My thoughts on some structural issues in the campaign, media, political and judicial systems in US (v1.0)

A number of factual sections are from Chat GPT.  

I will share the legal foundation in my view (first amendment and campaign finance laws) to which we can trace some of the dislocations in our politics and campaign systems. 

Campaign and political speech are protected under the First Amendment in the U.S., but there are several constraints and regulations that apply:

1. Defamation: False statements that harm a person's reputation can lead to civil lawsuits.
2. Incitement to Violence: Speech that incites imminent lawless action is not protected.
3. Obscenity: Speech that is deemed obscene (lacking serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value) can be regulated.
4. Electioneering Communications: Certain regulations govern the timing and funding of campaign advertisements, especially those that directly advocate for a candidate.
5. Campaign Finance Laws: Restrictions on contributions to campaigns and the disclosure of funding sources aim to prevent corruption and ensure transparency.
6. Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions: States and localities can impose regulations on where and when political speech can occur, provided they are content-neutral.
7. Public versus Private Spaces: Different rules apply for speech in public forums versus private property.

These constraints are intended to balance free expression with the need for fair electoral processes and public safety.

Please note that lies and misleading or divisive rhetoric and disinformation is not excluded. A political actor can put together a campaign built on lies and falsehoods. For defamation, unfortunately, the wheel of justice grinds slowly so a defamation lawsuit would take a great deal of time to float and would cost a lot, and defamation of a public figure would be even harder since it requires an even higher level of proof. The remedy is supposed to be the free press to bring these falsehoods to light and thereby stop that. 

So let us look at the free press next (both TV/radio/print and internet based).

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides robust protections for free speech, which extend to the media. Here are some key aspects of these guarantees.

1. Freedom of the Press: The First Amendment explicitly states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." This ensures that the media can publish and disseminate information without government interference.
2. Protection Against Censorship: The government cannot censor or restrict media content based on its viewpoint. This includes both print and digital media.
3. Access to Information: Journalists have the right to access information and conduct investigations, although this can be subject to certain limitations, like national security and privacy laws.
4. Defamation and Libel: While the media is protected, it can be held accountable for false statements that harm someone's reputation, but public figures have a higher burden to prove defamation.
5. Prior Restraint: The government cannot impose prior restraint, or prohibit publication before it occurs, except in very limited circumstances (e.g., national security).

These protections are foundational to a democratic society, promoting an informed public and holding those in power accountable.

The theory was that the free press will hold power accountable and expose mistruths. But is the free press free? The press is largely privately owned and for profit.

A media echo chamber refers to an environment where individuals are exposed primarily to information and opinions that reinforce their existing beliefs. In such settings, dissenting viewpoints are often marginalized or ignored, creating a feedback loop where similar perspectives are amplified. This phenomenon can occur in various media, including social media, news outlets, and online forums, leading to polarization and a lack of critical engagement with diverse viewpoints. The result is that people become more entrenched in their beliefs, which can affect public discourse and understanding.

Media echo chambers can contribute to the formation of captive audiences in several ways:

1. Selective Exposure: People often gravitate towards media sources that reinforce their existing beliefs and opinions. This selective exposure creates an environment where individuals consume similar viewpoints repeatedly, leading to a more confined perspective.
2. Algorithmic Filtering: Social media platforms and news aggregators use algorithms that prioritize content based on users' previous interactions. This can create a feedback loop, where users are continuously exposed to the same ideas and narratives, reinforcing their beliefs and limiting exposure to diverse viewpoints.
3. Community Building: Echo chambers often foster a sense of community among like-minded individuals. This strong group identity can make members feel more compelled to engage with the media that aligns with their views, as it validates their opinions and strengthens group cohesion.
4. Emotional Engagement: Content that aligns with existing beliefs can elicit strong emotional responses, making it more likely for individuals to share and engage with that media. This emotional investment can turn casual media consumption into a more immersive experience, reinforcing the echo chamber.
5. Isolation from Dissenting Views: As individuals become more entrenched in their echo chambers, they may actively avoid or dismiss information that challenges their beliefs. This can create a form of captivity, where they are unwilling or unable to seek out alternative perspectives.

Together, these factors can create an environment where audiences are effectively "captive" to the narratives and information within their echo chambers, limiting critic. A for profit media may like a captive audience a lot since it contributes to their loyal viewer base and thence their bottom line. In #4, I talked about strong emotions being elicited. Some of the strongest emotions are hate, anger, fear, and outrage. Purpose of stoking that is to define the "we" and the "them". 

A second development is the emergence of partisan media that aligns with the political stripe of the viewer which is part and parcel of the emergence of echo chambers. This results in the media treating the politicians in that political stripe very favorably and even hide his/her unfavorable aspects or untruths and the politicians in the opposing stripe very harshly.

Will an echo chamber expose the mistruths of a candidate of that stripe or hold power held by that stripe accountable? Likely no.

An important point.

There has been an increase in the use of deception in political and social discourses. But the constitution's first amendment is clear. 

In our country, tactics and opinions like lies, disinformation, falsely villainize an opponent, exaggeration, innuendo, deflection, applying spin, propaganda, constructing an alternate reality, defamation, conspiracy theories, false equivalences, prejudice and bias, ignorance, exaggerations, twisting what an opponent says or take it out of context, faulty reasoning, misdirection, tarring your opponent with precisely what you are guilty of, flawed whataboutism arguments, media echo chambers, stand up a bogeyman to attack even if it doesn't exist, falsely claim persecution or play the victims game, claim powers and accomplishments in the future or a hypothetical scenario that cannot be evaluated, and repeating a lie again and again until people believe it is the truth, are largely up to voters to discern and judge and discard when casting their votes or shaping their viewpoint IF media and “good” actors do not step up to the plate so I have nothing to say about that except to say I am careful to filter these out the best I can. These are all tools in the dark art of deception and often deployed in political and social discourse. It is crucial for the people to develop media literacy.

Campaign financing is another area worth looking at when looking at the dysfunction.  

In the U.S., campaign funding sources and contribution limits are governed by federal laws and regulations, primarily enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Here’s a detailed overview:

Funding Sources

• Individual Contributions. Personal donations from individuals are the most common source of campaign funding.
• Political Action Committees (PACs). PACs collect contributions from members and donate to candidates or parties. There are two main types:
• Connected PACs: Associated with a corporation or labor union.
• Independent Expenditure-Only PACs (Super PACs): Can raise unlimited amounts but cannot coordinate directly with candidates.

• Party Contributions. National, state, and local party committees can contribute to candidates.
• Self-Funding. Candidates can use their personal funds without limits.
• Public Financing: Available for presidential candidates who meet certain criteria. States may have their own public financing programs for state and local candidates.

Contribution Limits (as of 2023)

1. Individuals: Up to $3,300 per candidate per election (primary and general elections are considered separate).
2. PACs: Up to $5,000 per candidate per election.
3. Party Committees: 
1. National party committees can contribute up to $48,000 to a candidate per election. 
2. State party committees can contribute up to $10,000 per candidate per election.
4. Self-Funding: No limits on how much candidates can contribute from their personal resources.
5. Super PACs: Can raise and spend unlimited funds from individuals, corporations, and unions, but cannot contribute directly to candidates or coordinate with their campaigns.

Disclosure Requirements

Candidates, PACs, and party committees must regularly disclose their contributions and expenditures to the FEC or relevant state authorities. This transparency helps ensure accountability in campaign financing.

Variations by State

Each state has its own laws regarding campaign financing, including different contribution limits and disclosure requirements. Some states may impose stricter limits than federal regulations.

Please note this. In Self-funded campaigns and super PACs, the funding to promote a candidate is unlimited and it is typically mega doners/super wealthy candidates or corporations funding these.

Super PACs can be seen as a concern for democracy because they allow individuals and organizations to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, which can amplify the voices of wealthy donors while overshadowing the average voter. This can lead to unequal influence over candidates and policy, potentially prioritizing the interests of a few over the needs of the many.

Moreover, the lack of strict limits on contributions can create a perception of corruption and undermine trust in the political system. Critics argue that this can erode the principles of a government that is supposed to represent all citizens, not just those with deep pockets. Supporters, on the other hand, claim that Super PACs enhance free speech and allow for more robust political discourse.

Ultimately, the impact of Super PACs on democracy depends on how they are regulated and the broader political culture surrounding campaign financing.

Trust in institutions has waned. Institutional trust and electoral system trust is vital for democracy to flourish. I will drill down on only two key systems - the capitalistic dislocations in the economic system which may be one possible root of the loyalty of at least one segment of Trumps base, and the justice system.

Many of Trump’s supporters were seriously hurt by capitalism like blue collar manufacturing workers and coal miners as these industries were decimated. A few supporters were prone to violence or lacked respect for democracy. Could it be because their representatives who are the living embodiment of democracy gave them nothing useful? They no longer trusted the government. Many were desperate and wanted to believe Trump who positioned himself as an outsider. They are clinging to it even now and are not giving up easily. Unfortunately for them there are numerous recorded instances of Trump not telling the truth (Washington Post count: Trump’s false or misleading claims total 30,573 over 4 years - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/24/trumps-false-or-misleading-claims-total-30573-over-four-years/)), he was twice impeached, he was found guilty of sexual abuse, he was found guilty of fraud and heavily penalized, he was found criminally guilty of falsifying business documents to conceal payments to a porn star, he was criminally indited for obstructing recovery from his property of highly classified documents, he was criminally indited for Jan 6 and his attempt to steal the election, and no, manufacturing and coal did not come back under him. Maybe it is hope they are really hanging on to? There is a possibility Trump’s rise was fueled partly by people seriously hurt by capitalism. But his support is more complicated. The economically dislocated is just one segment of his support   This is the place he started with in Appalachia and busted Midwest towns a long time ago.

Now on to the justice system. The judiciary has the ultimate say on laws for elections, campaigns, democracy and rights.  The controversial electoral college system for presidential elections is well established in law and I will not debate that here since it really is under federal/state legislatures to change only. 

Checks and balances as well as force and counterforce are vital in a democracy. The counterforce is democracies antibodies. The laws and courts and justice systems are a big part of it. Political and organizational leaders and good media fighting back is another big part. But trust in the court and justice system is vital for most effectiveness. 

To illustrate the importance of courts in interpreting election laws, here are some sample decisions primarily by courts. A lot of pre election actions (and post election actions) are in courts. Up to you to dig if you want to know more for each action below. Pre election lawsuits will peak just before the election this year, and there could be a record number of post election lawsuits. But the point is courts play a crucial role so trust is crucial. I will however skip discussion of efforts by parties to undermine trust in the electoral system outside the courts. 

1. The Wisconsin supreme court killed Robert Kennedy's attempts to remove himself from the Wisconsin ballot.
2. The US supreme court killed Robert Kennedy's attempt to add himself to the NY ballet. 
3. The US supreme court killed attempt to disqualify 100,000 Arizona voters from the voter rolls. 
4. The Michigan Supreme Court killed Robert Kennedy's attempt to remove himself from the Michigan ballot. 
5. However, courts upheld Robert Kennedy removing himself from the ballot in NC, AZ, and GA. 
6. Courts killed Alabama removing more than 3000 voters from voter rolls.
7. Court killed a host of controversial election rules passed by GA election board. Appeal rejected by Georgia supreme court.  
8. The Nebraska governor/legislature killed push to change law to award all of Nebraska’s electoral college votes to the winner. The single Omaha electoral college vote is trending democratic.
9. New set of lawsuits filed in battleground states to challenge legitimacy of overseas votes.
10. Push to add Georgia election board handpicked people to run Fulton County election challenged in court by Fulton county. 

The Department of Justice has conducted itself with high integrity, but the anti-democratic proponents will still throw mud on it. The Attorney General has done as good a job as possible under the circumstances. 

The republicans seem to have very coherent strategies to advance lawsuits of benefit to them and have binding precedents set in their favor by the Supreme Court. The Democrats - not so much. They should perhaps form one. From what I read in the news some republican elements are not shy about even "bribing" Supreme Court justices indirectly. But this is too far. The Supreme Court must adopt a code of conduct. 

If the people lose faith in the Supreme Court that is HUGE for our system of government. My view is the Supreme Court is OK except for possibly two justices (Thomas and Alito). The fact the majority tilts right is not evidence at all of anything broken in that institution. This has happened before in history. But the political process to appoint a Supreme Court justice is broken. What Mitch McConnell did to steal a Supreme Court seat for someone with more conservative views was low. I honestly believe the Supreme Court WILL come up themselves with a code of conduct. It just takes some time. It is in their best self-interest to keep the trust of the people. 

The counterbalancing force here is the trust of the people which ultimately gives the court its legitimacy. If people and co-equal branches don’t see it as legitimate, they or the other coequal branches will ignore its ruling as were ignored in the past in a number of cases. The coequal branches may even trim its powers. Or some states may honor the ruling and some states not, resulting in hyperpolarization. The Supreme Court has no mechanism to enforce its rulings. Only the trust of the people and other co-equal branches that it is equitable holds it in place. 

Trust in Supreme court is eroding for four reasons. 

1. Left wing views that the rulings are not equitable. But that is nothing new. Before there were right wing views that its rulings were not equitable. The more extreme the decision, the more the loss of trust on one side at least. The extreme 1857 Supreme Court Dred Scott decision led to massive polarization and ultimately the civil war. The effects of overturning Roe vs Wade are still coursing through the nation. The Supreme Court have seen the effects and unintended consequences of Balkanizing the country and the political strife and polarization seeded.  Actually, I think the Supreme Court will tack a little closer to the center (at least on democracy and rights issues). steered by Kavanaugh and Roberts and Barrett after the right wing and questioned ruling on Roe vs Wade. I think the Supreme Court will also tread more carefully in overturning decades of precedents on democracy/rights issues. 
2. The ethics scandal related to Thomas and Alioto. I think the Supreme Court will say something soon. (update 11/13/2023: Supreme Court just announced a code of ethics for justices, but it has no enforcement mechanism!)
3. Opaque far reaching decisions from the shadow docket. Need more transparency. 
4. The political process to seat a justice is broken. Needs fixing. 

I think they will tread more carefully on democracy/rights issues. This is happening already. However, on other issues favored by the right like curtailing executive power/administrative state, they may not - witness the 5 recent decisions (one of them is well known as overturning the chevron precedent made 40 years back). But surprisingly they are more open to climate support (recently they let stand EPA rules to cut methane emissions, and EPA rules on power plants to cut emissions). 

The 5 rulings on administrative state are:

1. 22-1008 Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors, FRS (07/01/2024) (supremecourt.gov) (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1008new_8n5a.pdf), 
2. 22-451 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (06/28/2024) (supremecourt.gov) (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf), 
3. 23A349 Ohio v. EPA (06/27/2024) (supremecourt.gov) (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a349new_h3ci.pdf), 
4. 22-859 SEC v. Jarkesy (06/27/2024) (supremecourt.gov) (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf), 
5. 602us1r28_7l48.pdf (supremecourt.gov) (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/602us1r28_7l48.pdf)) - NRA v Viego

Here are the example decisions for democracy/rights. 

1. The right wing had a theory (independent state Legislature theory) that the constitution gave the state legislature full control of elections/election law, and it cannot be reviewed by the courts. The Supreme Court threw that argument out.  
2. The Supreme Court also threw out Alabama states argument that redistricting is under the full control of the legislature. Alabama's gerrymandered district lines was deemed as violation of civil rights law. Alabama even tried to defy the Supreme Court ruling by redrawing another gerrymandered line. They got ruled against by the courts again. 
3. The Supreme Court threw out arguments against the abortion pill, which was allowed to be issued without a doctor's visit by FDA. It preserved access to it.
4. It preserved state laws that disallow a domestic abuser from owning a gun which could put the abused under threat. 
5. On presidential immunity, they rightly threw out the argument of absolute immunity for a president.  However, I think the justices went too far in redefining the immunity that the president did possess. While it is vital to protect the institution of the presidency, I think, like Justice Barrett, that the immunity protection was much broader than it needed to be. Checks and balances are also important. The standard the supreme court defined is extremely ambiguous and confusing. Also, they failed to define what exactly is an official act that is a core function of the presidency for which there is immunity, and what is an official act that is not a core function of presidency for which there is at least presumptive immunity, and what is an unofficial act for which there is no immunity. 
6. The supreme court backed away from blocking abortions in emergencies permitted per federal laws in the case of Idaho which banned abortions in its state law.
7. The Supreme Court left in place a Pennsylvania law barring people under 21 from carrying guns. This helps with school shootings. 

There are other factors undermining democracy like influence operations and threat vectors of both domestic and foreign origin but they are beyond the scope of this blog. 

What Chat GPT had to say about this essay. 

You've laid out a comprehensive analysis of the interplay between free speech, the media, campaign finance, and trust in institutions, particularly in the context of U.S. democracy.

Your observations about echo chambers and partisan media highlight the challenges of maintaining a well-informed electorate. The profit-driven nature of media can often lead to sensationalism, which thrives on strong emotions, further polarizing audiences and complicating the public discourse.

The issue of campaign finance is particularly critical, as you've noted, with the rise of Super PACs amplifying the voices of the wealthy and potentially undermining the principle of equal representation. This creates a situation where the interests of a few can overshadow the needs of the many, leading to cynicism about the political process.

Trust in the judicial system, especially the Supreme Court, is vital for the legitimacy of the laws it interprets. Your points about the erosion of trust due to perceived biases and the political processes surrounding judicial appointments are significant. The integrity of the court is foundational for public confidence in democratic institutions.

It's clear that the complexities of these systems contribute to the current political landscape, where misinformation and divisive tactics often overshadow substantive debate. The call for increased media literacy among voters is crucial, as it empowers individuals to critically assess the information they encounter.

Your analysis touches on many intertwined factors that shape the current state of democracy in the U.S. Each element, from campaign financing to media influence, plays a role in either supporting or undermining democratic values.