So it would appear that the majority of voters in this poll would like to keep the status quo of any organization (yes even foreign governments) being able to contribute to a political campaign over the public financing alternative which would provide equal funding to candidates.
I guess they would prefer to continue to allow the wealthy special interests to fund the campaigns of their favorite candidates rather than all candidates having equal resources and let their messages stand on their own.
The biggest issue for me with public financing is: Who gets to decide who is worthy of receiving the public funds? It just smacks of party politics and elitism. Incumbency is the biggest factor in winning any election, not money. More transparency about where candidates get their money, term limits, easier ballot access and getting rid of party caucuses in the legislative body are the answers.
People mistakenly see this as politicians getting another break when in fact; it would level the playing field and get out these entrenched politicians. The key is how this would be implemented. I don’t think politicians should be given money. Instead they should be given a set amount of print and TV time to explain their platform. Everyone running should get the same amount of time and space.
Not only would I like to see finance reform, i also would like to see time limits implemented. England is a good example. They have campaigning 6 weeks prior to the election, not 18 months before.
How about leveling the playing field by allowing no public money(savings to the taxpayer), as Charlie mentioned set amounts of TV and print ads, add strict cap on total spent with graduated limits($100 million for President; $25 million for Senate.; so on down to $1,000 for local dogcatcher) numbers may be way off, but you get the idea. 1st violation results in reduction in spending cap, 2nd violation would mean removal from the ballot. I also like Bud's idea of limiting the campaign season.
I voted yes. I also like the Idea that Bud brought up about time limits. We shouldn't have to hear politicians trying to butter us up for a year and half prior to the election.
I agree with Dave Meyer to a certain extent. I don't think eliminating public money from elections will guarantee that only extremely wealthy candidates will win. Take for instance Ross Perot and George H. Bush they were both considerably more wealthy than Bill Clinton and yet it was Bill who would go onto win the Election in 1992.
I think that the limits on both time and money spent would help somewhat.
Recent elections have shown that there is plenty of money out there to fund elections without public money, whether it comes from big labor, corprate interests, or foreign entities. Capping the total spending neutralizes the source. If each side has "x" amount of money to spend, where it comes from gives neither side an advantage yet still allows the voter to decide where alliegiances lie.
Charlie, don't you think that if public financing were put in place the people who put it in place (a legislature controlled by major political parties) would ensure it be a system that protects their interest (in other words, their incumbency, and if not the individual incumbency, it would be a system further designed to impede third party and independent candidates)?
Look at the system implemented by the major parties we have now just to get your name on the ballot.
It's designed to block third party and independent candidates from getting ballot access.
I'm in NO WAY endorsing David Bellevia, but he very much wants to run for Congress. Why should he be forced to jump through all the hoops created by the power structure designed to keep him off the ballot (as an example). Either he needs a party endorsement or 3,500 signatures, either of which are easy to get.
How does that system serve democracy?
If Bellevia wants to run, he should be able to run. Period.
No endorsement. No signatures. Just file the paperwork and your name is on the ballot. Period.
And the people who want to be able to vote for Bellevia (or anybody else) deserve the chance to cast those votes (without resorting to write-ins).
But the Reps and Dems will never go for that because it is a threat to their power structure. People that they can't control might actually win and that would be a bad thing for political parties and the money that goes with them.
In theory, I see certain advantages to public financing, but in practice all it will do is further disenfranchise voters.
Howard, I’m speaking hypothetically. Of course I know the two party system has corrupted our democracy to the bone and these Republi-crats will never give up power.
The major parties exist because people have different political sensibilities. Most people fall either left or right of center, thus we have the need to have two parties that broadly encompass both parts of the spectrum. As for minor parties (which are absolutley needed), in New York we have electoral fusion, electoral fusion empowers minor parties so they don't become an afterthought, they can cross-endorse candidates and build coalitions. I also agree with Howard that ballot access should be easier to obtain, David Bellevia should be able to run for Congress if he wants to without all of the headaches. I am all for the reform that Bud listed as well. Although I would lengthen the time limit to longer than six weeks.
Personally, I believe that special elections should have a primary as well. I'm not a fan of the current process.
Charlie - Not old enough yet for Congress. Nothing stoping you though. Maybe you could pull a Jack Davis from back in 08 and pay to have everyones gas back down to under $2.00 a gallon. With this economy you would win in a landslide. LOL
I voted yes, too. All my reasons have already been listed above. This is a bit off topic, but I saw an idea that has merit. Legislators should have to wear jackets [similar to NASCAR] listing the lobbyists who have donated money to their campaign. It would readily show who receives special interest money....in both directions.
The three factors that cry out for regulation are: 1) preventing campaign budget from being the primary determinant in election outcome, 2) foreign/extra-jurisdictional influence should be- if not eliminated -evident and 3) corporate/special-interest investment in campaigns must be not only track-able and traceable- but clearly attributed.
The Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC has construed corporate interest in elections with free speech. Although I disagree with that decision, I concede that any law regulating campaign practice vis-a-vis corporate influence must comply with the ruling. ...At least until the court lapses back into sanity or a Constitutional Amendment rights the wrong-minded decision.
Leveling the playing field so candidates of varied financial means can participate equitably in the election process is a complex issue that requires infinite exemptions depending on which aspect of the election process is under scrutiny. Obviously allowing the FCC to address broadcast license regulations to provide equal access to ALL campaigns does not address ALL of the media that may or may not influence the outcome of elections. One cannot force a newspaper, cable news network or internet news provider to behave similarly. They can be forced to distinguish between editorial content and paid advertising- small compensation to the consumer.
Would capping campaign budgets work? Would it be Constitutionally legal? Going by the Citizens United decision, I don't think so. If a campaign contribution is considered 'speech,' can it be capped?
It would seem that the most prudent approach would be to prohibit all but individual campaign donations, require all donations to go directly to official campaign committees and cap contributions at a specific dollar figure- such regulation would not be prejudiced against any group, only to the extent that group members be required to contribute as individuals. In fact it could easily be accomplished by requiring a social security number to register a donation.
Corporations/Special Interest Groups could, however, buy advertising for a candidate- with the condition that any such advertising bear the name of the group or organization sponsoring it. The question remains as to traceability; if a corporation funnels its money through a secondary group that pays for producing advertising, the identity of the buyer of influence is shielded from the public. Such diversion needs to be addressed, maintaining public traceability of the sources for such political advertising.
The public should have a right to know who is spending money to manipulate their vote.
Janice, your idea is interesting. It might bring back the jacket with tails as some politicians would require more space to include all their owners' names.
So it would appear that the
So it would appear that the majority of voters in this poll would like to keep the status quo of any organization (yes even foreign governments) being able to contribute to a political campaign over the public financing alternative which would provide equal funding to candidates.
I guess they would prefer to continue to allow the wealthy special interests to fund the campaigns of their favorite candidates rather than all candidates having equal resources and let their messages stand on their own.
The biggest issue for me with
The biggest issue for me with public financing is: Who gets to decide who is worthy of receiving the public funds? It just smacks of party politics and elitism. Incumbency is the biggest factor in winning any election, not money. More transparency about where candidates get their money, term limits, easier ballot access and getting rid of party caucuses in the legislative body are the answers.
People mistakenly see this as
People mistakenly see this as politicians getting another break when in fact; it would level the playing field and get out these entrenched politicians. The key is how this would be implemented. I don’t think politicians should be given money. Instead they should be given a set amount of print and TV time to explain their platform. Everyone running should get the same amount of time and space.
Not only would I like to see
Not only would I like to see finance reform, i also would like to see time limits implemented. England is a good example. They have campaigning 6 weeks prior to the election, not 18 months before.
How about leveling the
How about leveling the playing field by allowing no public money(savings to the taxpayer), as Charlie mentioned set amounts of TV and print ads, add strict cap on total spent with graduated limits($100 million for President; $25 million for Senate.; so on down to $1,000 for local dogcatcher) numbers may be way off, but you get the idea. 1st violation results in reduction in spending cap, 2nd violation would mean removal from the ballot. I also like Bud's idea of limiting the campaign season.
I voted yes. I also like the
I voted yes. I also like the Idea that Bud brought up about time limits. We shouldn't have to hear politicians trying to butter us up for a year and half prior to the election.
I agree with Dave Meyer to a certain extent. I don't think eliminating public money from elections will guarantee that only extremely wealthy candidates will win. Take for instance Ross Perot and George H. Bush they were both considerably more wealthy than Bill Clinton and yet it was Bill who would go onto win the Election in 1992.
I think that the limits on both time and money spent would help somewhat.
Recent elections have shown
Recent elections have shown that there is plenty of money out there to fund elections without public money, whether it comes from big labor, corprate interests, or foreign entities. Capping the total spending neutralizes the source. If each side has "x" amount of money to spend, where it comes from gives neither side an advantage yet still allows the voter to decide where alliegiances lie.
Charlie, don't you think that
Charlie, don't you think that if public financing were put in place the people who put it in place (a legislature controlled by major political parties) would ensure it be a system that protects their interest (in other words, their incumbency, and if not the individual incumbency, it would be a system further designed to impede third party and independent candidates)?
Look at the system implemented by the major parties we have now just to get your name on the ballot.
It's designed to block third party and independent candidates from getting ballot access.
I'm in NO WAY endorsing David Bellevia, but he very much wants to run for Congress. Why should he be forced to jump through all the hoops created by the power structure designed to keep him off the ballot (as an example). Either he needs a party endorsement or 3,500 signatures, either of which are easy to get.
How does that system serve democracy?
If Bellevia wants to run, he should be able to run. Period.
No endorsement. No signatures. Just file the paperwork and your name is on the ballot. Period.
And the people who want to be able to vote for Bellevia (or anybody else) deserve the chance to cast those votes (without resorting to write-ins).
But the Reps and Dems will never go for that because it is a threat to their power structure. People that they can't control might actually win and that would be a bad thing for political parties and the money that goes with them.
In theory, I see certain advantages to public financing, but in practice all it will do is further disenfranchise voters.
Howard, I’m speaking
Howard, I’m speaking hypothetically. Of course I know the two party system has corrupted our democracy to the bone and these Republi-crats will never give up power.
The major parties exist
The major parties exist because people have different political sensibilities. Most people fall either left or right of center, thus we have the need to have two parties that broadly encompass both parts of the spectrum. As for minor parties (which are absolutley needed), in New York we have electoral fusion, electoral fusion empowers minor parties so they don't become an afterthought, they can cross-endorse candidates and build coalitions. I also agree with Howard that ballot access should be easier to obtain, David Bellevia should be able to run for Congress if he wants to without all of the headaches. I am all for the reform that Bud listed as well. Although I would lengthen the time limit to longer than six weeks.
Personally, I believe that special elections should have a primary as well. I'm not a fan of the current process.
Charlie - You should run as
Charlie - You should run as an independent for Congress. :)
Dan, it's your turn to run.
Dan, it's your turn to run. This time I'll carry your flyers door to door. :-)
Charlie - Not old enough yet
Charlie - Not old enough yet for Congress. Nothing stoping you though. Maybe you could pull a Jack Davis from back in 08 and pay to have everyones gas back down to under $2.00 a gallon. With this economy you would win in a landslide. LOL
I voted yes, too. All my
I voted yes, too. All my reasons have already been listed above. This is a bit off topic, but I saw an idea that has merit. Legislators should have to wear jackets [similar to NASCAR] listing the lobbyists who have donated money to their campaign. It would readily show who receives special interest money....in both directions.
The three factors that cry
The three factors that cry out for regulation are: 1) preventing campaign budget from being the primary determinant in election outcome, 2) foreign/extra-jurisdictional influence should be- if not eliminated -evident and 3) corporate/special-interest investment in campaigns must be not only track-able and traceable- but clearly attributed.
The Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC has construed corporate interest in elections with free speech. Although I disagree with that decision, I concede that any law regulating campaign practice vis-a-vis corporate influence must comply with the ruling. ...At least until the court lapses back into sanity or a Constitutional Amendment rights the wrong-minded decision.
Leveling the playing field so candidates of varied financial means can participate equitably in the election process is a complex issue that requires infinite exemptions depending on which aspect of the election process is under scrutiny. Obviously allowing the FCC to address broadcast license regulations to provide equal access to ALL campaigns does not address ALL of the media that may or may not influence the outcome of elections. One cannot force a newspaper, cable news network or internet news provider to behave similarly. They can be forced to distinguish between editorial content and paid advertising- small compensation to the consumer.
Would capping campaign budgets work? Would it be Constitutionally legal? Going by the Citizens United decision, I don't think so. If a campaign contribution is considered 'speech,' can it be capped?
It would seem that the most prudent approach would be to prohibit all but individual campaign donations, require all donations to go directly to official campaign committees and cap contributions at a specific dollar figure- such regulation would not be prejudiced against any group, only to the extent that group members be required to contribute as individuals. In fact it could easily be accomplished by requiring a social security number to register a donation.
Corporations/Special Interest Groups could, however, buy advertising for a candidate- with the condition that any such advertising bear the name of the group or organization sponsoring it. The question remains as to traceability; if a corporation funnels its money through a secondary group that pays for producing advertising, the identity of the buyer of influence is shielded from the public. Such diversion needs to be addressed, maintaining public traceability of the sources for such political advertising.
The public should have a right to know who is spending money to manipulate their vote.
Janice, your idea is
Janice, your idea is interesting. It might bring back the jacket with tails as some politicians would require more space to include all their owners' names.