Why Obama Can't win

1235»

Comments

  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    zstillings wrote:
    Then I can see that fair elections don't really mean much here. All that really matters is a competitive advantage for those who are not hated by your side.
    When'd you get so snippy and hyperbolic? What matters to me is broadening the field of what's considered "competitive." I'm open to other suggestions; but don't tell me that elections before Campaign Finance Reform were the end all be all of achievable fairness.
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    RainDog wrote:
    When'd you get so snippy and hyperbolic? What matters to me is broadening the field of what's considered "competitive." I'm open to other suggestions; but don't tell me that elections before Campaign Finance Reform were the end all be all of achievable fairness.

    Before campaign finance reform, there were more elections that were within 10% margin of victory. There were also more incumbents who were able to be defeated. Since campaign finance reform, the number of elections outside of the 10% margin has increased to over 85% and the incumbency retention has come up to about 98%. This can be traced to the fact that, the only way to get the money needed to compete against an established candidate is to self fund since the incumbents have passed laws that have squeezed off the ability of a challenger to be competitive in their seats much like McCain and Feingold did when they put a non-federal official at a distinct disadvantage when starting a presidential race. They have effectively doubled the amount that a donor can give to them to max out their election cycle donation while keeping a Governor at a 50% disadvantage. This is especially true in the Presidential primaries when it is so important to gain momentum in one of the early states.

    Full disclosure of all campaign funds would be a lot less restrictive on free speech. There are campaign finance hawks who are going after blogs since they advocate the election or defeat of a candidate many times. This message board can be viewed the same way since we have an ability not afforded to all people. My free speech is no more or less important than yours or anyone else's. Campaign finance reform advocates like to forget about that fact and, instead, give themselves a competitive advantage while outlawing all electoral dissent.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    zstillings wrote:
    Before campaign finance reform, there were more elections that were within 10% margin of victory. There were also more incumbents who were able to be defeated. Since campaign finance reform, the number of elections outside of the 10% margin has increased to over 85% and the incumbency retention has come up to about 98%. This can be traced to the fact that, the only way to get the money needed to compete against an established candidate is to self fund since the incumbents have passed laws that have squeezed off the ability of a challenger to be competitive in their seats much like McCain and Feingold did when they put a non-federal official at a distinct disadvantage when starting a presidential race. They have effectively doubled the amount that a donor can give to them to max out their election cycle donation while keeping a Governor at a 50% disadvantage. This is especially true in the Presidential primaries when it is so important to gain momentum in one of the early states.

    Full disclosure of all campaign funds would be a lot less restrictive on free speech. There are campaign finance hawks who are going after blogs since they advocate the election or defeat of a candidate many times. This message board can be viewed the same way since we have an ability not afforded to all people. My free speech is no more or less important than yours or anyone else's. Campaign finance reform advocates like to forget about that fact and, instead, give themselves a competitive advantage while outlawing all electoral dissent.
    My free speech is less important than the free speech of someone who has more money than me - it was true before CFR; and it's true now, only for different reasons. The problem is people believe that money = free speech. I think total public financing would help remedy that situation provided the blogs and newspapers and what-not that you mentioned are left alone.

    I guess what I'm saying is I don't want what we had and I don't want what we have. I'm looking for a third way. Disclosure isn't good enough.
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    RainDog wrote:
    My free speech is less important than the free speech of someone who has more money than me - it was true before CFR; and it's true now, only for different reasons. The problem is people believe that money = free speech. I think total public financing would help remedy that situation provided the blogs and newspapers and what-not that you mentioned are left alone.

    I guess what I'm saying is I don't want what we had and I don't want what we have. I'm looking for a third way. Disclosure isn't good enough.

    So if a person is running for President and owns an airplane and another owns a Ford, what do you do then? Do you not allow the person who owns the airplane to use their mode of transportation? Do you say it's alright and the person who owns the Ford must use part of their public funds (which are given by the government who is already in such deep debt) while the other candidate uses his public funds on promotion rather than having to buy the airplane? What about the guy who collects all wealthy people to use their free speech while the other guy collecting you and me who cannot afford to use our free speech as the government has made it illegal to spend our money together?

    Full disclosure is something that hasn't been tried. We are both too young to remember the pre-CFR days.

Categories