This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/20/david-axelrod-limits-campaign-finance
The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 4 | Version 5 |
|---|---|
| David Axelrod: scrap limits and make campaign finance more transparent | David Axelrod: scrap limits and make campaign finance more transparent |
| (12 days later) | |
| The supreme court has agreed to consider a new campaign finance case. But now an even higher authority has weighed in on money in politics: David Axelrod. | The supreme court has agreed to consider a new campaign finance case. But now an even higher authority has weighed in on money in politics: David Axelrod. |
| Axelrod, who steered President Obama to the White House and who knows campaigns like the Tappet brothers know cars, argued on Twitter on Wednesday morning against limits on campaign contributions, saying they don't work. | Axelrod, who steered President Obama to the White House and who knows campaigns like the Tappet brothers know cars, argued on Twitter on Wednesday morning against limits on campaign contributions, saying they don't work. |
| Campaign finance system is a mess.Limits have just created a cottage industry for lawyers who devise schemes to circumvent them. 1/3 | Campaign finance system is a mess.Limits have just created a cottage industry for lawyers who devise schemes to circumvent them. 1/3 |
| — David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) February 20, 2013 | — David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) February 20, 2013 |
| Too much money in politics. But if it's inevitable, let it flow directly to candidates and demand full disclosure, with stiff penalties.2/3 | Too much money in politics. But if it's inevitable, let it flow directly to candidates and demand full disclosure, with stiff penalties.2/3 |
| — David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) February 20, 2013 | — David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) February 20, 2013 |
| And end the SuperPac and faux SuperPac game that too often allows donors to elude detection and candidates to deny responsibility. 3/3. | And end the SuperPac and faux SuperPac game that too often allows donors to elude detection and candidates to deny responsibility. 3/3. |
| — David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) February 20, 2013 | — David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) February 20, 2013 |
| In the case the supreme court has agreed to consider, an Alabama man is challenging limits on how much an individual is permitted to give to federal candidates every two years. Currently the limits are $46,200 for candidates (with a maximum of $2,500 allowable for any one candidate) and $70,800 for groups, including political parties. | In the case the supreme court has agreed to consider, an Alabama man is challenging limits on how much an individual is permitted to give to federal candidates every two years. Currently the limits are $46,200 for candidates (with a maximum of $2,500 allowable for any one candidate) and $70,800 for groups, including political parties. |
| Individuals may currently give an unlimited amount of money to Super Pacs, which are not supposed to co-ordinate their spending with any party or candidate (and which of course are not required to reveal the identities of donors). | Individuals may currently give an unlimited amount of money to Super Pacs, which are not supposed to co-ordinate their spending with any party or candidate (and which of course are not required to reveal the identities of donors). |
| Axelrod is basically arguing in support of the Alabama man, Shaun McCutcheon. Individuals already are spending like crazy, and their lawyers will continue to find ways to allow them to continue to do so, in Axelrod's view. The solution is to make sure everything happens in plain view. | Axelrod is basically arguing in support of the Alabama man, Shaun McCutcheon. Individuals already are spending like crazy, and their lawyers will continue to find ways to allow them to continue to do so, in Axelrod's view. The solution is to make sure everything happens in plain view. |
| Part of Axelrod's argument is that the current system is broken because there is de facto co-operation between political action committees and parties or candidates. The Pacs do the dirty work for candidates without recrimination. If a wild punch comes across as too wild – linking a candidate to a cancer death, for example – a campaign can say, truthfully, that it had nothing to do with the ad. | Part of Axelrod's argument is that the current system is broken because there is de facto co-operation between political action committees and parties or candidates. The Pacs do the dirty work for candidates without recrimination. If a wild punch comes across as too wild – linking a candidate to a cancer death, for example – a campaign can say, truthfully, that it had nothing to do with the ad. |
| Another part of Axelrod's argument is that the flow of money into politics is inevitable. In saying so, he speaks as a man who has seen floods of green to impress Noah. An estimated $6bn was spent on last year's presidential campaign, including about a billion each by the two candidates and their parties and main Super Pacs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. | Another part of Axelrod's argument is that the flow of money into politics is inevitable. In saying so, he speaks as a man who has seen floods of green to impress Noah. An estimated $6bn was spent on last year's presidential campaign, including about a billion each by the two candidates and their parties and main Super Pacs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. |
| In the view of Axelrod, now director of the Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago, no mere law could stop the flood. His solution is perfect transparency: "Let [the dough] flow directly to candidates and demand full disclosure, with stiff penalties." | In the view of Axelrod, now director of the Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago, no mere law could stop the flood. His solution is perfect transparency: "Let [the dough] flow directly to candidates and demand full disclosure, with stiff penalties." |
| The argument has something in common with favoring drug legalization. In both cases an admission of unquenchable demand is met with the assertion that the grim and/or criminal bits would go away if supply were regulated, instead of consigned to a black market. | The argument has something in common with favoring drug legalization. In both cases an admission of unquenchable demand is met with the assertion that the grim and/or criminal bits would go away if supply were regulated, instead of consigned to a black market. |
| Would it work? If the supreme court strikes down individual spending limits, the question could be moot. The money – even more of it – will be on the way. | Would it work? If the supreme court strikes down individual spending limits, the question could be moot. The money – even more of it – will be on the way. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. | Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe. | Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |