A combination of public financing, limits on individual donations and banning corporate donations and the practice called bundling would be the best thing we could to ensure our democracy.
Arizona and Maine have a public financing element in their campaign financing schemes, and the results have been startling. According to independent research, three things happened after they adopted their systems:
1) Candidates spent much more time during campaigns engaging voters on issues,
2) More quality people entered political contests because they didn't have to spend hours on end dialing for dollars.
3) It leveled the playing field with the super rich who can self-finance their campaigns.
Their are hordes of good, honest people leaving public service because of the unseemly way campaigns are financed and the corrupting influence money has on them.
There has to be some limits put on the ridiculous sums of money being spent on many elections. There is little fairness in an election when one candidate has all the money.
Whether that money comes from corporations, self-funding, or labor unions - it has a propensity to "buy" government office. The little guy doesn't have much chance, even though he or she may be the better candidate and have the public interest at heart.
I am not big on having the government fund elections but I do not see any other way to bring about relative fairness of elections. We have way too many incumbents being re-elected. The people have not been doing their job - that is, to throw the bums out when they don't perform in the best interest of their constituency.
Good question, Peter. I don't think we should place any entity above (or even on par with) individuals. Unions and corporations have crowded out individual involvement in politics. People have become disengaged and apathetic in part because their voices are drowned out by big institutions.
Union and corporations should be limited to encouraging their constituents to contribute, vote and run for political office.
Another corrupting influence that needs to be eliminated are the so-called Leadership PACS by members of Congress. They are grossly distorting the political process. It's legal bribery that's causing Congress people to vote the interests of their campaign treasuries rather than the interests of their constituents.
There is no reason why corporations which are directly affected by congressional policies should not have some sort of way to promote their interests to the public at large.
Once you start limiting who can donate what, you take a form of political speech away and that is a slippery slope indeed.
I think the only fair way to ensure a candidates message is heard is to let the market decided if it wants to hear it.
With the internet anyone can get a message out. If its a good one it will become popular. The tea parties didn't start with corporate backing or large sums of money from some other entity, and look at the power it has garnered.
Freedom to do what you want with your cash is essential to liberty.
I agree with Peter. I'd just like to see more transparency, if someone wants to buy an "Attack Ad" for instance it should be stated who is paying for this, and if it's a PAC it should be very easy to find out who is financially supporting it and the candidates. That way the market (voters) can make an informed decision whether to believe an ad or not.
Peter, having been a member of a union, I can tell you that they dont in most cases always represent the people they consist of. It adds another ring for the individual to jump through.... they think the union is voicing their concerns but really isnt. The way it SHOULD work is the union should be interacting with it's membership, telling them hey this guy represents and is working toward our goals... Then send them to the polls. In that way in my viewpoint if the union is really representing its members it's desired candidate will get its votes. If it's a crooked union thats disinterested or disconnected from its membership, then well it's another nail in the coffin of it's demise.
I dont like the "market" comment but it just shows that in a way you agree with Dennis, but the market should consist of people, not entities. Freedom to do what you want with your cash IS an essential to individual liberty, when applied to the corporate or entity, it isnt som much as it will eventually drown out the individual, A company wants a building that houses individuals because it wants to have an advantage. Is it right or fair to spend the money to do this and put all those people out into the street because they dont have the money the company does?
This is supposed to be a govt of the people, by the people and for the people.....not of the corporations, by the cash and for the people.
The U.S Chamber of Commerce issue is a fallacy created by Obama who can't bring any evidence and when asked to do so they said, can they prove they aren't using foreign money?
Kyle I agree that unions don't represent their members interest, they represent the interest of the union leadership.
As for you comment on corporations drowning out the people, the people can then choose to not support that company (unless its a health insurance company but thats a different story). But the corporation doesn't have a vote in the election. Spending money is the only way it has to represent its interest. People have a free way to control what gets done and in an election year that power far outweighs that of the corporations.
......And therefore I don't think you should be allowed to vote. I also don't think you should be allowed to vote if you are on welfare since more than likely you are going to vote for the man who will take more from the people that earn their money and give it to you.
Another example of "freedom is my right but not your's".
If you don't meet the class standards, then you don't vote.
Too bad the founding fathers and others in our history didn't feel the same way. They never would have permitted the rabble the right to vote.
Oh wait, wasn't a war fought in order to insure that the common people (regardless of education or economic standing) be allowed a voice?
Howard, this would be a great poll question. Should the right to vote be limited?
That's what repressive regimes do, not free countries.
I can't believe anybody who seems to think of himself as some sort of libertarian would argue that there should be litmus tests for voting.
As a free American it is my right, if I so choose, to spend my time eating Ruffles, watching Jerry Springer and ignoring the entire political process. If I don't give a rip who the sitting Supreme Court Chief Justice is, who my state assemblyman is or whether I'm paying a seven percent sales tax or an eight percent on Plasma TV, that's my right as a free American.
It is my right, as a free American, to be as reprehensible as you want to see me. As a free American, I don't need to live up to your standards.
A lack of caring might be regrettable, and it might not even be good for democracy, but what good is democracy if it tells me in any way how to live my life?
You're always talking about keeping government out of our lives, but you want to bring along the Thought Police to tell us what we should know or value in order to vote?
Frightening.
What is the saying we've been hearing recently: When Fascism comes to America, it will be waving a flag and carrying a cross.
The scares me as much as Obama's possible socialism.
Women were not permitted to vote or run for public office until 1920. One might say that the "founding fathers and others in our history" did feel, to some degree, the same way.
And let's not forget that originally, only land owners could vote.
One of the geniuses of our Founders, I think, is that they were far seeing enough to fashion a system of government that would promote and extend freedom for all even in the midst of a society that was not yet ready for such completely liberal ideas.
Peter, I'm not arguing against your freedom to think and believe as you do.
And I don't disagree that people _should_ be fully informed and educated on civic and political issues.
I'm reacting to your statement that "people not be allowed to vote."
Who imposes the "not allowed to vote" part? The government? Who else would do it. You're implying if not explicitly stating that some people's freedoms should be taken away because they don't comply with your or my standards.
I reject that notion completely.
We don't need the government deciding who or who shouldn't vote, at least not based on values imposed by others.
This is precisely the argument for more transparency in campaign finance. Too many ignorant people vote for the best tv campaign ad or who some pundit says is the right one rather than actually paying attention to what the candidate is about. Make it more obvious. Dolts have the right to vote and will continue to do so and I wouldn't have it any other way. We just have to go with the lowest common denominator.
1) Above you're arguing that corporations should be able to contribute freely. So I'll throw it right back at you, should a corporation's CEO be forced to take a civic's test before he can make a political contribution?
2) Bringing in illegal aliens is a complete non-sequitur. I don't even think I should address it. We're talking about imposing value judgments -- what people should know -- not citizenship or legal status.
3) Driver's license, doctors, etc., again, an irrelevant non-sequitur. It's not the same thinking because it's not the same thing. Ever hear of apples and oranges comparisons.
We've survived more than 200 years being run by a government elected by people who are misinformed. it will never be any different. I recommend reading Walter Lippmann's "Public Opinion."
BTW: If we impose such a rule, you would be disqualified for saying that "Congress makes the budget." That's not accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget If I become dictator, you won't mind me saying you can't vote, will you?
Although I don't like the idea of public financing for political campaigns (I never give the dollar on my tax return) I think something does need to change. Ask yourselves if say Andrew Cuomo, Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand & Chris Lee are so obviously way ahead in their individual races; why then are people still contributing to their campaigns? Cuomo, Schumer and Gillibrand have fortunes in campaign cash. I don't think it's because someone wants to support the candidate who believes the same things as they do. I say it's for access after they're in office, I say it's about influence. I don't like lobbying, I don't like political groups who'll attack a candidate if they don't heel to the agenda the group is pushing. I believe in freedom, but this pay to play influence thing has gone way too far. Vote for people who won't owe anyone anything. Who cares about ideology, integrity is far more important.
You contradict yourself somewhat in sticking up for the U.S. Chamber and then saying people can choose not to patronize corporations that contribute. The U.S. Chamber is hiding the names of the corporations that are donating millions, precisely because they are fearful people will react to their political contributions.
Based on your statements, I have to label you misinformed, so therefore I am revoking your right to vote.
Peter, you have to let uninformed people vote. That's how Republicans get elected. Democrats too, I make sure the uninformed or misinformed people in my life know who to vote for. I tell them to vote for every Democrat and every Libertarian who is running against a Republican without a Democrat in the race. They do it because they trust me and they know I wouldn't steer them wrong.
Dave, you know what happens to the money that is donated to a candidate who is in safe race? He redistributes it to candidates in tight races. That's how incumbents buy influence and win leadership positions.
Howard, I have to disagree with you about the budget, Peter is right, the President doesn't make the budget, he sends a proposal to Congress which can pass or deny it. They send the budget to the President for approval, if he vetoes it, Congress can still pass it without his approval. The President cannot put a budget in place without Congressional approval. Ultimately, Congress is responsible for deficits or surpluses. As a concession however, generally, I blame all of them. Except Ron Paul of course.
Dave, I don't think you can lay all the blame at the feet of Congress. The reason the president proposes the budget is because he's the chief executive, which means leadership. Whatever he proposes sets the tone. Congress has the power in our checks and balances system to say, "whoa, wait a minute," but they never do. They usually say (and it doesn't matter if it's Republican controlled or Democratic controlled), "hey, you're not spending enough money. Let's spend more!" And then the president sort of shrugs and goes along with it. It's a group effort to screw the country.
But to put it all on Congress just isn't accurate.
Howard, when I said I blame all of them, I should have said, I blame all of them, COngress and the Presidents, my fault, I wasn't clear. I think you are so right re: "It's a group effort to screw the country." No doubt about that.
This was written in 1985. 25 years later and what have we done about it? Nothing. Same crap. Ultimately, actually we are to blame for sending these slimeballs back again and again.
My tax money should not be
My tax money should not be used to pay for a politicians interviews (which is what a campaign is) to get a job.
A combination of public
A combination of public financing, limits on individual donations and banning corporate donations and the practice called bundling would be the best thing we could to ensure our democracy.
Arizona and Maine have a public financing element in their campaign financing schemes, and the results have been startling. According to independent research, three things happened after they adopted their systems:
1) Candidates spent much more time during campaigns engaging voters on issues,
2) More quality people entered political contests because they didn't have to spend hours on end dialing for dollars.
3) It leveled the playing field with the super rich who can self-finance their campaigns.
Their are hordes of good, honest people leaving public service because of the unseemly way campaigns are financed and the corrupting influence money has on them.
Good question, Howard.
Dennis, what about Unions
Dennis, what about Unions should they be able to donate? PACs? Why can't legal entities donate to politicians that represent their interest?
There has to be some limits
There has to be some limits put on the ridiculous sums of money being spent on many elections. There is little fairness in an election when one candidate has all the money.
Whether that money comes from corporations, self-funding, or labor unions - it has a propensity to "buy" government office. The little guy doesn't have much chance, even though he or she may be the better candidate and have the public interest at heart.
I am not big on having the government fund elections but I do not see any other way to bring about relative fairness of elections. We have way too many incumbents being re-elected. The people have not been doing their job - that is, to throw the bums out when they don't perform in the best interest of their constituency.
Good question, Peter. I don't
Good question, Peter. I don't think we should place any entity above (or even on par with) individuals. Unions and corporations have crowded out individual involvement in politics. People have become disengaged and apathetic in part because their voices are drowned out by big institutions.
Union and corporations should be limited to encouraging their constituents to contribute, vote and run for political office.
Another corrupting influence that needs to be eliminated are the so-called Leadership PACS by members of Congress. They are grossly distorting the political process. It's legal bribery that's causing Congress people to vote the interests of their campaign treasuries rather than the interests of their constituents.
I think you're wrong. There
I think you're wrong.
There is no reason why corporations which are directly affected by congressional policies should not have some sort of way to promote their interests to the public at large.
Once you start limiting who can donate what, you take a form of political speech away and that is a slippery slope indeed.
I think the only fair way to ensure a candidates message is heard is to let the market decided if it wants to hear it.
With the internet anyone can get a message out. If its a good one it will become popular. The tea parties didn't start with corporate backing or large sums of money from some other entity, and look at the power it has garnered.
Freedom to do what you want with your cash is essential to liberty.
I agree with Peter. I'd just
I agree with Peter. I'd just like to see more transparency, if someone wants to buy an "Attack Ad" for instance it should be stated who is paying for this, and if it's a PAC it should be very easy to find out who is financially supporting it and the candidates. That way the market (voters) can make an informed decision whether to believe an ad or not.
Peter, having been a member
Peter, having been a member of a union, I can tell you that they dont in most cases always represent the people they consist of. It adds another ring for the individual to jump through.... they think the union is voicing their concerns but really isnt. The way it SHOULD work is the union should be interacting with it's membership, telling them hey this guy represents and is working toward our goals... Then send them to the polls. In that way in my viewpoint if the union is really representing its members it's desired candidate will get its votes. If it's a crooked union thats disinterested or disconnected from its membership, then well it's another nail in the coffin of it's demise.
I dont like the "market" comment but it just shows that in a way you agree with Dennis, but the market should consist of people, not entities. Freedom to do what you want with your cash IS an essential to individual liberty, when applied to the corporate or entity, it isnt som much as it will eventually drown out the individual, A company wants a building that houses individuals because it wants to have an advantage. Is it right or fair to spend the money to do this and put all those people out into the street because they dont have the money the company does?
This is supposed to be a govt of the people, by the people and for the people.....not of the corporations, by the cash and for the people.
Peter says "Freedom to do
Peter says "Freedom to do what you want with your cash is essential to liberty."
So, in your book, vote buying is OK. How about if corporation pay minorities not to vote?
How about cash from foreign countries, like the U.S. Chamber is currently using?
The U.S Chamber of Commerce
The U.S Chamber of Commerce issue is a fallacy created by Obama who can't bring any evidence and when asked to do so they said, can they prove they aren't using foreign money?
Kyle I agree that unions don't represent their members interest, they represent the interest of the union leadership.
As for you comment on corporations drowning out the people, the people can then choose to not support that company (unless its a health insurance company but thats a different story). But the corporation doesn't have a vote in the election. Spending money is the only way it has to represent its interest. People have a free way to control what gets done and in an election year that power far outweighs that of the corporations.
......And therefore I don't
......And therefore I don't think you should be allowed to vote. I also don't think you should be allowed to vote if you are on welfare since more than likely you are going to vote for the man who will take more from the people that earn their money and give it to you.
Another example of "freedom is my right but not your's".
If you don't meet the class standards, then you don't vote.
Too bad the founding fathers and others in our history didn't feel the same way. They never would have permitted the rabble the right to vote.
Oh wait, wasn't a war fought in order to insure that the common people (regardless of education or economic standing) be allowed a voice?
Howard, this would be a great poll question. Should the right to vote be limited?
"Not be allowed to
"Not be allowed to vote"?
That's what repressive regimes do, not free countries.
I can't believe anybody who seems to think of himself as some sort of libertarian would argue that there should be litmus tests for voting.
As a free American it is my right, if I so choose, to spend my time eating Ruffles, watching Jerry Springer and ignoring the entire political process. If I don't give a rip who the sitting Supreme Court Chief Justice is, who my state assemblyman is or whether I'm paying a seven percent sales tax or an eight percent on Plasma TV, that's my right as a free American.
It is my right, as a free American, to be as reprehensible as you want to see me. As a free American, I don't need to live up to your standards.
A lack of caring might be regrettable, and it might not even be good for democracy, but what good is democracy if it tells me in any way how to live my life?
You're always talking about keeping government out of our lives, but you want to bring along the Thought Police to tell us what we should know or value in order to vote?
Frightening.
What is the saying we've been hearing recently: When Fascism comes to America, it will be waving a flag and carrying a cross.
The scares me as much as Obama's possible socialism.
Women were not permitted to
Women were not permitted to vote or run for public office until 1920. One might say that the "founding fathers and others in our history" did feel, to some degree, the same way.
I didn't even get into the
I didn't even get into the whole Poll Tax thing.
And let's not forget that originally, only land owners could vote.
One of the geniuses of our Founders, I think, is that they were far seeing enough to fashion a system of government that would promote and extend freedom for all even in the midst of a society that was not yet ready for such completely liberal ideas.
...
...
Peter, I'm not arguing
Peter, I'm not arguing against your freedom to think and believe as you do.
And I don't disagree that people _should_ be fully informed and educated on civic and political issues.
I'm reacting to your statement that "people not be allowed to vote."
Who imposes the "not allowed to vote" part? The government? Who else would do it. You're implying if not explicitly stating that some people's freedoms should be taken away because they don't comply with your or my standards.
I reject that notion completely.
We don't need the government deciding who or who shouldn't vote, at least not based on values imposed by others.
...
...
Peter, even the government
Peter, even the government doesn't know how it works, lets fire all of them.
This is precisely the
This is precisely the argument for more transparency in campaign finance. Too many ignorant people vote for the best tv campaign ad or who some pundit says is the right one rather than actually paying attention to what the candidate is about. Make it more obvious. Dolts have the right to vote and will continue to do so and I wouldn't have it any other way. We just have to go with the lowest common denominator.
Peter, that's non-sense. 1)
Peter, that's non-sense.
1) Above you're arguing that corporations should be able to contribute freely. So I'll throw it right back at you, should a corporation's CEO be forced to take a civic's test before he can make a political contribution?
2) Bringing in illegal aliens is a complete non-sequitur. I don't even think I should address it. We're talking about imposing value judgments -- what people should know -- not citizenship or legal status.
3) Driver's license, doctors, etc., again, an irrelevant non-sequitur. It's not the same thinking because it's not the same thing. Ever hear of apples and oranges comparisons.
We've survived more than 200 years being run by a government elected by people who are misinformed. it will never be any different. I recommend reading Walter Lippmann's "Public Opinion."
BTW: If we impose such a rule, you would be disqualified for saying that "Congress makes the budget." That's not accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget If I become dictator, you won't mind me saying you can't vote, will you?
Although I don't like the
Although I don't like the idea of public financing for political campaigns (I never give the dollar on my tax return) I think something does need to change. Ask yourselves if say Andrew Cuomo, Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand & Chris Lee are so obviously way ahead in their individual races; why then are people still contributing to their campaigns? Cuomo, Schumer and Gillibrand have fortunes in campaign cash. I don't think it's because someone wants to support the candidate who believes the same things as they do. I say it's for access after they're in office, I say it's about influence. I don't like lobbying, I don't like political groups who'll attack a candidate if they don't heel to the agenda the group is pushing. I believe in freedom, but this pay to play influence thing has gone way too far. Vote for people who won't owe anyone anything. Who cares about ideology, integrity is far more important.
http://www.campaignmoney.com/
http://www.albanyinc.com/alb07.html
Peter - You contradict
Peter -
You contradict yourself somewhat in sticking up for the U.S. Chamber and then saying people can choose not to patronize corporations that contribute. The U.S. Chamber is hiding the names of the corporations that are donating millions, precisely because they are fearful people will react to their political contributions.
Based on your statements, I have to label you misinformed, so therefore I am revoking your right to vote.
Peter, you have to let
Peter, you have to let uninformed people vote. That's how Republicans get elected. Democrats too, I make sure the uninformed or misinformed people in my life know who to vote for. I tell them to vote for every Democrat and every Libertarian who is running against a Republican without a Democrat in the race. They do it because they trust me and they know I wouldn't steer them wrong.
Dave, you know what happens
Dave, you know what happens to the money that is donated to a candidate who is in safe race? He redistributes it to candidates in tight races. That's how incumbents buy influence and win leadership positions.
Thanks, Howard, it is still
Thanks, Howard, it is still buying influence, not supporting good government.
Howard, if Harry Reid loses
Howard, if Harry Reid loses his seat, but the Democrats retain the majority in the Senate, do you think Schumer may be the next majority leader?
Howard, I have to disagree
Howard, I have to disagree with you about the budget, Peter is right, the President doesn't make the budget, he sends a proposal to Congress which can pass or deny it. They send the budget to the President for approval, if he vetoes it, Congress can still pass it without his approval. The President cannot put a budget in place without Congressional approval. Ultimately, Congress is responsible for deficits or surpluses. As a concession however, generally, I blame all of them. Except Ron Paul of course.
Dave, I don't think you can
Dave, I don't think you can lay all the blame at the feet of Congress. The reason the president proposes the budget is because he's the chief executive, which means leadership. Whatever he proposes sets the tone. Congress has the power in our checks and balances system to say, "whoa, wait a minute," but they never do. They usually say (and it doesn't matter if it's Republican controlled or Democratic controlled), "hey, you're not spending enough money. Let's spend more!" And then the president sort of shrugs and goes along with it. It's a group effort to screw the country.
But to put it all on Congress just isn't accurate.
...
...
Howard, when I said I blame
Howard, when I said I blame all of them, I should have said, I blame all of them, COngress and the Presidents, my fault, I wasn't clear. I think you are so right re: "It's a group effort to screw the country." No doubt about that.
This was written in 1985. 25
This was written in 1985. 25 years later and what have we done about it? Nothing. Same crap. Ultimately, actually we are to blame for sending these slimeballs back again and again.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18568.htm
Speaking of Campaign
Speaking of Campaign Financing:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rTATag9pS80?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rTATag9pS80?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>