Is this why Congress can't get anything done?

[Dittohead not!]

[h=1]Are members of Congress becoming telemarketers?[/h]

Nearly every day, they spend hours on the phone asking supporters and even total strangers for campaign donations -- hours spent away from the jobs they were elected to do. The pressure on candidates to raise money has ratcheted up since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010. That allowed unlimited spending by corporations, unions and individuals in elections. So our attention was caught by a proposal from a Republican congressman that would stop members of Congress from dialing for dollars. Given what it costs to get elected today, it's either a courageous act, a campaign ploy or political suicide.

If they're spending 30 hours a week "dialing for dollars" to make their goal of 18 grand a day for reelection, who is minding the store?

And you have to spend hours every day dialing up people and begging for money? Who would even want to be elected to Congress?

 

[MrT]

[h=1]Are members of Congress becoming telemarketers?[/h]

If they're spending 30 hours a week "dialing for dollars" to make their goal of 18 grand a day for reelection, who is minding the store?

And you have to spend hours every day dialing up people and begging for money? Who would even want to be elected to Congress?

One proposal that I have advocated to assist with this issue is to increase the amount of years that Congressmen serve per term to three years. Certainly it is not a panacea, but I figure that making it such that not every other year into an election year should, in theory, reduce the need to always raise additional capital or voters.

 

[Captain Adverse]

[h=1]Are members of Congress becoming telemarketers?[/h]


If they're spending 30 hours a week "dialing for dollars" to make their goal of 18 grand a day for reelection, who is minding the store?

And you have to spend hours every day dialing up people and begging for money? Who would even want to be elected to Congress?

We spend 40 hours a week working for someone else in order to make ends meet, and to allow us to afford the things we need to enjoy our free time.

Is this any different than going back to their Districts to glad-hand and make themselves available for appointments with their constituents?

As for wanting to be elected? Some people do it because they think their one vote can make a difference in Congress (much like we think our one votes have any effect on national politics). These only wake up to reality when they get elected and find how little influence a freshman member of Congress actually has. Other's do it as a stepping stone to personal power, hoping to finagle a career in politics.

At least we know now why it is so difficult for Congressmen to be up on all the issues we hope they are paying attention to, and why they need so many "aides" to provide support for those actions they are interested in.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

It is another reason we need to get money out of politics. It is also why I think we can get the states to call a Constitutional convention to that end. State and local politicians are having to make those phone calls themselves. And most don't particularly enjoy doing so, but they have to in order to compete with their opponents. They can be swayed. Getting the US Congress to do it, though, is likely a lost cause.

 

[Captain Adverse]

It is another reason we need to get money out of politics. It is also why I think we can get the states to call a Constitutional convention to that end. State and local politicians are having to make those phone calls themselves. And most don't particularly enjoy doing so, but they have to in order to compete with their opponents. They can be swayed. Getting the US Congress to do it, though, is likely a lost cause.

It takes money to get elected. It takes money to get re-elected.

Unless you only want the very rich to represent us, how do you expect "common men" to compete for office?

 

[Skeptic Bob]

It takes money to get elected. It takes money to get re-elected.

Unless you only want the very rich to represent us, how do you expect "common men" to compete for office?

Public funding of elections for one. I am also ok with individuals being able to make donations as long as there is a cap on it. Like $100 or so.

Organizations, super PACs, corporations, unions, and any other group should not be allowed to give money or spend on the behalf of politicians. That should be viewed as bribery.

ETA: and there might need to be a cap on personal funds used as well to prevent rich candidates from steamrolling everyone.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Public funding of elections for one. I am also ok with individuals being able to make donations as long as there is a cap on it. Like $100 or so.

Organizations, super PACs, corporations, unions, and any other group should not be allowed to give money or spend on the behalf of politicians. That should be viewed as bribery.

I am not a supporter of PAC's etc., but unless our society is willing to limit campaigning drastically to prevent the need for ANY money...your ideals simply would not work.

 

[Carjosse]

I am not a supporter of PAC's etc., but unless our society is willing to limit campaigning drastically to prevent the need for ANY money...your ideals simply would not work.

That is what Canada does, we have public spending for recognized parties in parliament but they can supplement it with small individual donations from donors. But even then there is a spending limit, though there are a few exceptions like candidates in extraordinarily large ridings larger than some US states.

 

[Captain Adverse]

That is what Canada does, we have public spending for recognized parties in parliament but they can supplement it with small individual donations from donors. But even then there is a spending limit, though there are a few exceptions like candidates in extraordinarily large ridings larger than some US states.

Does Canadian law prevent campaign ads promulgated by support groups not "affiliated" with either Party or candidate?

We would have to pass laws against such campaign support ads, which would then face strict scrutiny by the Courts to prevent violations of First Amendment rights. As a result I doubt the such laws would pass muster here in the USA.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

It takes money to get elected. It takes money to get re-elected.

Unless you only want the very rich to represent us, how do you expect "common men" to compete for office?

Have the government fund the election?

I like how England elects its parliament.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Have the government fund the election?

I like how England elects its parliament.

And who gets funded? Those of "recognized" parties? Anyone who wants to run?

How does this prevent PACs from inundating commercial networks (where most people get their viewpoints from) with campaign support ads?

 

[Carjosse]

Does Canadian law prevent campaign ads promulgated by support groups not "affiliated" with either Party or candidate?

We would have to pass laws against such campaign support ads, which would then face strict scrutiny by the Courts to prevent violations of First Amendment rights. As a result I doubt the such laws would pass muster here in the USA.

Yes they are limited to ~300,000$ for the entire nationwide campaign and ~6200$ per riding. It also varies depending on the length of the campaign, the number is quoted are for the 2015 election which was longer than normal. All contributions over 200$ to these organizations must be made public. They have to clearly state who they are in their ads.

You might want to fix those laws because they undermine American democracy.

 

[Carjosse]

And who gets funded? Those of "recognized" parties? Anyone who wants to run?

How does this prevent PACs from inundating commercial networks (where most people get their viewpoints from) with campaign support ads?

In Canada official party status is a party that has at least 12 seats in the House of Commons which means they get a share of the election funding for the next election.

 

[Captain Adverse]

In Canada official party status is a party that has at least 12 seats in the House of Commons which means they get a share of the election funding for the next election.

Hmm, and how do "non-recognized" parties win 12 seats in the House of Commons in order to qualify for future funding?

 

[Carjosse]

Hmm, and how do "non-recognized" parties win 12 seats in the House of Commons in order to qualify for funding?

By getting popular enough to win that many, up to that point they must fund themselves using the same rules as the other parties. What they usually do is focus their campaign solely in ridings where they actually have a chance of winning.

 

[Captain Adverse]

By getting popular enough to win that many, up to that point they must fund themselves using the same rules as the other parties. What they usually do is focus their campaign solely in ridings where they actually have a chance of winning.

Forgive me but it sounds like a way to maintain control of access to election to government, and make it as difficult as possible to lose power.

This since while new parties have to focus on winning particular elections to reach the 12 number, established parties can use personal funds AND elections funds to counter efforts in high risk election buroughs.

 

[Carjosse]

Hmm, and how do "non-recognized" parties win 12 seats in the House of Commons in order to qualify for future funding?

Unlike the US we have had parties break that threshold, the NDP (fomerly the CCF) did it through the support of unions and blue collar workers and more recently the Bloc Quebecois did it by capturing resentment for the other parties though they are down to 10 seats now after the last election and some defection. The Reform Party which later became the Conservatives after merging the Progressive Conservatives also broke through the threshold by profiting form Western alienation. Essentially they take over a demographic and win the ridings where those demographics rule.

 

[Carjosse]

Forgive me but it sounds like a way to maintain control of access to election to government, and make it as difficult as possible to lose power.

This since while new parties have to focus on winning particular elections to reach the 12 number, established parties can use personal funds AND elections funds to counter efforts in high risk election buroughs.

They will always be the ones win the most seats and we have no problem with governments not being able to lose power. In a way it is, but it is much better than the alternative of allowing private finance to rule our elections. We cannot give money to every political party in the country.

 

[faithful_servant]

One proposal that I have advocated to assist with this issue is to increase the amount of years that Congressmen serve per term to three years. Certainly it is not a panacea, but I figure that making it such that not every other year into an election year should, in theory, reduce the need to always raise additional capital or voters.

..or enact term limits and kick the bums to the curb after 2 terms. That way they only have to do this once and once only.

 

[AlbqOwl]

It is another reason we need to get money out of politics. It is also why I think we can get the states to call a Constitutional convention to that end. State and local politicians are having to make those phone calls themselves. And most don't particularly enjoy doing so, but they have to in order to compete with their opponents. They can be swayed. Getting the US Congress to do it, though, is likely a lost cause.

All it would take is one small simple constitutional amendment making it illegal for anybody in the federal government, elected, appointed, or employed, to use the taxpayer's money to benefit any individual, entity, organization, or demographic that does not benefit all regardless of race, ethnicity, location, or socioeconomic circumstances. Further provisions would state that all persons in government whether elected, appointed, or employed will fund their own healthcare and retirement out of their salaries and there will be no taxpayer dollars involved for that apart from their salaries, and that nobody in government can exempt themselves from the laws and regulations they impose on the rest of us. And possibly some reasonable term limits.

Do that and it won't matter how much they raise for their campaigns. They cannot use our money to benefit anybody so they won't be able to benefit themselves so easily. And if they want to be elected, they will need to provide good government, not just government that is beneficial to their contributors. We might get rid of the permanent political class altogether and start electing true public servants again.

 

[faithful_servant]

Public funding of elections for one. I am also ok with individuals being able to make donations as long as there is a cap on it. Like $100 or so.

Organizations, super PACs, corporations, unions, and any other group should not be allowed to give money or spend on the behalf of politicians. That should be viewed as bribery.

ETA: and there might need to be a cap on personal funds used as well to prevent rich candidates from steamrolling everyone.

So then you end up with people who spend their entire careers running for office on the public paycheck...

As far as eliminating PACS is concerned, aren't you telling people that they can't associate with whoever they want and as part of that group, do whatever they want (as long as it's legal). If I want to get together with my neighbors to donate $1000 each to a candidate who has promised to fix the potholes in our street (and has proven that she keeps her promises), why should anyone tell us that we can't??? I don't think that there should be any limits on personal contributions, as long as every single donation to every candidate is made public.

People keep going on about getting rid of corruption in gov't by stopping the "buyers", but what about the "sellers"??? When do we start dropping the hammer on the people getting bought, instead of just those doing the buying??? I think that's teh best way to address the issue, not by curtailing people's rights, but by dealing with the bought and paid for politicians. Set HIGH standards for how a politician is supposed to act and have people monitoring every politician for any sign of favoritism and if they are found out, BOOM!! Right to the curb!!! If we didn't have politicians with a price tag hanging from their ear, we wouldn't have a problem with people buying them...

 

[Dittohead not!]

It takes money to get elected. It takes money to get re-elected.

Unless you only want the very rich to represent us, how do you expect "common men" to compete for office?

That's the problem. It shouldn't take a lot of money to run for office. The money is used for political advertising, which informs no one and misleads the gullible. How much better would it be to simply have interviews and debates on TV, paid for in the usual way by pushing pills and selling cars on the side, and not have any fund raising at all?

 

[Deuce]

So then you end up with people who spend their entire careers running for office on the public paycheck...

As far as eliminating PACS is concerned, aren't you telling people that they can't associate with whoever they want and as part of that group, do whatever they want (as long as it's legal). If I want to get together with my neighbors to donate $1000 each to a candidate who has promised to fix the potholes in our street (and has proven that she keeps her promises), why should anyone tell us that we can't??? I don't think that there should be any limits on personal contributions, as long as every single donation to every candidate is made public.

People keep going on about getting rid of corruption in gov't by stopping the "buyers", but what about the "sellers"??? When do we start dropping the hammer on the people getting bought, instead of just those doing the buying??? I think that's teh best way to address the issue, not by curtailing people's rights, but by dealing with the bought and paid for politicians. Set HIGH standards for how a politician is supposed to act and have people monitoring every politician for any sign of favoritism and if they are found out, BOOM!! Right to the curb!!! If we didn't have politicians with a price tag hanging from their ear, we wouldn't have a problem with people buying them...

Because you can't simultaneously have the freedom to donate unlimited funds and also eliminate the influence of money. It's impossible. The guy with a billion dollar backer gets to spend all kinds of money convincing you he's the best man for the job, and it works. You've voted for just as many corrupt, bought assholes as the rest of us all the while thinking your guy is "one of the good ones."

 

[Helix]

Public funding of elections for one. I am also ok with individuals being able to make donations as long as there is a cap on it. Like $100 or so.

i'd let them go slightly higher, but would also support requiring full disclosure on a public website for every donation. as for public funding, yeah, i'm for that now. enough is enough. i mean, just look at this ****.

 

[faithful_servant]

Because you can't simultaneously have the freedom to donate unlimited funds and also eliminate the influence of money. It's impossible. The guy with a billion dollar backer gets to spend all kinds of money convincing you he's the best man for the job, and it works. You've voted for just as many corrupt, bought assholes as the rest of us all the while thinking your guy is "one of the good ones."

It's the idea that all elected officials are corrupt that has paralyzed us. We need term limits to keep people from hoarding power and to let us see that there are options other than accepting the corruption. Our elected officials MUST be above the influence of campaign donations and we accomplish that by taking away as much of the campaigning as possible. We also should make EVERY donation public information - no more anonymous donations of ANY size. Then we start playing connect the dots between the $$ and the decisions made by our elected officials and if anything looks out of whack, the elected official gets out of office. We've accepted a low standard from our elected officials and it's time to bring that to a screeching halt and start DEMANDING the highest standards.