|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How can you regulate campaign finance and/or press when the best publicity is free?
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Many of those in the US upset with how politicians seem to be beholden to the interests of wealthy individuals and corporations (and to other large campaign donors like unions) claim that a different campaign finance system might help this problem (even if it might require a constitutional amendment given recent Supreme Court rulings). But the Trump phenomenon seems to disprove this. Not just because a billionaire like Trump can finance his own campaign (Trump claims this is a good thing, since he can say and do what he thinks is right instead of what his donors tell him to do). More importantly, I believe that one of the main reasons Trump has succeeded as much as he has so far in the GOP nomination process is because he has received so much free publicity from the press who have covered him incessantly (and much more than any other candidate) in search of higher ratings.
Trump himself admits and his followers admit that they know that he says outrageous things that he doesn't entirely believe in order to get media attention and to draw it away from his opponents. In the early stages of a party's nomination process, the highest percentages in opinion polls of candidates go to the people with the highest name recognition, which Trump already had due to his reality TV celebrity (and notoriety going back decades), but which Trump gained much more of due to the media circus surrounding him.
We won't have billionaires and/or television show celebrities running for president every election (at least I hope not!) but now that Trump has shown how effective manipulation of one's press coverage coupled with deft use of social media and non-stop publicity stunts can let a candidate with relatively low campaign spending (like Trump - believe it or not, despite his billions he has not been spending an enormous amount on his campaign relative to the norm for American presidential politics) defeat candidates spending hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign funds to attack him and prop themselves up (like former candidate Jeb(!) Bush).
I know that some countries not only regulate campaign finance but also regulate how much time the press spends reporting on each party or candidate and interviewing people from each party or campaign. But that gives the incumbent party or candidate an unfair advantage - since the president/prime minister is in the media all the time. It also encourages parties to nominate candidates who are already famous so that they don't have to spend too much of the limited media time they are allocated introducing themselves to the public.
Has the Trump-style candidate and campaign rendered campaign finance regulation and regulation of campaign media coverage obsolete? Will it make celebrities and social media mavens the new political ruling class? Does it make the very uneven political playing field in the US and elsewhere more or less level?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
I don't think Trump has rendered campaign financing regulation obsolete, I think Super-PACs have (at least in the American context). I am all for a very strict and very transparent listing of political campaign contributions. The more that better.
Of course, you are right, Trump has managed to draw a lot of media attention to himself, and seems to profit from it at minimum cost to his deep pockets. But if this kind of behaviour were on its own enough to get you elected, there would have been a groundswell for Lindsay Lohan long since.
Basically, Trump acts the goat, and it appears that a lot of American Republicans want a goat as president. It's their right to choose, and he not a pig-in-a-poke. It's plain to see that he is incredibly thin on policy and consistency, and incredibly rich in self-adulation.
[ 09. March 2016, 23:20: Message edited by: molopata ]
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
I don't think Trump has rendered campaign financing regulation obsolete, I think Super-PACs have (at least in the American context). I am all for a very strict and very transparent listing of political campaign contributions. The more that better.
Of course, you are right, Trump has managed to draw a lot of media attention to himself, and seems to profit from it at minimum cost to his deep pockets. But if this kind of behaviour were on its own enough to get you elected, there would have been a groundswell for Lindsay Lohan long since.
Basically, Trump acts the goat, and it appears that a lot of American Republicans want a goat as president. It's their right to choose, and he not a pig-in-a-poke. It's plain to see that he is incredibly thin on policy and consistency, and incredibly rich in self-adulation.
Trump combines reality TV and social media savvy with a frightening intuition for how to manipulate his supporters and the press. He isn't a genius - he nows little about policy and certainly isn't the business mastermind that he puts himself out to be - but he certainly is not an ignoramus. He has revolutionized the public persona of a politician in a way not seen since Reagan and, before him, FDR. Unfortunately, this revolution is taking our politics in a very bad direction.
The reason we haven't seen any reality TV and social media celebrities dominate politics in this country is that none have come around with a national notoriety that extends across generations, the requisite PR skills, and the desire to hold political office since the advent of these particular forms of entertainment and communication in the last 10-15 years. Now that Trump has opened the door for them I'm worried we will see more of them. I'm not talking Kim Kardashian. There may not be enough with Trump's combination of qualities and his money but I doubt Trump will be the last.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
This is the problem with politics and financing. If you have no limits on campaign costs, the winners will be those who can get the largest financial backing from the business world, and will be beholden to their paymasters.
If you put strict controls on their financing, then the winners will be people like Trump who can finance their own campaigns, and achieve high levels of media coverage for free.
It is the same problem, in essence, as we have in the UK about how much we should pay our MPs. If we pay them more, people will do it for the money. If we pay them less, only those who can afford to do it will stand.
The problem of the media is that they strongly resist being regulated. And the current UK government is unlikely to introduce restrictions on them while their owner is supporting their party. I suspect in the US the winning candidate is unlikely to impose restrictions because the media will have helped them get there.
Its the problem that only the losers seem to want to change the system, and they are the ones without the power to do so. I guess that Labour might support a change in the voting system now, but they might not when they return to power.
Sadly, that is the modern face of dictatorship democracy. I do not see a good future for this.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
I reckon Trump is unique, or at least odd. I don't think policy makers should have regard to his campaign when formulating policy in this area.
I like full campaign donation exposure as it happens. I don't like ceilings on how much you can give. I reckon disclosure is the key.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
simontoad: I reckon Trump is unique, or at least odd.
I doubt it. People like him have been standing up in Europe for a long time already. I think one of the reasons that the US (and the UK) are relatively late to this is that the FPTP two-party (or two and a half) system has functioned a bit of a buffer against this. Until now.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I reckon Trump is unique, or at least odd. I don't think policy makers should have regard to his campaign when formulating policy in this area.
I like full campaign donation exposure as it happens. I don't like ceilings on how much you can give. I reckon disclosure is the key.
In the US we have just as much if not more money spent on political advertising coming from social welfare organizations (nonprofits that focus more on public advocacy than standard charities) as we do from actual campaigns. Large contributions to campaigns and to the much maligned superpacs are made public but all donors to social welfare organizations are kept strictly anonymous. The ACLU's advocacy arm is an example of a social welfare organization whose donors could be under a very understandable threat of harm if they were made public, but most people who like civil liberties agree that the ACLU does a lot do good even with its political advocacy. However, the Koch brothers' empire of political organizations are all social welfare organizations. These organizations are supposed to refrain from endorsing specific candidates in their ads but it is really hard to draw the line on defining what that means, even if you can get the FEC or IRS to go after the clear violators of this policy, which currently they are loath to do (the FEC is split along political lines and the IRS has been seen its budget slashed by the sequester and now is legally banned from going after social welfare groups by the current budget deal).
The privacy of giving to nonprofits and the ability to give as much as one wants is seen as an even more sacrosanct a form of free speech than giving to campaigns in the US so I don't know if we will ever be able to rein in the huge power of social welfare groups in campaigns. The Koch brothers could very well spend more money on political ads this election season than the Republican Party.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
simontoad: I reckon Trump is unique, or at least odd.
I doubt it. People like him have been standing up in Europe for a long time already.
Just curious what examples you are thinking of specifically - as the only one I can think of is Berlusconi
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
chris stiles: Just curious what examples you are thinking of specifically - as the only one I can think of is Berlusconi
Perhaps. I was thinking more of people like Wilders, Le Pen, Haider, Dewinter.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
I was thinking that Trump combines financial resources with being a TV personality. I'm not very au fait with European politics. Were those people famous for something before they entered politics?
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
chris stiles: Just curious what examples you are thinking of specifically - as the only one I can think of is Berlusconi
Perhaps. I was thinking more of people like Wilders, Le Pen, Haider, Dewinter.
Well, if you are going with populist personalities, then the US has a fairly deep history of that also - though you'd have to go back till at least then 1960s to see an example of that.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Eastern Europe is full of parties started by celebrities and millionaires/billionaires that do quite well and sometimes supplant the major parties. These parties are often populist, nationalist, and personality-driven. Sometimes they say they are "centrist" which really means that they often say or do whatever will get them attention at first, and then once they are talked about enough will then say or do whatever will get them the most votes.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Eastern Europe is full of parties started by celebrities and millionaires/billionaires that do quite well and sometimes supplant the major parties.
I'm not sure I agree with this characterisation, so please name names and countries (afaict the oligarch as premier is mainly a Romanian/Bulgarian/Ukrainian thing).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
chris stiles: Just curious what examples you are thinking of specifically - as the only one I can think of is Berlusconi
Perhaps. I was thinking more of people like Wilders, Le Pen, Haider, Dewinter.
And please don't forget the Swiss entrant Christoph Blocher. Filthy rich and a mouth that moves without any brain connection.
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Eastern Europe is full of parties started by celebrities and millionaires/billionaires that do quite well and sometimes supplant the major parties.
I'm not sure I agree with this characterisation, so please name names and countries (afaict the oligarch as premier is mainly a Romanian/Bulgarian/Ukrainian thing).
I did a bit of snooping to come up with some names and countries. I'm by no means an expert on Eastern European politics. The "oligarch" phenomenon is not as pronounced in the former non-Soviet Eastern Bloc states as it has been in the former Soviet Union and I am also not claiming that those businesspeople that have become prominent political figures in Eastern Europe are "oligarchs" in the sense of what you see in Russia, Ukraine, etc. - ie, someone who became incredibly wealthy at the end of Communism through privatization of state assets and connections with former Communist Party leaders. There was an oligarch phenomenon in the Baltic States, but those were also once part of the Soviet Union. As I already said, I am not only talking about wealthy businesspeople who go into politics but also celebrities and media personalities who do the same.
Here are some from the past 10 years or so. Not all of them or their parties have gotten majorities but they have each made waves in at least one election, sometimes more:
Slovenia
Zoran Janković
Czech Republic
Andrej Babiš
Poland
Paweł Piotr Kukiz
Janusz Palikot
Romania
Dan Diaconescu
Lithuania
Viktor Uspaskich
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
