Would this campaign finance reform idea be constitutional?

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Roberts court has basically said that corporations are free to spend their investor's money in any political fashion they wish(as are unions). Fair enough.

How about this for a neat idea to circumvent that and put power back in the hands of the people- require corporations/unions to gain the consent of all(or at minimum the majority) of their investors/members before they waste any money whatsoever on politics. It is morally justifiable on the grounds that they might spend that money based personal or political reasons rather then whats in the best interest of the company/union. And as the vast majority of investors/union members don't want their organization making political donations, it would cripple any and all attempts by those collectives to interfere in politics, putting power back in the hands of individuals.

(Of course the media still wields disproportionate power, but with the ascendant internet that influence is crumbling.)

Would it be constitutional? Certainly it has appeal to both Dems and Reps what with unions also being politically crippled.

The best grounds for opposition by rightwingers would be the "no taxation without representation" refrain as if this entitles corporations to vote/influence politics. Well fine, as a leftwinger I would enthusiastically trade such campaign finance reform for an abolishment of the corporations tax. Making up the revenue would be a tad problematic, but doable.

Thoughts?

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Bump/

[Mr. Taft Republican]

Roberts court has basically said that corporations are free to spend their investor's money in any political fashion they wish(as are unions). Fair enough.

How about this for a neat idea to circumvent that and put power back in the hands of the people- require corporations/unions to gain the consent of all(or at minimum the majority) of their investors/members before they waste any money whatsoever on politics. It is morally justifiable on the grounds that they might spend that money based personal or political reasons rather then whats in the best interest of the company/union. And as the vast majority of investors/union members don't want their organization making political donations, it would cripple any and all attempts by those collectives to interfere in politics, putting power back in the hands of individuals.

(Of course the media still wields disproportionate power, but with the ascendant internet that influence is crumbling.)

Would it be constitutional? Certainly it has appeal to both Dems and Reps what with unions also being politically crippled.

The best grounds for opposition by rightwingers would be the "no taxation without representation" refrain as if this entitles corporations to vote/influence politics. Well fine, as a leftwinger I would enthusiastically trade such campaign finance reform for an abolishment of the corporations tax. Making up the revenue would be a tad problematic, but doable.

Thoughts?

It wouldn't be constitutional, but that hasn't stopped them before. It sounds like a good idea thought except for that tiny detail

[Badger]

A better idea might be to promote active campaign finance subsidies. There was a proposal a decade or two back that basically said if a candidate spends more than X dollars in a given race, any major candidate (whose party recieved at least "15%" or somesuch in the previous election in that district) would receive $3 for every $1 the first candidate spent over X. Discourages reliance on money, and constitutional to boot.

BTW: Rockingham, you should post here much more.

[Torie]

A better idea might be to promote active campaign finance subsidies. There was a proposal a decade or two back that basically said if a candidate spends more than X dollars in a given race, any major candidate (whose party recieved at least "15%" or somesuch in the previous election in that district) would receive $3 for every $1 the first candidate spent over X. Discourages reliance on money, and constitutional to boot.

BTW: Rockingham, you should post here much more.

Hey Badger, that is my plan, that I have been pushing for 15 years now! It has been totally obvious to me that that approach is the only one that will work. The rest is just one giant cf.

[Badger]

A better idea might be to promote active campaign finance subsidies. There was a proposal a decade or two back that basically said if a candidate spends more than X dollars in a given race, any major candidate (whose party received at least "15%" or somesuch in the previous election in that district) would receive $3 for every $1 the first candidate spent over X. Discourages reliance on money, and constitutional to boot.

BTW: Rockingham, you should post here much more.

Hey Badger, that is my plan, that I have been pushing for 15 years now! It has been totally obvious to me that that approach is the only one that will work. The rest is just one giant cf.

This may make you unhappy to know, Torie, but IIRC the major propent of this in the Senate was Robert Byrd. (Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you were decidedly not a fan.)

The problems with this are political more than legal. While Americans are near-universally frustrated at the influence big money has in elections, its a very generalized belief that doesn't translate into much support specifically for campaign finance reform. As one conservative (McConnell?) noted a few years ago, campaign finance reform is about as much a priority to most Americans as removing mold off the underside of their fridge.

Secondly, its too easy for politicians to run against any plan of expanded use of taxes for campaign finance as "welfare for politicians". Nevermind an election year including the presidential race could be funded with less money than the defense budget spends in an hour---or less tax money Congress gives away in a day on giveaways and tax subsidies buried in legislation at the behest of lobbyists--it would likely be perceived by the very voters most screwed by big money as "politicians using my taxes to pay for their stupid annoying campaign ads".

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's arguably constitutional.  I could see the Court going either way.