if you win the case, can I join your church?

If you’re going to be dishonest and deliberately misrepresent a person’s position, why would you expect people to care what you have to say.

Here’s what FDR had to say about public sector unions (I’m going to directly quote him and not make anything up about his position on the matter).

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.”

Frankly, I don’t know what Radley’s exact position on government employee unions is, but it isn’t accurate to portray unions as a simple association such as one that might get together to discuss a town council resolution. Radley may be saying something as straightforward as, “Union members can associate and discuss whatever they want, but governments aren’t obliged to consult with a union before entering into an employment agreement with an employee, whether or not he is part of that association.”

But, even that issue is a distraction because the basic argument you make is that lack of support for (your interpretation of) one right implies lack of support for another one. For instance, the government has all sorts of rules concerning what constitutes a church. And, if I decide that I am part of The Church of Libertarius, God of Freedom and apply for tax-exempt status, you can bet that when I don’t get it, a judge will laugh me out of court if I claim that the IRS is denying me my right to political speech.

I too work for a university, in fact I’ve taught a class using that very Levitt paper you linked to. It does not say what you say it says. Levitt says, very clearly, that once you control for incumbency, money has virtually no effect on the outcome of an election. His point about cost controls is about entry, but as Massie in the article shows, that’s not really as big a problem.

The rest you link to don’t support the argument you seem to be making about money and parties and elections. The one about Indian elections examines the behavior of politicians using spending to court votes (IOW, the incumbency effect), and the JBEM is about advertising and its effects or lack thereof, which may be close tangential to your argument, but it’s not really support.

In the future, you need to make sure that the studies you refer to control for incumbency, as it is leg up in both funding and votes.