- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Messages
- 52,009
- Reaction score
- 33,944
- Location
- The Golden State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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.
[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?
[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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hmm, and how do "non-recognized" parties win 12 seats in the House of Commons in order to qualify for future funding?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?