Of course candidates would prefer to control the money, but millions from an angel can be the difference between being a viable candidate and not
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
1/ If you accept the Buckley premise that ppl should be able to spend as much as they want on political speech, it seems difficult to prevent them from doing so together through superpacs. Actual political association should only enhance - not reduce - 1st amendment protection
-
2/ consistent w/ your tweet, in my view, the real concern is insufficient regulation of coordination between superpacs and candidates. In part because superpacs are judicially created, no coordination framework responsive to their unique features was established at the same time.
-
3/. And now that superpacs exist, you have a small group of political actors with a huge incentive to block greater regulation of coordination (which I think would be constitutionally permissible to some degree), while the benefit would be diffuse, for general public
-
4/ this is a problem with the current approach to severability more broadly. Courts think they're being more restrained and respecting congressional will by not invalidating an entire statute, based on an assumption congress would have some regulation remain than none
-
5/. Often what results is creation of a new status quo that was never intended or enacted by congress, but that motivated beneficiaries - especially ppl controlling legislative vetogates - can preserve even if a majority disapproves of theme.
-
6. I think various types of currently unregulated coordination can make the underlying expenditures more valuable to campaigns than truly "independent" IEs, raising a categorically greater risk of quid pro quo corruption and thus opening the constitutional door to regulation.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It’s my general observation that people who are most invested in dark money finding its way into politics tend to be the loudest voices claiming that dark money doesn’t really make much impact. Hmm.
@JaneMayerNYerThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Carly Fiorina ran a viable political campaign?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Who is this Robert Kelner, and why is he arguing money doesn’t influence U.S. politics?
-
He’s a Republican election law lawyer.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.