Are political donations any good at all?

Inspired by the recent ruling of the Supreme court on donations by US-companies I started to think about the general role of donations in politics. And after thinking it over for a while I discovered that I could not think of even one way they had a generally beneficial effect on the well-being of a democracy.

I realize that a citizen has to have the right to engage himself political. After all what is more democratic than to actively partake in it? This is something to be encouraged.
That this includes financial support is everyone's right in an legal as well as ideological sense, I realize that too.
But when applied, how does this - the financial support of politicians, campaigns and political parties - benefit democracy or the particular democratic nation?

It is easy to go on about the negative side effects, the two key factors being:
-It constitutes the richest to have the most potential for political influence/power.
-It basically legalizes lobbies to have undue influence on politics strongly decreasing the insight and influence of the common citizen.

But I really don't see an rational argument how this practice strengthens democracy.

And in case one doubts it: There are alternative ways of financing. Of course they are centralized and controlled by set rules, not on an individual basis by the people themselves. And I realize that at the first glance this seems less democratic and additionally goes against the especially American sentiment of individualism. But it also goes a long way in separating wealth from political influence. Why would one consider this not to be an improvement?

To put it in a nutshell: Do you agree that democracies might be better off without individual political financing? Why, why not?

PS: This is my very first self-created thread in OP

Well ideally political advertising would be informative and educational, and contribute to a positive discussion of topical issues, bringing politics to the wider community and thus helping to create a more informed society, which would result in a more optimal result come election time. So that is a rational argument for it.

However, it rarely, if ever, actually works like that. So no, political donations are not good, at least in their current form.

Not as of yesterday...

There kind of necessary.

If you create a federal pool where all contenders can split the money then everyone over 35 would run, just to get a piece of the pie. Even now >20 people run for president every election.

If you only let individuals campaign with their own money then only the immensely wealthy could run.

That said I disagree with the supreme court that corporations are people(talk about judicial activism), and that money == free speech.

It seems like in the US, funding mainly happens at campaign time, rather than funding to political parties happening every year and all year, so the parties as organised institutions swell and atrophy in a regular cycle. Is this accurate?

Arwon said:

It seems like in the US, funding mainly happens at campaign time, rather than funding to political parties happening every year and all year, so the parties as organised institutions swell and atrophy in a regular cycle. Is this accurate?

Click to expand...

Funding happens pretty much 24/7 and political candidates of all kinds need to obtain war chests for their elections.

Helps political parties advertise their platform. The amount any one individual or corporation can contribute should at least be capped.

Shadylookin said:

There kind of necessary.

If you create a federal pool where all contenders can split the money then everyone over 35 would run, just to get a piece of the pie. Even now >20 people run for president every election.

Click to expand...

True, a presidential democracy makes it tricky for such a system to work. I am not sure how to solve this, though I am optimistic a solution could be worked out. It goes without saying that there has to be some mechanism that not everyone can claim access to the pool

Camikaze said:

Well ideally political advertising would be informative and educational, and contribute to a positive discussion of topical issues, bringing politics to the wider community and thus helping to create a more informed society, which would result in a more optimal result come election time. So that is a rational argument for it.

Click to expand...

Kerozine said:

Helps political parties advertise their platform.

Click to expand...

They can do so with central and organized funding as well, without having to rely on interest groups.
Of course the campaign becomes bigger when using private means and hence can use more means to advertise the particular agenda. The US-campaigns are unmatched in their magnitude. But a political campaign doesn't have to be such a big show as it is in the USA. Voter participation doesn't seem to rely on a campaign overwhelmingly expensive and impressive either considering US voter participation.

The problem with political donations by large companies is that they can easily descend into bribing politicians to support company goals. The line between "I wanna donate to XXX because I think his policies are good." and "I wanna donate to XXX because I want him to support my policies." is extremely thin and hard to measure.

One major factor of why early Japanese Democracy was widely discredited by the people as ineffective in the 1920s was how politicians would accept large funds from the zaibastus. But to pinpoint who was receiving support and who was being bribed was difficult. Naturally everyone called everyone a corrupt person and further discredited the system.

Allowing large companies to donate would more likely destroy democracy than further it. In fact, there should be a cap of how much one can donate to a political cause and how much a politician can receive as funding. I am still in shocked at the massive amount of money blown to run for President.

SiLL said:

They can do so with central and organized funding as well, without having to rely on interest groups.

Click to expand...

Some countries subsidise their political parties, and political donations only supplement the campaign for whatever extras.

The US-campaigns are unmatched in their magnitude. But a political campaign doesn't have to be such a big show as it is in the USA. Voter participation doesn't seem to rely on a campaign overwhelmingly expensive and impressive either considering US voter participation.

Click to expand...

Why not?

Kerozine said:

Some countries subsidise their political parties, and political donations only supplement the campaign for whatever extras.

Click to expand...

I am aware of that. Germany is one of them. Saying?

Kerozine said:

Why not?

Click to expand...

Why it doesn't have to be a big show? Well why should it? As I said it doesn't seem to generate a particular high participation.

SiLL said:

I am aware of that. Germany is one of them. Saying?

Why it doesn't have to be a big show? Well why should it? As I said it doesn't seem to generate a particular high participation.

Click to expand...

Dunno, lost track of the context.

If political parties don't use the funds to get out the vote, then they use it to sway consistent/reliable voters by better getting their message across. Nothing wrong with it being grandiose AFAIC.

I think the idea of political funding is a good idea, I just don't like the way it is done now.

SiLL said:

-It constitutes the richest to have the most potential for political influence/power.

Click to expand...

Do you think campaign finance regulations are going to stop this, or even marginally affect it?

Owen Glyndwr said:

I think the idea of political funding is a good idea, I just don't like the way it is done now.

Click to expand...

Any suggestions how to really change the way it is done now?

amadeus said:

Do you think campaign finance regulations are going to stop this, or even marginally affect it?

Click to expand...

Stop it? No, of course not. Money is power, what else is knew.
Marginally affect it? Certainly. We are talking about ripping apart the foundation of lobbying.

Why do you hate freedom?

If only all donations could be forced to be anonymous.

I don't see the need for parties to convert people to their message. Engaged citizens should be able to discover whose message they like best without needed millions of pounds of advertising. Although since they don't stick to their manifestos, the whole purpose of voting is rather lost.

In America, election financing is broken beyond repair and the recent Supreme court ruling only made it worse. As I see it, we need about a dozen years of no (none, zero, zilch) private financing for any elections. The feds should provide fixed amounts for each level of position up for grabs. The "advertising arms race" is totally out of control and needs to be stopped while we figure out a better way. Free speech has been trumped by "the most money wins".

If you eliminate corruption in the form of current political donations, you are basically dooming the Republican Party until they decide to reform like the Democrats did after the 1968 DNC debacle. Not that this would be a "bad" thing, IMO.

Brighteye said:

If only all donations could be forced to be anonymous.

I don't see the need for parties to convert people to their message. Engaged citizens should be able to discover whose message they like best without needed millions of pounds of advertising. Although since they don't stick to their manifestos, the whole purpose of voting is rather lost.

Click to expand...

Anonymous donations are the way to go IMO.

Having said that, I am drunk, so I haven't had a chance to really think this over.