I feel like the problem with "money equals speech" is that free speech is supposed to be the thing that makes all Americans equal but this makes it to where the rich get more speech than the poor.
+Graser1112 There are plenty of people in the U.S. who don't have internet. You posting your opinions on the internet is giving you more free speech than them, so should we take away your internet? What about someone who's a columnist for the New York Times? They've certainly got more free speech than you. Should we make print media illegal?
Jeroen Bollen So does everyone get a column in the New York Times then? Do I get my own TV show, to put me on the same level as Bill O'Reilly or Bill Maher? Does everyone get a free advertisement on a youtube video? If we're gonna be truly equal, I should also get a free $10000 worth of voice equipment to put me on par with all of those radio shows.
Jeroen Bollen Read over my comment again, because obviously you didn't understand. I'm not talking about advertisements. I'm talking about political talk shows, radio shows, editorials in newspapers, etc. Those all allow you to speak to more people than the average person. A lot of these shows and papers even endorse candidates, year after year. Should all media that presents an opinion be made illegal?
My online school used to have these videos available in their material and now their new material doesn't. I'm just happy to find it on youtube! Thanks for making history and politics less boring.
Great video, cleared up a lot! Over in the UK we have limits on campaign spending overseen by an unaffiliated campaign regulation board that MUST receive ALL receipts of spending and donations so that the money can be tracked and counted. If i campaign overspends then he who was managing the campaign can be judicially tried in court. Likewise, so many UK politicians appear on American TV because their not allowed to have their own broadcast time in the UK due to anti-political bias broadcasting laws, if one party gets a TV slot then all the others have to have an equal appearance or none one does. Being a guest on USA TV is a loophole as the american broadcast will eventually find it's way here.
Considering how important Citizens United is, a little blurb does not do it justice. You could do a whole video on the shenanigans that is campaign finance, 501-C3s and C4s, Citizens United, Super PACS, etc.
I've been a huge fan of crash course for my entire high school career. I'm honestly beginning to wonder if Stan is a real person, or just a figment of imagination both John Green and K-dawg like to talk to.
+rollofnickles They also forgot to mention how debates and campaigns are essentially meaningless past the primaries, as most people vote through the party itself, and not the candidate at that point.
+rollofnickles Sweden = A socialist democracy built on wealth produced by capitalist development + huge oil reserves. (Built on such pre-existing wealth, any system would look successful, even the most wasteful and inefficient.) Greece = Socialist democracy a few decades later, when other peoples' money runs out. (You know Thatcher's quote: The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples' money.) Greece has "free" universities, textbooks, schools, hospitals, people have public sector jobs, early pensions, it used to be a socialist democracy paradise. Until... yeah... You know the rest. America = Trying hard to become Greece. All these, presumably school children, who think they're socialists... wait until you start paying income tax. I think 90% of people are libertarians, they just don't know it yet.
+Clifford K Actually rather amusing the last thing you said. I remember taking a political ideology quiz and got a libertarian The libertarian party is very different though from my political viewpoints. In this election, the Liberals were most aligned with my viewpoints which are very leftist
I worked as a Field Organizer for my local Democratic committee during the 2015 election for County Executive and County Legislator, and while everything you said is true, and I'm surprised you didn't mention one of the biggest parts of campaigns: knocking on doors and phone banking. I would like people to understand why they are contacted so frequently during campaigns, and why these contacts are so important to the race. I understand that we may be bothering people at sometimes inconvenient times, but if they understood the importance of the contacts and why we make so many attempts to contact them, they may at least be less likely to spew abuse at innocent callers and canvassers who are simply trying to improve the community.
Yeah. On the first democratic debate, did you see how many news companies said Hillary won, despite the fact that everyone else (80% polls voters) said Bernie won?
+Max Đỗ Bernie lost because he completely blew the email question and gave Hillary a pass. Even if he were to win the nomination, given the recent events, foreign policy now plays a larger part. In the last debate he wanted to talk domestic because that's what he does, domestic policy not foreign policy. Hillary only has 2 competitors and she has locked down most of the super delegates, so unless she gets indited by the FBI or some Obama-esque candidate comes from no where and the donors and DNC abandon Hillary, she will win the nomination.
+xXSeNiLeXx I'm gonna start by asking you did you watch the debate live or did you just watch the news coverage. Because like I said, all mainstream media are all covering for Hilary.
Max Đỗ The first debate no longer matters. If you read what I wrote, you would understand that she is already 1/5 of the way to the democrat nomination because of super-delegates. I said Bernie lost, not that Hillary won, because Bernie had the chance to destroy her over the entire email situation, a private account on a private server. He decided for what-ever reason to give her a pass and that's why he lost. It's not just the media covering Hillary, it's also the DNC. They are the ones who decided to go with so little debates. My last point is that this election cycle is going to be more weighted on foreign policy due to what happened in Paris. Bernie is more of a domestic policy candidate and not a foreign policy candidate. Bernie complained about discussing foreign policy on the last debate because he is a domestic policy candidate.
"...When a congressman who receives millions of dollars from the oil industry then works hard to weaken regulations on oil companies so they can make more profit." Hey, you mentioned the senator from my state. :P Seriously though, that's Senator Inhofe, sadly.
***** I plan to, if nothing else our other senator's seat is up for grabs and the candidate running against him is someone I've known for years and thus know will be more responsive.
+Mystogan Edolas Regardless of what America is or isn't there will _always_ be good reason for people to worry about corruption when it comes to governing entities - simply because they are the ones that govern.
@@13ullseye True we should worry. But maybe with incumbency and interest groups' money after campaigning is done, as in when the legislative work is done. With regards to campaigning, money really isn't that much of a problem: we have the Tillman Act of 1907, the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971(reformed in 1974), the Federal Election committee, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. All of which limit corporate and group money in campaign donations and help undisclose sources of political money, but not spending. Because it would not be fair to limit spending by asserting a man cannot use his own money to pass hypothetical spending limits, right? Or else it would be fair to put spending limits on big corporations, so that smaller corporations have a chance. Buckley v. Valeo, Citizens United v. FEC, and McCutcheon v. FEC are court cases that can better express this than I can.
An important point that you didn't mention, which is especially important in this cycle, is that the candidates' ability to raise money for their own campaigns, as opposed to aligned Super PACs, is vital for some of the expenses that outside groups can't pay for, like staff salaries, meals, and lodging, and formal expenses like signature-gathering and ballot registration; a relatively minor point related to this is that although political campaigns get reduced rates for "the teevee," outside groups, even pro-candidate Super PACs, don't, and a more major point is that running out of campaign funds is the main reason Presidential candidates end their campaigns early, as repeatedly pointed out on Andrew S. Tanenbaum's Electoral-Vote blog (for example, Scott Walker was a favorite of the Kochs but they couldn't inject enough money into his campaign, which suffered poor fundraising, to keep it afloat via Super PACs, even though they themselves *had* enough money, so he dropped out).
BigfootPlays Yeah you can use money to buy more effective ways to speak out. That doesn't mean money equals speech. If money equals speech than that means that the people with the most money have more speech then anyone else. And that's not free speech, that sounds like paid speech.
+Anthony Acosta Money lets you speak more by advertising more than the opposition. If you see 5 reasons why one candidate is awesome and 2 reasons why the other is awesome, who are you gonna vote for? So one candidate having more ads than another isn't democratic.
I would like to see them compare our election format to those around the world. Especially places like Canada who just had their national elections a few weeks ago.
I really think that this one could have used a bit of a global perspective. The cost of political campaigns in the US are utterly staggering to those outside it, and the "money is protected speech" concept seems to make bribes a constitutional right.
I don't think it's particularly meaningful to compare the amount spent on campaigns to the amount spent on chips. The question is whether the amounts involved can influence behavior, not whether the amounts are, in a vacuum, particularly large. Since these funds often go to a relatively small number of politicians, meaning those individuals can get amounts of money which are significant to the, they can surely influence behavior.
Why should a billionaire have a larger influence on a politician than a middle-class American? Campaign donation limits are there not to limit other people's free speech; they're there to ensure as many people as possible have the same amount of free speech.
Jeroen Bollen Yea, because that won't cause any inflation at all. There's also a third option of allowing people to do what they want with their money. If you see that someone is backed by oil companies and you think that will influence their decisions, you're perfectly within your right to not vote for them.
BigfootPlays I was being sarcastic. Of course giving everyone that money would be a stupid idea. Also, in a perfect world, it'd be perfect to allow everyone to spend as much as they want, and have people make responsible decisions. Sadly, the world isn't perfect. Politicians can deceive and lie, and voters are ignorant and irresponsible. Not a lot of people are willing to spend a lot of time doing background checks on their politicians.
Jeroen Bollen This isn't hours and hours of research. There are websites that you can go to and type in someone's name, and it will show a list of donors.
I see a lot of “money shouldn’t equal speech,” but the thing is that Political Speech is the MOST protected type of speech under the First Amendment. SCOTUS ruled to get rid of spending limitations because it infringed on freedom of political speech. Whether you believe this is good or not, it is a product of Judicial Activism and is how SCOTUS decided to interpret the Constitution.
“The likelihood of the laws being enforced is slim, I never want to give up, but I’m not under any illusions. People think the FEC is dysfunctional. It’s worse than dysfunctional.” - The chair of the Federal Election Commission, Ann M. Ravel on policing corruption in political campaigns. Basically, she is saying the rules are meaningless and everything this video said about the controversy is wrong about the reality of campaign finance.
Man. I don't think quotes count as qualitative analysis. First, check the partisan identity of said quote. Second, realize that there are several things she could be referencing in this cherry picked quote. Such as out-group spending, which the FEC cannot monitor.
The length and expense of American campaigns is massively at odds with the way we do it in Britain. Our election campaigns generally only last a few weeks, and there are legal limits on how much any party can spend
How the hell is limiting the amount someone can spend on a candidate limiting their freedom of SPEECH.... That's the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard.
+BigfootPlays You are. By not allowing someone else to have an ad "Vote for Turnip" because he doesn't have $1000 dollars, are you not limiting his free speech?
Jeroen Bollen You are aware that free speech applies to the Government right? The Government is not restricting him from having an ad. The independent, private company is. That is in line with the constitution. I am allowed to limit his free speech by not airing an ad for $0. The government is not allowed to limit his free speech by saying he can't spend money how he wants.
BigfootPlays So you believe in free speech because it's a law, and not because it's valuable? Your argument is free speech should exist because the constitution says so, and not, because it is a fair system? If you picked the first one, then this argument is over. I believe in a free and fair world, you believe in authoritarianism and paternalism. If you picked the second one, then my argument is untouched. A private corporation is limiting someone's free speech.
Jeroen Bollen Lol how is it "authoritarianism" to want less Government control over what I can say and how I can say it? You don't understand what freedom of speech actually is, so you're throwing out buzzwords.
He will.. but not with that attitude. Hes above Obama in the polls from his grassroots movement in 2008, hes currently doing better than Obama in primary states like NH and OH. Plus, Bernie has pulled in the largest crowds in history. So yes, he can win.. just need to actually try and make him.
+james frazier no I mean he objectively can't win unless the Republicans pick Trump, which the GOP is too smart too, and anyway he wouldn't be good because there would be no opportunity for compromise with Congress
+james frazier its still more than a year from elections. Polls mean nothing at this point and in the end the majority of voters tend to settle for the more level headed and moderate candidates rather than people like sanders or trump
What if the state would decide for a fixed amount of money that each candidate is allowed to spend? And to be even more fair subsidize that money to them...?
This video doesn't mention that US elections are the world's most expensive. I think its an important comparison. It should also be updated to include the growing number of candidate that are refusing PAC money.
How to fix the political campaign system (or rather get rid of it fairly): 1. Any qualifying American citizen can register anonymously as a candidate for the office in question. 2. Candidates can add a description of their platform and their experience/qualifications. Race/Sex/Gender/Religion/Party etc. are not allowed to be listed. 3. Each candidate appears anonymously in a public registry that can be viewed by anyone online. 4. On election day, candidates will be listed with their descriptions and voters can select "yes" or "no" for each candidate (not only one). 5. If the pool of candidates is sufficiently large, the election will be broken down into brackets and held over several days. 6. When a winner is determined, a background check is done to confirm any listed experience/qualifications. If found to be falsified, the runner-up candidate is considered next. Repeat until the highest voted truthful candidate is found. 7. If, during the course of the official's term, they act directly against any of the ideals listed in their original platform, a popular vote will be held to determine if they should remain in office.
Hooya2 Then you must accept that you want individuals with more clout/money/popularity/celebrity to have an unfair advantage over others. That is not a fair system. Issues can be debated by individuals. So long as the candidates display their standing on those issues, that should be all that is necessary.
Hooya2 You would know "who" (as in their political beliefs) you are voting for. Its just that their name would not be there to cloud your judgement. You would simply vote "yes" on every candidate that matches you political ideals. If the person you wanted to vote for matched what you want politically, your vote would get to them.
Hooya2 Valid point. Listing of experience would have to be generalized. Candidates would not be allowed to list specific position they held, only the general nature of the responsibilities held. Voting records are not important, as the elected candidate would be held to the platform they promised (unless a popular vote allows them to alter it).
Hooya2 Compromise legislation should not be a thing. Issues should be voted on piecemeal. Politicians are supposed to represent their voters. If they stop standing for what they promised to stand for when they were elected, they are no long being representative and should be put up to a vote again. Past voting records no long matter when this is the case. No matter how honest or not they were in the past, they would be forced to stay honest now.
>That's idealistic garbage Because working towards something that is ideal is a bad thing...? Ok, I guess we can just disagree then. The fact that there are only two major parties, AND they are diametrically opposed is the reason we have such a problem. My proposed system would do away with partisan politics entirely. >This isn't about honesty... Then those candidates likely won't win the election in my scenario unless they do a better job describing their platforms. What about candidates with no voting record? You simply can't work off of them. The best objective way to differentiate candidates is their stated platform, and force them to follow it.
Yeah. People need to stop whining about how corporations buy politicians with critical campaign contributions. I mean, it's basically legal bribery... But money makes rules! Is that unjust? Totally subjective. Right.
+J Kim Justice? Taking more and more of people's money agaisnt their will is justice? Bernie is spot on when it comes to civil liberty, bug economic liberty is far more important and unfortunately he's draconian there.
UnknownXV, I think you are thinking of communism. The whole point of "democratic" in democratic socialism is to give people the choice to decide how the economy is regulated. That would be the very opposite definition of "against their will".
i would like to see a comparison of campaign money spent per week/day per 100 miles squared or by 1 million population. Then do the same for other countries and see how the spending compares. I know the USA spends a lot of cash on these campaigns, but it may be unfair to say it is a huge amount as many countries have smaller size/population and there fore less expenses. Not to mentions campaign lengths vary country to country.
In Britain we have direct laws limiting both the length of the campaign season and each party's expenditure on their campaign, I really don't understand what is preventing the USA doing the same.
Given the tax benefits a company can expect from the elected officials whose campaigns they contribute to, a Congressman is pretty much the best investment a corporation can make once they can afford one, and if the amount spent on campaigns doesn't seem like a lot, one should instead look at the amount of tax breaks major contributors to campaigns receive. As I said, it's one of the smartest investments a large corporation can make.
So, if the donation goes to a "good cause", the donation can essentially be unlimited, and candidates can join these "good cause" organizations in order to receive more money per individual. Am I correct in my assumptions based on this video?
If Santorum had been given 1000000000 billion dollars, he would have still lost. Money /= votes. Votes = Votes. Money = ads, and ads /= votes. Ads = messages and voters can like or dislike a message. I can spend 1000 billion dollars on ads telling you that you should kill your brother. That ain't going to change anything (I hope....), except annoy the crap out of you and drive you away from me and towards my opponent. Corruption is an issue, but limiting campaign donations wouldn't fix that.
+Pedro Rodriguez The amount of ads matters a lot. Most people don't think about a campaign message and make their own opinion, they believe what they are told.
Yeah, everyone's a sheeple, right? Everyone is dumb and can't make decisions and I'm the only one that has a brain, right? That's what I hear whenever anyone starts talking about ads buying people. I can watch Santorum ads all day, it won't change anything. Ads just show what your message is, more ads, more people can see your message. But that won't change their mind, will just let them know that you exist and that you MIGHT hold an idea that they like. If you do, they'll vote for you. If you don't, they'll watch the next ad and hope that this next one does. If no one does, well then they will probably not vote. Conspiracy theories are nice and fun, but reality is often very boring.
+Pedro Rodriguez In an ideal world, ads would just be a representation of your message and at best would only increase the reach of your message, without manipulating the number of people who genuinely support that message. In the US right now, and Trump is a golden example of this, it often matters far less that people _like_ or _agree with_ the person that they vote for than that they are _afraid_ of the other options. Most ads are attack ads that merely decrease the apparent likeability or trustworthiness of one's opponents without engaging ideology at all, and since most people are already resigned to a "lesser of two evils" voting style, this is extremely effective. I genuinely still don't know what Trump stands for, but as long as he continues to surpass and outlast all of his opponents at the PR-side of the race, he stands a fair chance of winning on those grounds alone. Money can't corrupt voting by itself. But when the system is already as corrupt and distrusted as ours, more money makes things less fair and open, and it does that even without any dark cabal of conspirators.
If politicians weren't so corrupt, there would be no problem with unlimited contributions. so many people have that backwards. In a truly free market, (we don't have that to be clear, and NEVER have) the people that have the most influence over nation should have the greatest say on how it operates. The problem with democracy is that eventually the poor will vote to steel from the rich until we are all equally poor. The less use of government force, (sorry to be redundant) the better in the long run.
Jeroen Bollen what do you think business owners do with profit? ill give you a hint, they're not just buying jet skies. they expand and innovate, creating more jobs and cheaper products. unfortunately do to this backwards system, innovation is not profitable. why offer lower prices or higher wages when the government has handed you a monopoly? also consider what the poor spends money on. they vote to expand the wealth gap because all they can afford are unethically made clothing or electronics, and food that's bad for them ect. so yes, the balances sheet says growth, but where? in areas that further benefit the 1% who own monopolies.
Adam Rose Your reasoning just isn't right. If you give money to a poor person, he'll spend it. He can't save it. He'll create jobs. If you give money to a rich person, he'll save it. He doesn't need to spend.
Jeroen Bollen that's a pretty arbitrary statement. if you read what i wrote, i said business owners. taxation is based on income. If you think that in a free market business owners don't need to innovate to be competitive, i don't know what to tell you. I'm more than willing to explain anything you have a problem with, but unless your willing to make an argument, or read what i wrote, don't waste your time replying
Adam Rose I did make an argument, and you never rejected it, so it still stand. I'll continue on with your new arguments though. You state that businesses need to stay innovative to remain competitive, which is true to some extent. Copyright laws and patent laws that are ridiculously more powerful than they need-be prevent this from happening though. Furthermore, the money spend on innovation and capacity increments are usually tunnelled to other rich people, which keeps the money away from the poor. The best way to stimulate the economy is to increase demand where there is none. By giving the poor some money to start of with, you make the system more fair, you increase demand, the velocity of spending and you create jobs. This is why a safety net has so many positive side-effects when done right. It keeps demand from dropping, creates jobs when they are needed and makes itself redundant. The key word of course is when done right.
It´s their people who they want to freed and not necesarilly their politicians (political science works diffently and even in a contradictorian way in comparison to social science), so their bets goes to the effects of their contradictorian actions rather than the immediate socially spected by rules O.O
I'd have like to have known more about the campaign organisations themselves with focuses on the different roles etc. than campaign finances. However, Campaign Finance reform is a major issue in American Politics, so I'm not that bothered this video got sidetracked by it.
Why... just make your ads, give everyone paper and pen and they can simply vote... The voting system and the election system are also bad, so I'm happy I live in Europe...
You know I actually agree, our voting system is an annoying hassle. Mainly because of the Electoral College though, a sixteenth century invention by the Holy Roman Empire itself, in all it's terrible calamity.
Filibustering 101 -Gets butthurt -knows bill you do/don't like wont/will pass -Argues for a long time in a feeble attempt to just make people cast votes without thinking so it is over with -break out the booze
"Money equals speech" would work as an argument if the United States was communist, but it's not. As a capitalist state some people are going to have more money than others (which I'm not against as I think a meritocracy is the best system), so if money equals speech then some people will get to speak more than others, dismantling the foundations of democracy. I would argue that the current campaign finance system goes against the fourteenth amendment which is supposed to guarantee equal protection under the law. It's not equal if the richest people can be more protected against regulations than common people. This isn't a diss on the video, by the way. I'm just stating my opinion on the issue.
Why is money equivalent to speech anyway? It seems like it should be a totally unrelated rule set that just so happens to have similarities to speech. Allowing large donations to political campaigns feels like it's going against the point of voting.
I still dont understand why campaigns need to raise hundreds of million of dollars for hotel rooms and flights....maybe a commerical here and there.. still things ain't adding up.
Citizens United can be summed up into "one dollar, one vote". so a rich person has much more votes than a poor one. kinda goes against the spirit of "one person, one vote" don't you think?
Framing the idea that US federal politics is a rich person's game in hypothetical terms seems overly delicate. There's a reason that so many middle- and lower-class Americans feel they have so little say in their nation's fate that they may as well not even vote. (It's because they can't afford to buy elections.)
i like the episodes, but i find that the camera is not always focused in the speaker's face, but rather on the clothes ... Additionally, I find the mug very distracting in this episode. I think it clashes with the speaker's shirt. other than that, I really appreciate the info presented here.
I feel like the problem with "money equals speech" is that free speech is supposed to be the thing that makes all Americans equal but this makes it to where the rich get more speech than the poor.
+Graser1112 There are plenty of people in the U.S. who don't have internet. You posting your opinions on the internet is giving you more free speech than them, so should we take away your internet? What about someone who's a columnist for the New York Times? They've certainly got more free speech than you. Should we make print media illegal?
+BigfootPlays No. We should make internet and other infrastructure free.
Jeroen Bollen So does everyone get a column in the New York Times then? Do I get my own TV show, to put me on the same level as Bill O'Reilly or Bill Maher? Does everyone get a free advertisement on a youtube video? If we're gonna be truly equal, I should also get a free $10000 worth of voice equipment to put me on par with all of those radio shows.
BigfootPlays
In my country no one can put ads on TV or magazines. We have a lot more political diversity.
Jeroen Bollen Read over my comment again, because obviously you didn't understand. I'm not talking about advertisements. I'm talking about political talk shows, radio shows, editorials in newspapers, etc. Those all allow you to speak to more people than the average person. A lot of these shows and papers even endorse candidates, year after year. Should all media that presents an opinion be made illegal?
These videos have taught me more about government in ten minutes than my government teacher has taught me in five week.
My online school used to have these videos available in their material and now their new material doesn't. I'm just happy to find it on youtube! Thanks for making history and politics less boring.
Great video, cleared up a lot!
Over in the UK we have limits on campaign spending overseen by an unaffiliated campaign regulation board that MUST receive ALL receipts of spending and donations so that the money can be tracked and counted.
If i campaign overspends then he who was managing the campaign can be judicially tried in court.
Likewise, so many UK politicians appear on American TV because their not allowed to have their own broadcast time in the UK due to anti-political bias broadcasting laws, if one party gets a TV slot then all the others have to have an equal appearance or none one does.
Being a guest on USA TV is a loophole as the american broadcast will eventually find it's way here.
Considering how important Citizens United is, a little blurb does not do it justice. You could do a whole video on the shenanigans that is campaign finance, 501-C3s and C4s, Citizens United, Super PACS, etc.
I've been a huge fan of crash course for my entire high school career. I'm honestly beginning to wonder if Stan is a real person, or just a figment of imagination both John Green and K-dawg like to talk to.
I just binge watched this entire series in two days. This was pretty amazing. Keep doing what your doing!
No mention of the most important candidate of 2016, Bernie Sanders. Even gave credibility to "Corporations are People". PBS blew this one.
Poor Wheezy
+rollofnickles They also forgot to mention how debates and campaigns are essentially meaningless past the primaries, as most people vote through the party itself, and not the candidate at that point.
+rollofnickles Sweden = A socialist democracy built on wealth produced by capitalist development + huge oil reserves. (Built on such pre-existing wealth, any system would look successful, even the most wasteful and inefficient.)
Greece = Socialist democracy a few decades later, when other peoples' money runs out. (You know Thatcher's quote: The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples' money.) Greece has "free" universities, textbooks, schools, hospitals, people have public sector jobs, early pensions, it used to be a socialist democracy paradise. Until... yeah... You know the rest.
America = Trying hard to become Greece. All these, presumably school children, who think they're socialists... wait until you start paying income tax.
I think 90% of people are libertarians, they just don't know it yet.
+Clifford K Actually rather amusing the last thing you said. I remember taking a political ideology quiz and got a libertarian
The libertarian party is very different though from my political viewpoints. In this election, the Liberals were most aligned with my viewpoints which are very leftist
+Clifford K More like 60% American conservstive, 30% Libertarian, and 10% hard core liberals. depends on state.
+blasterjosh I took one of these tests twice, first it said I was a fascist, then a national-socialist. Pretty accurate I must say.
I worked as a Field Organizer for my local Democratic committee during the 2015 election for County Executive and County Legislator, and while everything you said is true, and I'm surprised you didn't mention one of the biggest parts of campaigns: knocking on doors and phone banking. I would like people to understand why they are contacted so frequently during campaigns, and why these contacts are so important to the race. I understand that we may be bothering people at sometimes inconvenient times, but if they understood the importance of the contacts and why we make so many attempts to contact them, they may at least be less likely to spew abuse at innocent callers and canvassers who are simply trying to improve the community.
Yeah. On the first democratic debate, did you see how many news companies said Hillary won, despite the fact that everyone else (80% polls voters) said Bernie won?
+Max Đỗ
What polls? Everyone knows Hillary won. Eh... 9/11! ISIS! Women!
+JonnyNice 911 IS BAD. I HILP WALSTREE SO THEM DONAET ME!
+Max Đỗ Bernie lost because he completely blew the email question and gave Hillary a pass. Even if he were to win the nomination, given the recent events, foreign policy now plays a larger part. In the last debate he wanted to talk domestic because that's what he does, domestic policy not foreign policy. Hillary only has 2 competitors and she has locked down most of the super delegates, so unless she gets indited by the FBI or some Obama-esque candidate comes from no where and the donors and DNC abandon Hillary, she will win the nomination.
+xXSeNiLeXx I'm gonna start by asking you did you watch the debate live or did you just watch the news coverage. Because like I said, all mainstream media are all covering for Hilary.
Max Đỗ The first debate no longer matters. If you read what I wrote, you would understand that she is already 1/5 of the way to the democrat nomination because of super-delegates.
I said Bernie lost, not that Hillary won, because Bernie had the chance to destroy her over the entire email situation, a private account on a private server. He decided for what-ever reason to give her a pass and that's why he lost.
It's not just the media covering Hillary, it's also the DNC. They are the ones who decided to go with so little debates.
My last point is that this election cycle is going to be more weighted on foreign policy due to what happened in Paris. Bernie is more of a domestic policy candidate and not a foreign policy candidate. Bernie complained about discussing foreign policy on the last debate because he is a domestic policy candidate.
"...When a congressman who receives millions of dollars from the oil industry then works hard to weaken regulations on oil companies so they can make more profit." Hey, you mentioned the senator from my state. :P Seriously though, that's Senator Inhofe, sadly.
***** I plan to, if nothing else our other senator's seat is up for grabs and the candidate running against him is someone I've known for years and thus know will be more responsive.
The forced neutrality in this give too much validation to those who argue that big money doesn't corrupt politics.
+Marklar3 It dosn't, Murica isn't a democratic nation, so there is no point for regular people to worry about corruption.
+Mystogan Edolas Regardless of what America is or isn't there will _always_ be good reason for people to worry about corruption when it comes to governing entities - simply because they are the ones that govern.
@@13ullseye True we should worry. But maybe with incumbency and interest groups' money after campaigning is done, as in when the legislative work is done. With regards to campaigning, money really isn't that much of a problem: we have the Tillman Act of 1907, the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971(reformed in 1974), the Federal Election committee, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. All of which limit corporate and group money in campaign donations and help undisclose sources of political money, but not spending. Because it would not be fair to limit spending by asserting a man cannot use his own money to pass hypothetical spending limits, right? Or else it would be fair to put spending limits on big corporations, so that smaller corporations have a chance. Buckley v. Valeo, Citizens United v. FEC, and McCutcheon v. FEC are court cases that can better express this than I can.
I took a small loan of a million dollars for my president of earth campaign.
"....or eating Little Caeser's"
I was literally eating Little Caeser's $5 large pepperoni deal while watching LOL
An important point that you didn't mention, which is especially important in this cycle, is that the candidates' ability to raise money for their own campaigns, as opposed to aligned Super PACs, is vital for some of the expenses that outside groups can't pay for, like staff salaries, meals, and lodging, and formal expenses like signature-gathering and ballot registration; a relatively minor point related to this is that although political campaigns get reduced rates for "the teevee," outside groups, even pro-candidate Super PACs, don't, and a more major point is that running out of campaign funds is the main reason Presidential candidates end their campaigns early, as repeatedly pointed out on Andrew S. Tanenbaum's Electoral-Vote blog (for example, Scott Walker was a favorite of the Kochs but they couldn't inject enough money into his campaign, which suffered poor fundraising, to keep it afloat via Super PACs, even though they themselves *had* enough money, so he dropped out).
Craig is my favorite! These videos are so awesome, I wish he was my government teacher. :D Thanks crash course!
Wow, for about five episodes now, this series has roughly followed the topic pattern of my US government class.
Money is not speech. Get money out of politics! WOLFPAC!
That's right brother! TYT up in this bitch!
+Larry Phischman How is money not speech? Money is the reason why you can purchase an internet connection to speak out about money in politics lol
+Larry Phischman Won't work....also stop listening to Libtard fox news.
BigfootPlays Yeah you can use money to buy more effective ways to speak out. That doesn't mean money equals speech. If money equals speech than that means that the people with the most money have more speech then anyone else. And that's not free speech, that sounds like paid speech.
+Anthony Acosta Money lets you speak more by advertising more than the opposition. If you see 5 reasons why one candidate is awesome and 2 reasons why the other is awesome, who are you gonna vote for? So one candidate having more ads than another isn't democratic.
This is actually the first CC Gov't & Politics I'm watching. -julian
I would like to see them compare our election format to those around the world. Especially places like Canada who just had their national elections a few weeks ago.
the eagle gets me every time lol
I really think that this one could have used a bit of a global perspective. The cost of political campaigns in the US are utterly staggering to those outside it, and the "money is protected speech" concept seems to make bribes a constitutional right.
I don't think it's particularly meaningful to compare the amount spent on campaigns to the amount spent on chips. The question is whether the amounts involved can influence behavior, not whether the amounts are, in a vacuum, particularly large. Since these funds often go to a relatively small number of politicians, meaning those individuals can get amounts of money which are significant to the, they can surely influence behavior.
Why should a billionaire have a larger influence on a politician than a middle-class American? Campaign donation limits are there not to limit other people's free speech; they're there to ensure as many people as possible have the same amount of free speech.
+Antenox "They're there to ensure as many people as possible have the same amount of free speech" BY limiting some people's speech.
+BigfootPlays The other option is to give everyone the same amount of money as the biggest spender.
Jeroen Bollen Yea, because that won't cause any inflation at all. There's also a third option of allowing people to do what they want with their money. If you see that someone is backed by oil companies and you think that will influence their decisions, you're perfectly within your right to not vote for them.
BigfootPlays
I was being sarcastic. Of course giving everyone that money would be a stupid idea.
Also, in a perfect world, it'd be perfect to allow everyone to spend as much as they want, and have people make responsible decisions. Sadly, the world isn't perfect. Politicians can deceive and lie, and voters are ignorant and irresponsible. Not a lot of people are willing to spend a lot of time doing background checks on their politicians.
Jeroen Bollen This isn't hours and hours of research. There are websites that you can go to and type in someone's name, and it will show a list of donors.
I got an ad for the Canadian Libertarian party which is strange because I'm a U.S. citizen living in Erbil.
I love PBS!
wow this is so strange to know if you live in Europe
Italy pretty much has the same corrupt system, we try copy them too much....
yes true but I meant especially the expensive campaigns :)
Your friendly Neighborhood pessimist lmao the Italian is calling America corrupt. Your country basically created corruption.
whooo! Hank dancing on the tv! :D so much better than election coverage. way less face-palming and head-desking.
I see a lot of “money shouldn’t equal speech,” but the thing is that Political Speech is the MOST protected type of speech under the First Amendment. SCOTUS ruled to get rid of spending limitations because it infringed on freedom of political speech. Whether you believe this is good or not, it is a product of Judicial Activism and is how SCOTUS decided to interpret the Constitution.
Well don't worry. I LIKE YOUR WORK
I have a test on this tomorrow. I love this channel :)
Alyse Leonard how did you do on your test?
Love your sense of humor!!
Iowa is a swing state... making it pretty important in the presidential election :)
“The likelihood of the laws being enforced is slim, I never want to give up, but I’m not under any illusions. People think the FEC is dysfunctional. It’s worse than dysfunctional.” - The chair of the Federal Election Commission, Ann M. Ravel on policing corruption in political campaigns.
Basically, she is saying the rules are meaningless and everything this video said about the controversy is wrong about the reality of campaign finance.
Man. I don't think quotes count as qualitative analysis. First, check the partisan identity of said quote. Second, realize that there are several things she could be referencing in this cherry picked quote. Such as out-group spending, which the FEC cannot monitor.
You should make a video about how to rise through the political ladder.
The length and expense of American campaigns is massively at odds with the way we do it in Britain. Our election campaigns generally only last a few weeks, and there are legal limits on how much any party can spend
Do a show about Indian Election and campaign.
RIP John Mcain
Potato chips example was great =D
How the hell is limiting the amount someone can spend on a candidate limiting their freedom of SPEECH.... That's the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard.
+Hallslys If I pay $1000 for an ad, saying "Vote for Craig" am I not exercising free speech?
+BigfootPlays You are. By not allowing someone else to have an ad "Vote for Turnip" because he doesn't have $1000 dollars, are you not limiting his free speech?
Jeroen Bollen You are aware that free speech applies to the Government right? The Government is not restricting him from having an ad. The independent, private company is. That is in line with the constitution. I am allowed to limit his free speech by not airing an ad for $0. The government is not allowed to limit his free speech by saying he can't spend money how he wants.
BigfootPlays
So you believe in free speech because it's a law, and not because it's valuable? Your argument is free speech should exist because the constitution says so, and not, because it is a fair system?
If you picked the first one, then this argument is over. I believe in a free and fair world, you believe in authoritarianism and paternalism.
If you picked the second one, then my argument is untouched. A private corporation is limiting someone's free speech.
Jeroen Bollen Lol how is it "authoritarianism" to want less Government control over what I can say and how I can say it? You don't understand what freedom of speech actually is, so you're throwing out buzzwords.
Bernie Sanders 2016.. going to stop the campaign corruption system in America.
he won't win sorry
P.S. I myself am a democratic socialist
He will.. but not with that attitude. Hes above Obama in the polls from his grassroots movement in 2008, hes currently doing better than Obama in primary states like NH and OH. Plus, Bernie has pulled in the largest crowds in history. So yes, he can win.. just need to actually try and make him.
+james frazier no I mean he objectively can't win unless the Republicans pick Trump, which the GOP is too smart too, and anyway he wouldn't be good because there would be no opportunity for compromise with Congress
+james frazier its still more than a year from elections. Polls mean nothing at this point and in the end the majority of voters tend to settle for the more level headed and moderate candidates rather than people like sanders or trump
+james frazier Oh hey look, its a economically ignorant college kid who's going to vote for socialism because he wants weed legalized.
This dude actually makes me learn AND laugh hahaha
4:23 "it still costs the campaign in terms of timetravel" well that is one explanation for the high costs.
2:17 Excellent Gingrich reference.
What if the state would decide for a fixed amount of money that each candidate is allowed to spend? And to be even more fair subsidize that money to them...?
This video doesn't mention that US elections are the world's most expensive. I think its an important comparison. It should also be updated to include the growing number of candidate that are refusing PAC money.
I love these videos they help me understand what i am learning in class. Thank you.
We could also pass a constitutional amendment to reform campaign finance laws.
Helped allot with understanding my homework thx
If the Supreme Court already prohibited the limitation on campaign donations, how would congress prohibit it ????
Very nice explanation.
The closing statement of this video makes me sad that Larry Lessig had to drop out of the primaries =(
Yaay! Donald Trump won! Best president!
I guess the next important court case will be Real Housewives v Citizens United.
Imagine we didn’t spend money on campaigns and instead voted based on their actions in theirs communities. Its a pointless popularity contest
'contributions are not bribes' based on what?
what do you suggest they are, charity?
corporations showing civic responsibility?
How to fix the political campaign system (or rather get rid of it fairly):
1. Any qualifying American citizen can register anonymously as a candidate for the office in question.
2. Candidates can add a description of their platform and their experience/qualifications. Race/Sex/Gender/Religion/Party etc. are not allowed to be listed.
3. Each candidate appears anonymously in a public registry that can be viewed by anyone online.
4. On election day, candidates will be listed with their descriptions and voters can select "yes" or "no" for each candidate (not only one).
5. If the pool of candidates is sufficiently large, the election will be broken down into brackets and held over several days.
6. When a winner is determined, a background check is done to confirm any listed experience/qualifications. If found to be falsified, the runner-up candidate is considered next. Repeat until the highest voted truthful candidate is found.
7. If, during the course of the official's term, they act directly against any of the ideals listed in their original platform, a popular vote will be held to determine if they should remain in office.
Hooya2 Then you must accept that you want individuals with more clout/money/popularity/celebrity to have an unfair advantage over others. That is not a fair system.
Issues can be debated by individuals. So long as the candidates display their standing on those issues, that should be all that is necessary.
Hooya2 You would know "who" (as in their political beliefs) you are voting for. Its just that their name would not be there to cloud your judgement. You would simply vote "yes" on every candidate that matches you political ideals. If the person you wanted to vote for matched what you want politically, your vote would get to them.
Hooya2 Valid point. Listing of experience would have to be generalized. Candidates would not be allowed to list specific position they held, only the general nature of the responsibilities held. Voting records are not important, as the elected candidate would be held to the platform they promised (unless a popular vote allows them to alter it).
Hooya2 Compromise legislation should not be a thing. Issues should be voted on piecemeal. Politicians are supposed to represent their voters. If they stop standing for what they promised to stand for when they were elected, they are no long being representative and should be put up to a vote again.
Past voting records no long matter when this is the case. No matter how honest or not they were in the past, they would be forced to stay honest now.
>That's idealistic garbage
Because working towards something that is ideal is a bad thing...? Ok, I guess we can just disagree then. The fact that there are only two major parties, AND they are diametrically opposed is the reason we have such a problem. My proposed system would do away with partisan politics entirely.
>This isn't about honesty...
Then those candidates likely won't win the election in my scenario unless they do a better job describing their platforms.
What about candidates with no voting record? You simply can't work off of them. The best objective way to differentiate candidates is their stated platform, and force them to follow it.
1:40 HOLD UP, is that Hank?
Down with super pacs!
Craig, I was wondering what grade you got in history class in high school, and if you took college courses on history?
I love how you say "TV", hahah.
Insert generic Bernie Sanders pitch.
Justice and fairness.... sooo generic and boring. Why do people care about it so much.. Right?
+J Kim Justice and fairness are subjective.
Yeah. People need to stop whining about how corporations buy politicians with critical campaign contributions. I mean, it's basically legal bribery... But money makes rules! Is that unjust? Totally subjective. Right.
+J Kim Justice? Taking more and more of people's money agaisnt their will is justice? Bernie is spot on when it comes to civil liberty, bug economic liberty is far more important and unfortunately he's draconian there.
UnknownXV, I think you are thinking of communism. The whole point of "democratic" in democratic socialism is to give people the choice to decide how the economy is regulated. That would be the very opposite definition of "against their will".
Gil Cisneros.....
Who else sees this ad?
TH-cam’s algorithm is scaaarrrry.....
My country has a law that limits political campaigns to 3 months before an election. It works pretty well!
Craig, I knew John Green. John Green was my friend. Craig..... You are no John Green
Love this! Thank you.
i would like to see a comparison of campaign money spent per week/day per 100 miles squared or by 1 million population. Then do the same for other countries and see how the spending compares. I know the USA spends a lot of cash on these campaigns, but it may be unfair to say it is a huge amount as many countries have smaller size/population and there fore less expenses. Not to mentions campaign lengths vary country to country.
“I blame the eagle” LMAO!!!
Step 1: Make potato chips. Step 2: run for president. Step 3: profit?
In Britain we have direct laws limiting both the length of the campaign season and each party's expenditure on their campaign, I really don't understand what is preventing the USA doing the same.
1:39 haha I saw that video.
Given the tax benefits a company can expect from the elected officials whose campaigns they contribute to, a Congressman is pretty much the best investment a corporation can make once they can afford one, and if the amount spent on campaigns doesn't seem like a lot, one should instead look at the amount of tax breaks major contributors to campaigns receive. As I said, it's one of the smartest investments a large corporation can make.
This series is wonderful, but is there any way of getting hold of the sources for the statistics being mentioned ?
Great vid.
So, if the donation goes to a "good cause", the donation can essentially be unlimited, and candidates can join these "good cause" organizations in order to receive more money per individual. Am I correct in my assumptions based on this video?
If Santorum had been given 1000000000 billion dollars, he would have still lost. Money /= votes. Votes = Votes. Money = ads, and ads /= votes. Ads = messages and voters can like or dislike a message.
I can spend 1000 billion dollars on ads telling you that you should kill your brother. That ain't going to change anything (I hope....), except annoy the crap out of you and drive you away from me and towards my opponent.
Corruption is an issue, but limiting campaign donations wouldn't fix that.
+Pedro Rodriguez The amount of ads matters a lot. Most people don't think about a campaign message and make their own opinion, they believe what they are told.
Yeah, everyone's a sheeple, right? Everyone is dumb and can't make decisions and I'm the only one that has a brain, right?
That's what I hear whenever anyone starts talking about ads buying people. I can watch Santorum ads all day, it won't change anything. Ads just show what your message is, more ads, more people can see your message. But that won't change their mind, will just let them know that you exist and that you MIGHT hold an idea that they like. If you do, they'll vote for you. If you don't, they'll watch the next ad and hope that this next one does. If no one does, well then they will probably not vote.
Conspiracy theories are nice and fun, but reality is often very boring.
+Pedro Rodriguez In an ideal world, ads would just be a representation of your message and at best would only increase the reach of your message, without manipulating the number of people who genuinely support that message.
In the US right now, and Trump is a golden example of this, it often matters far less that people _like_ or _agree with_ the person that they vote for than that they are _afraid_ of the other options. Most ads are attack ads that merely decrease the apparent likeability or trustworthiness of one's opponents without engaging ideology at all, and since most people are already resigned to a "lesser of two evils" voting style, this is extremely effective. I genuinely still don't know what Trump stands for, but as long as he continues to surpass and outlast all of his opponents at the PR-side of the race, he stands a fair chance of winning on those grounds alone.
Money can't corrupt voting by itself. But when the system is already as corrupt and distrusted as ours, more money makes things less fair and open, and it does that even without any dark cabal of conspirators.
Looking for a Crash Course episode that explains the details of caucuses - what actually happens...
If politicians weren't so corrupt, there would be no problem with unlimited contributions. so many people have that backwards. In a truly free market, (we don't have that to be clear, and NEVER have) the people that have the most influence over nation should have the greatest say on how it operates. The problem with democracy is that eventually the poor will vote to steel from the rich until we are all equally poor. The less use of government force, (sorry to be redundant) the better in the long run.
+Adam Rose Actually, by giving the poor more money, money is more likely to be spent and the economy thrives.
Jeroen Bollen what do you think business owners do with profit? ill give you a hint, they're not just buying jet skies. they expand and innovate, creating more jobs and cheaper products. unfortunately do to this backwards system, innovation is not profitable. why offer lower prices or higher wages when the government has handed you a monopoly?
also consider what the poor spends money on. they vote to expand the wealth gap because all they can afford are unethically made clothing or electronics, and food that's bad for them ect.
so yes, the balances sheet says growth, but where? in areas that further benefit the 1% who own monopolies.
Adam Rose Your reasoning just isn't right.
If you give money to a poor person, he'll spend it. He can't save it. He'll create jobs. If you give money to a rich person, he'll save it. He doesn't need to spend.
Jeroen Bollen that's a pretty arbitrary statement. if you read what i wrote, i said business owners. taxation is based on income. If you think that in a free market business owners don't need to innovate to be competitive, i don't know what to tell you.
I'm more than willing to explain anything you have a problem with, but unless your willing to make an argument, or read what i wrote, don't waste your time replying
Adam Rose
I did make an argument, and you never rejected it, so it still stand. I'll continue on with your new arguments though.
You state that businesses need to stay innovative to remain competitive, which is true to some extent. Copyright laws and patent laws that are ridiculously more powerful than they need-be prevent this from happening though. Furthermore, the money spend on innovation and capacity increments are usually tunnelled to other rich people, which keeps the money away from the poor.
The best way to stimulate the economy is to increase demand where there is none. By giving the poor some money to start of with, you make the system more fair, you increase demand, the velocity of spending and you create jobs.
This is why a safety net has so many positive side-effects when done right. It keeps demand from dropping, creates jobs when they are needed and makes itself redundant. The key word of course is when done right.
Money is not a type of speech it's a restriction on it as it means since I have less money my speech is less important.
Oh that kind of "political campaign." I expected this vid to be about military campaigns with a political basis.
It´s their people who they want to freed and not necesarilly their politicians (political science works diffently and even in a contradictorian way in comparison to social science), so their bets goes to the effects of their contradictorian actions rather than the immediate socially spected by rules O.O
Mike Dukakis in *1988. See minute 2:15
Even as an American I am very confused why the election takes so long
Yeah Craig may not wear any makeup, but come on; how much does his barber charge to maintain that immaculate beard?
I feel like "Wheezy" was a reference to Yeezy XD
2:23 Hank dancin'
I'd have like to have known more about the campaign organisations themselves with focuses on the different roles etc. than campaign finances. However, Campaign Finance reform is a major issue in American Politics, so I'm not that bothered this video got sidetracked by it.
Doesn't trump have a written note written in all caps that's says, everything is PERFECT! Hard to argue with all caps.
Why... just make your ads, give everyone paper and pen and they can simply vote... The voting system and the election system are also bad, so I'm happy I live in Europe...
You know I actually agree, our voting system is an annoying hassle. Mainly because of the Electoral College though, a sixteenth century invention by the Holy Roman Empire itself, in all it's terrible calamity.
Please make one on Filibustering!!!
Filibustering 101
-Gets butthurt
-knows bill you do/don't like wont/will pass
-Argues for a long time in a feeble attempt to just make people cast votes without thinking so it is over with
-break out the booze
7:02 Bloomberg LOL
"Money equals speech" would work as an argument if the United States was communist, but it's not. As a capitalist state some people are going to have more money than others (which I'm not against as I think a meritocracy is the best system), so if money equals speech then some people will get to speak more than others, dismantling the foundations of democracy. I would argue that the current campaign finance system goes against the fourteenth amendment which is supposed to guarantee equal protection under the law. It's not equal if the richest people can be more protected against regulations than common people.
This isn't a diss on the video, by the way. I'm just stating my opinion on the issue.
But you're acting like the poor don't have a voice at all or that the rich get extra votes.
Everyone gets at least one vote.
Goddamnit, Hank.
Why is money equivalent to speech anyway? It seems like it should be a totally unrelated rule set that just so happens to have similarities to speech. Allowing large donations to political campaigns feels like it's going against the point of voting.
Is it legal to make a youtube video advertising a presidential candidate without working or volunteering at an organization?
I still dont understand why campaigns need to raise hundreds of million of dollars for hotel rooms and flights....maybe a commerical here and there.. still things ain't adding up.
So much time and money lost forever.
+Ryan Coulbeck The money isn't lost.
+Ryan Coulbeck Money is never "lost", you might want to watch Crash Course Economics before making statements like that
Meaning, wasted on the campaign, not lost forever.
Citizens United can be summed up into "one dollar, one vote". so a rich person has much more votes than a poor one.
kinda goes against the spirit of "one person, one vote" don't you think?
Framing the idea that US federal politics is a rich person's game in hypothetical terms seems overly delicate. There's a reason that so many middle- and lower-class Americans feel they have so little say in their nation's fate that they may as well not even vote. (It's because they can't afford to buy elections.)
i like the episodes, but i find that the camera is not always focused in the speaker's face, but rather on the clothes ...
Additionally, I find the mug very distracting in this episode. I think it clashes with the speaker's shirt.
other than that, I really appreciate the info presented here.
Proven leadership, forward thinking declarations AND a moon base? Sign me up. #FeelTheWheeze