Supreme Court Ruling's Big Losers May Be 2 Parties

[babylonsister]

Supreme Court Ruling's Big Losers May Be 2 Parties

Russell Berman


WASHINGTON (Jan. 22) -- Is it curtains for the donkey and the elephant? Thursday's Supreme Court decision striking down key campaign finance regulations turned Washington on its head, but the players that have the most to lose from the ruling may be the major political parties themselves.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties have seen their brands falter in recent years, as voters have rejected first one party and then the other in quick succession. Polls show widespread dissatisfaction with both parties and more support for candidates who tout their political independence -- witness the election in Massachusetts, where Scott Brown won on an anti-establishment message.

The high court's decision could speed that slide, campaign finance experts say, by diluting a party's influence in elections and handing more power to outside groups, principally corporations and unions. The ruling overturns limits on how much money corporations and unions can contribute to political campaigns, as well as a ban on broadcasting ads supporting candidates within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election.

"It will further encourage independent political activity, which will be separate from the political activity of candidates and parties," a Republican campaign finance lawyer, Jan Baran, said in an interview. The court's decision, he said, would accelerate an ongoing trend "to make political parties a smaller, but still large, player in political campaigns."

His comments echo those of another GOP campaign attorney, Benjamin Ginsberg, who told The New York Times that "Parties will sort of shrink in the relative importance of things" as a result of the ruling.

Craig Holman, a lobbyist for the liberal watchdog group Public Citizen, went a step further, saying that the two parties would be "dwarfed" by independent groups, specifically corporations. "They are going to be displaced by corporations," Holman said. "Corporations are going to easily, easily outgun political parties."

more....

http://www.sphere.com/politics/article/supreme-court-rulings-biggest-losers-may-be-the-political-parties/19327947

[enki23]

1. gosh, that'll be so much better

.

[TxRider]

2. Interesting

The Halliburton party, the Lockheed party?

The Google party?

I don't see it happening.

A party that could capture the lion's share of independent voters? I can't see a corporation pulling that off either.

[Wilms]

4. Actually, it looks like that happened already. n/t

[Enrique]

8. I could easily see it happening

sure, independent voters might prefer alternatives to the corporate tools that will be running, but those alternatives will never see the light of day. The tools will have all the money.

[Xipe Totec]

3. Wishful thinking

I'm sorry, but the money will, unfortunately, go to the Jackass or the Mammoth.

[WeDidIt]

5. There can be only two.

So long as there is a constitutional electoral college mechanism, there can be only two viable parties.

[bemildred]

9. I think this is more about the Congress and the states.

Although it is going to make Presidential politics "interesting" too.

[WeDidIt]

10. Doesn't matter, there can be only two.

It trickles down from the executive as the executive must work within the confines of a tricameral system.

For any more than two viable parties, the electoral college must die.

[bemildred]

11. Right nothing matters but your axiom. nt

[WeDidIt]

12. The two party system exists in its current form because of the electoral college

If you had a system through which the executive was chosen by whomsoever got the most votes nationwide wiht no requirement of an absolute majority of votes, the system would encourage coalitions of multiple parties.

But with a system whereby one person must obtain an absolute majority of electoral votes in the electoral college, only two parties become viable at the executive level. Since the executive cannot function in any way without the legislative, that two party system exists there as well.

[bemildred]

17. You seem to have a good grasp of deductive logic.

Actually, there are things that happen if the Electoral College deadlocks. And coalition politics is possible in the EC too. It is true that the two-party system is deeply entrenched in US political customs and rules, but it is quite possible that this change will destroy all that and replace it with something else. I certainly do expect the two major parties to collude to prevent that, but it is not correct that it is unchangeable. I am aware of the game-theoretic arguments that a system like ours leads to a two-party system, but the force of unlimited money might well be enough to alter that. It is interesting to consider how this will affect Presidential politics, but your last sentence is poppycock, a non-functioning Presidency is perfectly normal, even the norm, in US politics.

[babylonsister]

13. What party was Perot in again? It's doable, though difficult. nt

[WeDidIt]

15. What election did Perot win again?

Oh yeah, that's right. He didn't take a single electoral vote.

[babylonsister]

16. He was still viable. Your contention that 'there can only be two parties'

is bogus. :hi:

[WeDidIt]

18. No, he was not viable.

He failed to take a single electoral vote, thus proving he was not a viable candidate.

[WeDidIt]

20. One other point

Perot did serve the purpose of presenting a facade that third parties could be viable.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love for this to be a multi-party system, but I cannot envision it happening so long as the electoral college exists.

When you add to that the fact that two parties are much more easily managed by corporation donations, I don't see it happening any time soon.

[jotsy]

21. That to me is like accepting the premise of the zodiac, only 12 futures to be had?

I see the human condition as a much more willful and imaginative creature to live with limits like that and contend with any level of credibility, to be moving forward.

Think about urban sprawl, it spreads in grids, not just two sides of a major boulevard.

I have contended since the early 90's that two party politics is toxic to the people, if we are to be true to the intent of our design as a self governed citizenry. Money has played too powerful a role through too many political seasons and as comforting as the idea of anything to loosen the hold of such a divisive system is, I think it is too little, and far too late. A congress that is free to vote based on the concerns of their constituents instead of the kind of rank and file party control, is bound to be more competent and constructive.

Not to sound like a rich kid, but there must be more.

[bemildred]

6. Yah. I think what it leads to is "factions".

And money wars, as if we didn't have that already, but much bigger ones.
:popcorn:

[omega minimo]

7. "outgun" is an interesting choice of words.

"saying that the two parties would be "dwarfed" by independent groups, specifically corporations. "They are going to be displaced by corporations," Holman said. "Corporations are going to easily, easily outgun political parties."

[TexasObserver]

14. It's government by the highest bidder.

[laughingliberal]

19. +1 nt

[cascadiance]

22. Actually both parties have been swallowed by the corporatist party, which is empowered by this!