Sunday, February 10, 2019

Jerri-Lynn Scofield — AOC Campaign Finance Primer Goes Viral

Wow. 16 million hits, and counting. Leave it to Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC)  to show how to turn a campaign finance primer into a viral video.  Certainly the first time a congressional hearing on strengthening ethics rules for the executive branch  reached such a huge audience. 
This is a must-watch clip. I hesitate to add much commentary, as anything I write will likely not add all that much, and might instead only distract from the original.Nonetheless, full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes! I will hazard adding some commentary.
I only ask that you watch the clip first. It’ll only take five minutes of your time. Just something to ponder on what I hope for many readers is a lazy, relaxing Sunday. Please watch it, as my commentary will assume you’ve done so.
This is a big deal. I have often written previously that without overhauling campaign finance, lasting reform is not possible, if it is even possible to pass in the first place. Getting the money out of politics is a sine qua non of genuine change for the better. And that is just for starters.

If you haven't seen the clip yet (it's all over social media), watch it and you will see why AOC is the political force she is.

Then read the rest of the article. Jerri-Lynn Scofield is a lawyer. She understands this in depth.

Naked Capitalism
AOC Campaign Finance Primer Goes Viral
Jerri-Lynn Scofield

17 comments:

Ryan Harris said...

I wonder how many college kids and environmental activists donated to AOCs campaign. It took her avoua 10 minutes to propose cancellation of students loans and hand outs for big green. Hiding behind "individual" contributions as somehow cleansing dirty money is about the height of hypocrisy. She even was advised by Kelton who is on GOVERNMENT'S payroll. It doesn't get more corrupt. Sarcasm deserves sarcasm

Bob Roddis said...

Getting the money out of politics is a sine qua non of genuine change for the better..

So let's assume that MMT is the greatest thing since the invention of Cheez Whiz. Let's assume that it is essential to get that message to the public. Assume that the MSM is completely suppressing all mention of MMT. What is so wrong about people buying TV ads or contributing money to candidates to get out the message??

Sounds like an attack on the First Amendment to me.

People can easily learn how their candidates voted and vote them out. The problem is with democracy, no-information voters and a government that has unconstitutional plenary economic (and most other) power.

Do you really want to give the government ADDITIONAL plenary power and control over political messaging?

Noah Way said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob Roddis said...

So Noah Way wants to make it illegal for average people to spend their own money to get their message out during elections. Why should I be surprised?

Noah Way said...

"Hiding behind "individual" contributions as somehow cleansing dirty money is about the height of hypocrisy."

No, the height of hypocrisy is equating the of not-affluent people with the power of a tiny minority who use heir great wealth to manipulate government action in their own interest. Aside from the fact that none of the small donors are hiding anything, as opposed to billions in dark money in PACs, SuperPACs, 527s, and 501(c)(4)s.

What is so wrong about people buying TV ads or contributing money to candidates to get out the message??

Because money is the primary factor that determines access. This gives the rich a huge megaphone while sowing shut the lips of the more common man. Duh.

RODDIS you asleep, deaf, or just stupid?

Noah Way said...

So Noah Way wants to make it illegal for average people to spend their own money to get their message out during elections.

Average people like Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers, AIPAC, Bill Gates, ExxonMobil, etc.?

Roddis, to say that you are as dumb as a stick would be an insult to sticks.

Bob Roddis said...

Noah Way assumes that voters are so stupid that they will fall for a B.S. message from Sheldon Adelson. Why does he hate democracy so much?

Also, he wants to make it illegal for average voters to spend money to spread their message. Why does he hate the First Amendment so much?

Noah Way said...

What Roddois lacks in reading comprehension only pales in comparison to his lack of basic intelligence.

Exactly where did I say I would make anything illegal? More to the point, Roddis has already fallen for the bullshit propogated by the likes of Afelson and other billionaires like the Koch brothers.

S400 said...

“It doesn't get more corrupt.”

Ryan Harris neither understand democracy or corruption.
Waiting for Ryan to declare himself president of the US.

Ryan Harris said...

My sarcasm was more about the demonizing of people who disagree. By making students, academics and government's workers into the nefarious money sources, it's just as silly. The idea that 10,000 individual checks from gun owners is somehow different than one check from NRA, or one check from Sierra club is worse than 1000 from New England, Seattle and San Fran, I don't get the logic. And what income level and asset ownership levels determine where and when you no longer are allowed to speak freely and organize?

Noah Way said...

And what income level and asset ownership levels determine where and when you no longer are allowed to speak freely and organize?

With the blatantly obvious conclusion being that money must be completely removed from politics.

Because money is not speech. Equating money with speech gives an huge advantage to those with money, effectively silencing those without.

What part of that is so hard to understand?

Bob Roddis said...

Spending money to effectuate speech is speech. Using the violence of government to suppress speech is degenerate and unconstitutional.

Ryan Harris said...

Even AOC isn't naive enough to think money isn't important to political campaigns and her speech. She just thinks "small" donors should be able to dominate but not "large" donors such as corporations like Koch/Soros, Teachers Unions or Oil and Gas Industry Groups. It seems to me, the arbitrary nature of who is allowed to speak in AOCs world is anyone that shares her views "are little donors" and anyone who doesn't is big and evil.

SDB said...

I just did a quick google search that said the Koch Brothers donated about $60 million to defeat Obama in 2012.

Obama won that election with around 65 million votes.

Therefore, the impact of the Koch brothers is washed out if every Obama voter donates $1.

Perhaps the impact of Big Money in politics is overstated? I imagine that if every voter donated between $25-$50 per election cycle to their preferred candidates, the impact of Big Money would be fully contested.

Thoughts?

Calgacus said...

Bob - so if Congressmen Venal McBribe takes a small pile of cash from Corruptco for his campaign ads, so many that they drown out Dudley Do-Right's campaign, in return for voting giant piles of cash to Corruptco to poison and pollute just because they like to, that is all right?

Pretty much how it works right now. By the standards of other nations, business-as-usual in US politics is prosecutable corruption, blatant votes for cash. It creates innumerable self-licking ice cream cones. Corporations aren't people. They are not natural persons. The theory is that they are set up for a public purpose. Is creating more cycles of corruption with corporate free speech really a sensible public purpose?

One important type of corruption, another self-licking ice cream cone is internal to the government. Plenty of congressmen are military reservists. It's in the Constitution that this is a no-no. 100 years ago, when a couple congressmen did that - they instantly lost their seats. Now, it is OK & the Supreme Court says it is just fine, nobody has any legal ability to do anything.

When it comes to corruption, of the rich setting up ways to make themselves into an aristocracy, we don't even obey the clearest and highest commands of our laws.

Bob Roddis said...

1. If the voters had an IQ above 65, they could quickly check out the voting record of Congressmen Venal McBribe and vote him out after a single term. There is really no need to learn that his evil nature was purchased. It is evident from his voting record. Somehow, having the corrupt government micro-manage political messages is going to reform things?

2. "Campaign finance reform" just puts the power to determine what is an appropriate campaign message into the hands of Congressmen Venal McBribe. The government is just SO CORRUPT. Let's give them even MORE POWER!!!

3. "Progressives" and MMTers have the most pathetic and 3rd grade understanding of the nature of government and the nature of democracy. Democracy: Two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.

Noah Way said...

Spending money to effectuate speech is speech. Using the violence of government to suppress speech is degenerate and unconstitutional.

Using the power of money to amplify or suppress speech is degenerate and unconstitutional.
_____________________________

If the voters had an IQ above 65, they could quickly check out the voting record of Congressmen Venal McBribe and vote him out after a single term.

Only to be replaced by Amoral McBribe, who received hundreds of millions from Corruptco to squash less funded candidates.

"The candidate who spends the most money usually wins: How strong is the association between campaign spending and political success? For House seats, more than 90 percent of candidates who spend the most win."

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/

Now if Roddis had an IQ above 65 ... but I digress.