Public Campaign Financing

qwerty1
qwerty1 Posts: 142
edited October 2006 in A Moving Train
100%. That will be the only way to make US elections and governing fair again. Right now the congress works for the big donors. Public financing would mean congress might actually work for the people. In the long run more money would be saved then spent on the elections.

Ending gerrymandering, and having an independent board drawing districts along existing county lines, major highways and physical features would help too!

And why do I never hear those 2 subjects brought up on CNN, MSNBC or FOX?


Your thoughts...
This sidewalk is for regular walking, not for fancy walking!
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    qwerty wrote:
    100%. That will be the only way to make US elections and governing fair again. Right now the congress works for the big donors. Public financing would mean congress might actually work for the people. In the long run more money would be saved then spent on the elections.

    Ending gerrymandering, and having an independent board drawing districts along existing county lines, major highways and physical features would help too!

    And why do I never hear those 2 subjects brought up on CNN, MSNBC or FOX?


    Your thoughts...
    Not to mention that I wouldn't get at least five pieces of mail every day from some candidate or lobbying group begging for money.

    I completely agree with you.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • norm
    norm Posts: 31,146
    qwerty wrote:
    100%. That will be the only way to make US elections and governing fair again. Right now the congress works for the big donors. Public financing would mean congress might actually work for the people. In the long run more money would be saved then spent on the elections.

    Ending gerrymandering, and having an independent board drawing districts along existing county lines, major highways and physical features would help too!

    And why do I never hear those 2 subjects brought up on CNN, MSNBC or FOX?


    Your thoughts...
    Amen! And while we're at it, eliminate all lobbyists and PACs.
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    You're all right about this. Fuck the First Amendment.
  • Hope&Anger
    Hope&Anger Posts: 260
    zstillings wrote:
    You're all right about this. Fuck the First Amendment.
    Sadly -- and moronically -- we equate money with free speech in this country. So more money entitles you to more speech. (Thanks Supreme Court!!)

    When I tell my friends from other countries that you can't really limit campaign contributions because the Supreme Court said money=speech, they can't believe it. One of them said "your government actually seems to want to *hurt* poor people."
    "Things will just get better and better even though it
    doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
    idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
    Hope! Hope is the underdog!"

    -- EV, Live at the Showbox
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    Hope&Anger wrote:
    Sadly -- and moronically -- we equate money with free speech in this country. So more money entitles you to more speech. (Thanks Supreme Court!!)

    When I tell my friends from other countries that you can't really limit campaign contributions because the Supreme Court said money=speech, they can't believe it. One of them said "your government actually seems to want to *hurt* poor people."

    That wasn't the exact ruling. What limiting money does is it limits a person's right to gather with other like-minded people and voice his opinion on a matter.
  • Hope&Anger
    Hope&Anger Posts: 260
    zstillings wrote:
    That wasn't the exact ruling. What limiting money does is it limits a person's right to gather with other like-minded people and voice his opinion on a matter.
    Yes, and who is in the best position to gather with other like-minded people and voice his opinion on a matter? People with lots of money or poor people?

    C'mon. It protects rich people and industry and trade associations. And that's what it's for. You know that.
    "Things will just get better and better even though it
    doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
    idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
    Hope! Hope is the underdog!"

    -- EV, Live at the Showbox
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    Hope&Anger wrote:
    Yes, and who is in the best position to gather with other like-minded people and voice his opinion on a matter? People with lots of money or poor people?

    C'mon. It protects rich people and industry and trade associations. And that's what it's for. You know that.

    Is that really what the First Amendment is for? If you feel so strongly about it, you should call for its repeal.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    zstillings wrote:
    Is that really what the First Amendment is for? If you feel so strongly about it, you should call for its repeal.

    I don't think we would be endangering the First Amendment at all. If the CEOs of say the Pharmaceutical industry want to make a personal contribution they still can.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    qwerty wrote:
    100%. That will be the only way to make US elections and governing fair again. Right now the congress works for the big donors. Public financing would mean congress might actually work for the people. In the long run more money would be saved then spent on the elections.

    Ending gerrymandering, and having an independent board drawing districts along existing county lines, major highways and physical features would help too!

    And why do I never hear those 2 subjects brought up on CNN, MSNBC or FOX?

    Your thoughts...

    So the way to make elections fair is to rob the public? Gotcha.

    How about a much simpler solution: don't vote for a candidate that spends $50m to get a $80k/year job.
  • Hope&Anger
    Hope&Anger Posts: 260
    zstillings wrote:
    Is that really what the First Amendment is for? If you feel so strongly about it, you should call for its repeal.
    You're cute.

    Obviously, I don't think that's what the First Amendment is for. I think that's what the First Amendment has become in the hands of the Supreme Court.

    The First Amendment -- like all of the Bill of Rights -- is an aspiration, a goal. We aren't quite there yet -- because, for one thing, through our campaign spending laws, we give rich people and industry more speech than we give ordinary people. But we keep trying and sooner or later, we'll get it right.

    Repeal the First Amendment -- tee hee -- you're so funny.
    "Things will just get better and better even though it
    doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
    idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
    Hope! Hope is the underdog!"

    -- EV, Live at the Showbox
  • qwerty1
    qwerty1 Posts: 142
    zstillings wrote:
    You're all right about this. Fuck the First Amendment.


    Everyone is created equal. But those with money are more equal than others. Why does that not sound right?

    If anything 100% public finacing strengthens the first amendment, not weaken it.
    This sidewalk is for regular walking, not for fancy walking!
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    qwerty wrote:
    If anything 100% public finacing strengthens the first amendment, not weaken it.

    So would you say that government control of television wherein each citizen gets 3 seconds of air time to speak their mind would "strengthen the first amendment"?
  • 1970RR
    1970RR Posts: 281
    Hope&Anger wrote:
    You're cute.

    Obviously, I don't think that's what the First Amendment is for. I think that's what the First Amendment has become in the hands of the Supreme Court.

    The First Amendment -- like all of the Bill of Rights -- is an aspiration, a goal. We aren't quite there yet -- because, for one thing, through our campaign spending laws, we give rich people and industry more speech than we give ordinary people. But we keep trying and sooner or later, we'll get it right.

    Repeal the First Amendment -- tee hee -- you're so funny.
    Maybe these "rich people and industry" wouldnt give any money if we didnt have such a bloated government providing legislation that benefits them.
    If government were reduced to what it should be, there would be no need to buy influence, as the congress would have nothing to offer in return.
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    1970RR wrote:
    Maybe these "rich people and industry" wouldnt give any money if we didnt have such a bloated government providing legislation that benefits them.
    If government were reduced to what it should be, there would be no need to buy influence, as the congress would have nothing to offer in return.
    But of course the government will never be reduced to what it should be as long as those able to buy influence are calling the shots.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • qwerty1
    qwerty1 Posts: 142
    farfromglorified wrote:
    So would you say that government control of television wherein each citizen gets 3 seconds of air time to speak their mind would "strengthen the first amendment"?


    What are you getting at here?
    This sidewalk is for regular walking, not for fancy walking!
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    qwerty wrote:
    What are you getting at here?

    The first amendment gives you the right to speak. It does not grant you a venue.

    If we consider political donations a free-speech issue, banning the rich from donating and forcing those who do not wish to donate, rich or poor or otherwise, to give tax money to compaigns does not "strengthen the first amendment". Rather, it weakens it.
  • qwerty1
    qwerty1 Posts: 142
    farfromglorified wrote:
    The first amendment gives you the right to speak. It does not grant you a venue.

    If we consider political donations a free-speech issue, banning the rich from donating and forcing those who do not wish to donate, rich or poor or otherwise, to give tax money to compaigns does not "strengthen the first amendment". Rather, it weakens it.

    Everyone has a venue when you go and cast your ballot. Public finacing ensures that the rich vote is no more powerful than the poor vote.

    As for people who dont want their tax dollars going towards that, well there are lots of things where your tax dollars go to that you would not be happy with. Are you happy that 2 billion dollars a week go to Haliburton, Boeing and KBR..errr I mean the Iraq war?

    This is why the debate is needed. Not everyone is going to like public finacing. However I think if the voting public looks at the pros of it, they would embrace it.
    This sidewalk is for regular walking, not for fancy walking!
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    qwerty wrote:
    Everyone has a venue when you go and cast your ballot. Public finacing ensures that the rich vote is no more powerful than the poor vote.

    Why? Are you naive enough to think that people will not still be able to buy influence if you make campaign funding 100% public?
    As for people who dont want their tax dollars going towards that, well there are lots of things where your tax dollars go to that you would not be happy with. Are you happy that 2 billion dollars a week go to Haliburton, Boeing and KBR..errr I mean the Iraq war?

    No, I'm not happy about that. Is it your contention then that one misery justifies a thousand more?
    This is why the debate is needed. Not everyone is going to like public finacing. However I think if the voting public looks at the pros of it, they would embrace it.

    I doubt that. But perhaps they might. The voting public seems to love bad ideas these days.
  • qwerty1
    qwerty1 Posts: 142
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Why? Are you naive enough to think that people will not still be able to buy influence if you make campaign funding 100% public?



    No, I'm not happy about that. Is it your contention then that one misery justifies a thousand more?



    I doubt that. But perhaps they might. The voting public seems to love bad ideas these days.


    Curruption will always exist, but the scale that its at today is just mind boggling!

    Public financing is hardly a misery!

    Perhaps the public would stop loving bad ideas if huge donors did not have the influence to buy their hearts and minds.

    The system is clearly broken, can you agree on that? If so, how would you suggest that it be fixed?

    On a side note, im booking off work early today! :)
    This sidewalk is for regular walking, not for fancy walking!
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    qwerty wrote:
    Curruption will always exist, but the scale that its at today is just mind boggling!

    Amen to that. But that corruption comes from concentration of power, not from financing schemes. If you want to end government corruption, decentralize government power.
    Public financing is hardly a misery!

    It is to someone like me who has no interest in providing money to the fools that run for federal office in this country.
    Perhaps the public would stop loving bad ideas if huge donors did not have the influence to buy their hearts and minds.

    Perhaps the public would stop loving bad ideas is the public took their hearts and minds off the market.
    The system is clearly broken, can you agree on that? If so, how would you suggest that it be fixed?

    Yes, I agree. I suggest it be fixed in this fashion:

    1) Stop voting for candidates who have nothing more to offer than money.

Categories