- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 34,971
- Reaction score
- 12,365
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Absolutely not.
The only serious campaign finance reform I would support is one that puts all donations into a collective pool to be paid out equally to all eligible candidates. That's the only way to even the playing field between the major and any third parties. It also helps ensure politicians remain loyal to the voters and not those promising large campaign donations.
They'll find other ways to influence candidates
But to avoid falling behind we have to:And then we should address that.
People will always find ways to exploit systems for personal benefit. It's a constantly moving target. What's important is that we, the people, don't fall too far behind in keeping them in check. It's part of that "eternal vigilance" thing.
You can never level the playing field, not when corporations can pay millions of dollars to buy politicians. The only way to fix the problem is to eliminate the money. If we stop allowing anyone, corporations and citizens alike, to pay money directly into a politician's coffers, if we stop them from taking *ANY* money from *ANYONE*, then there is no undue influence from special interests.
Which is why restrictions will never work.
If we can't limit campaign funding, we need to require disclosure.
Absolute, complete, and before the campaign ends.
If you can't show where some money came from, it should raise red flags and the like.
- Can't vote, can't contribute. IOW, only beings that can enter a voting booth and legally vote can contribute. That means no corporations, no foreign nationals, no PACs or committees, no out-of-state American citizens in state elections, and so on.
- ALL contributions must be made public within 48 hours.
- No contributions within 5 days prior to the election.
- All political ads must have a person's name that is qualified to contribute per above behind it.
- All left over contributions would be pro-rated and returned to the contributors after the election, which means there would be no phantom contributions and all campaigns would start from scratch (equal footing).
Not more than we currently have. People have always found a way to funnel the money. Likewise banning contributions seems to be pointlessly utopian.
I always thought the campaign finance laws were ridiculous.
Scenario 1: An individual likes everything one politician stands for and wants to help him/her get into the White House by donating some money. It doesn't matter the dollar amount. At least in a society that claims it is supposed to be for the people by the people, this shouldn't even be restricted as it is.
Scenario 2: Banks, Corporations, Unions, and other populist public interest groups, can donate to the campaigns and political organizations this politician belongs to. Never directly to the individual themselves.
Conclusion: Isn't it the same thing? and should it just be reformed to reflect scenario one instead of scenario two. So that the 1% can stop hiding behind the cloak of fundraising. So that we as a public can see where each individual truly has allegiances to? I'm not saying that this will automatically happen if individuals were allowed to donate to specific candidates but I think it just makes more sense then setting up small shell organizations to funnel money to friends of politicians who can easily allow them to take whatever the heck they wanted out of said fund. Sure, it's illegal but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen under some of these umbrellas. EX: Bob McDonnel/Ron Paul.
PS: I don't think corporations should be excluded from campaigns anymore than populist groups. I just think individuals shouldn't be excluded either.
To me it's one of the most common over-looked problems in DC and number one cause of polarization.
Thanks.I really like this idea. Except can you explain number four a little bit more. I don't don't really get it. Since all political ads these days have the politician themselves endorsing it, or the organizations name somewhere on it.
I always thought the campaign finance laws were ridiculous.
Scenario 1: An individual likes everything one politician stands for and wants to help him/her get into the White House by donating some money. It doesn't matter the dollar amount. At least in a society that claims it is supposed to be for the people by the people, this shouldn't even be restricted as it is.
Scenario 2: Banks, Corporations, Unions, and other populist public interest groups, can donate to the campaigns and political organizations this politician belongs to. Never directly to the individual themselves.
Conclusion: Isn't it the same thing? and should it just be reformed to reflect scenario one instead of scenario two. So that the 1% can stop hiding behind the cloak of fundraising. So that we as a public can see where each individual truly has allegiances to? I'm not saying that this will automatically happen if individuals were allowed to donate to specific candidates but I think it just makes more sense then setting up small shell organizations to funnel money to friends of politicians who can easily allow them to take whatever the heck they wanted out of said fund. Sure, it's illegal but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen under some of these umbrellas. EX: Bob McDonnel/Ron Paul.
PS: I don't think corporations should be excluded from campaigns anymore than populist groups. I just think individuals shouldn't be excluded either.
To me it's one of the most common over-looked problems in DC and number one cause of polarization.
Thanks.
#4: Instead of something like "Citizens for Fair Campaigns" at the end of a negative attack ad, which doesn't tell us anything, require that a person's real name stand up for it. If John Smith is financing Citizens for Fair Campaigns, then put John Smith's name on it.
I know it's not perfect, and there would be attempts around the intent, but I think it'd be a step in the right direction.
While i understand what you are getting at right now, in order to do this reform you would have to literally deny a person to give to charity. People donating money to political organizations and those political organizations distributing it to their members so that they can get elected is completely legal an a backbone of our political society.
I don't think there should be contribution limits or disclosure requirements.
I don't really understand that. Campaign contributions are a form of legalized bribery of elected officials. As far as I'm concerned, we have the right and the obligation to limit the amount of the bribes and to disclose the person offering the bribe (over some de minimis amount - a few $100 or so), in real time. It seems self evident that if Joe Corn Farmer and all his corn farmer friends give the maximum to Sen. Kansas, and then Kansas votes for increasing corn subsidies, that we should be able to draw a line between the bribe (and it is a bribe) and the vote.
And I don't really understand why we allow transnational corporations with operations and owners all over the globe to contribute to U.S. elections. Those businesses have no allegiance to the U.S. and quite frankly are agnostic about how any policy will affect citizens OF the U.S. If it benefits them to move a plant overseas and hollow out a town, they'll do it without a second thought. We might as well allow Chinese banks to contribute or Saudi oil companies or Russian natural gas companies. I have no problems with U.S. citizens who are employees of those companies contributing like the rest of us, but I see no reason to allow corporate treasury to be used as the funding source.
And we hear "Money = speech" or "if you limit the money then you must by definition limit speech" and those are true enough. But what that accepts as a NECESSARY evil is a $billionaire has roughly a $billion times the "speech" of a poor person. I just don't believe that was the kind of world the founders intended. If they'd wanted an oligarchy/plutocracy, they could have written an oligarchy into the Constitution.
There is risk in any system. I prefer the risk of money to the risk of state-rationed political speech.
Except there really is no limit on speech. Jamie Dimon has 100 different outlets. Can travel and meet with officials. Call up and get an audience with reporters on TV and print. Write editorials. Assemble meetings and rallies. Etc.
In other words I don't see his or JPM's inability to spend $100 million on ads as any bigger restraint on actual speech than my inability to because I'm relatively poor. And I have effectively no ready outlets ready to hear my views.
Limits on money put the state in position to ration political speech.
Sure, but do you really want a country where the billionaires dominate political speech and drown out the voices of the other 99.99% of the country? And why in the world should that bribery/extortion be allowed to happen in secret?
I guess I don't see non-rationing as a worthwhile goal, not when it comes to "political speech" which by that we mean the ability to flood the airways with ads. it's a trade off for sure, but the harm in 'rationing' the speech of a billionaire with no limits on what he can say or write, and with 100 different options to make his or her opinion known, is slight, and the harm in allowing a small number of plutocrats to control the entire political message potentially destructive to the very idea of a representative republic, and one man one vote.
I don't really understand that. Campaign contributions are a form of legalized bribery of elected officials. As far as I'm concerned, we have the right and the obligation to limit the amount of the bribes and to disclose the person offering the bribe (over some de minimis amount - a few $100 or so), in real time. It seems self evident that if Joe Corn Farmer and all his corn farmer friends give the maximum to Sen. Kansas, and then Kansas votes for increasing corn subsidies, that we should be able to draw a line between the bribe (and it is a bribe) and the vote.
And I don't really understand why we allow transnational corporations with operations and owners all over the globe to contribute to U.S. elections. Those businesses have no allegiance to the U.S. and quite frankly are agnostic about how any policy will affect citizens OF the U.S. If it benefits them to move a plant overseas and hollow out a town, they'll do it without a second thought. We might as well allow Chinese banks to contribute or Saudi oil companies or Russian natural gas companies. I have no problems with U.S. citizens who are employees of those companies contributing like the rest of us, but I see no reason to allow corporate treasury to be used as the funding source.
And we hear "Money = speech" or "if you limit the money then you must by definition limit speech" and those are true enough. But what that accepts as a NECESSARY evil is a $billionaire has roughly a $billion times the "speech" of a poor person. I just don't believe that was the kind of world the founders intended. If they'd wanted an oligarchy/plutocracy, they could have written an oligarchy into the Constitution.
In earlier posts I advocate "can't vote, can't contribute", and immediate and full open disclosure. What I didn't mention was that I would place no limits on the amount. As long as it's a person who is eligible to vote on on the candidate/issue, and there is immediate public disclosure, then like you say, there should be no limit for the person who believes in (or against, as the case may be) a candidate/issue.I may sound a little naive right now but what about when people just simply agree with a politicians ideals? is it a crime to support someone with whom you agree with? your saying a few hundred max per person but it can take thousands to get an advertisement on television, not to mention reserving spots to hold announcements, travel fair, renting out buildings a campaign headquarters and even just local branches for the campaign. President Obama spent over a billion in his presidential campaign alone, Romney just short of a billion on his failed campaign. i mean you would need thousands and thousands of people donating the max amount to reach half of that and you expect that to fund campaigns? Are you trying to make congress singularly old rich white guys or maybe snotty trust-fund millionaire kids? cause i don't know about you (and if you have reached this success level congratulations , you should legitimately be proud cause i respect the people who have gotten there) but im middle class and i don't have nearly enough money to fund a political campaign, let alone one that has a bare minimum of 50% chance of failing.
No, like i said in an earlier post, I understand where you are going for, im not naive enough to think all politicians are perfect and don't take bribes, but to restrain funding to political campaigns is the equivalent of denying a person the right to give to charity. No, what we need to do is have a constant surveillance on monetary movement to and from politicians, along with a separate, non-partisan comity specifically looking into any claims or possibility of bribes based off of both the first comity findings and and reports brought forward. This might sound like more people to get bribed but some barrier is better than none, i will agree with that at least.
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?