Every time we halfway restrict the speech of the people with these ill-advised "campaign finance reform" laws, the election process becomes more of a coronation ceremony for the wealthy and for the incumbents.
Then they need to come up with a better plan. As of now, money=speech.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Then they need to come up with a better plan. As of now, money=speech.
The First Amendment though was supposed to be absolute. By restricting people from spending their own money on radio, television and other advertising time, you are deciding that the non-wealthy have more of a right to free speech than those who can afford a product. This is just as tyrannical as what is being complained against.
The First Amendment though was supposed to be absolute. By restricting people from spending their own money on radio, television and other advertising time, you are deciding that the non-wealthy have more of a right to free speech than those who can afford a product. This is just as tyrannical as what is being complained against.
Somethings are harmful to spend money on like addictive drugs, child porn etc. It has proved harmful to our nation to have our elections brought to you by the highest bidders to only further their agenda. What about what the rest of us who can't compete with that? We just don't get representation?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Somethings are harmful to spend money on like addictive drugs, child porn etc. It has proved harmful to our nation to have our elections brought to you by the highest bidders to only further their agenda. What about what the rest of us who can't compete with that? We just don't get representation?
If you cut out political donations then you are leaving the rich people that you fear in sole power. There would be no competition. It would be just like a monarchy.
We'll never escape a very simple fact: in this country you cannot buy votes unless the public decides to sell them. Therein lies the only solution to this problem.
If you cut out political donations then you are leaving the rich people that you fear in sole power. There would be no competition. It would be just like a monarchy.
The typical contributor to political campaigns has an income in the top 1%.
Email lists cost money as well. If we alot equal time on TV (the only way to make it fair) for all who want to run without the pressure of raising money, we won't have network television left. We would have to fund hundreds of campaigns from the serious to the insane. Would debates start taking place inside of football stadiums? How long does each of 100 candidates get to speak?
This problem is easily solved by insisting a petition of a certain number of signatures or some similar prerequisite.
Money is intertwined with free speech. Allright, well perhaps if there were not the wealth inequality we have seen develop over the last thirty years as the New Deal has been dismantled this may be more acceptable; perhaps if our society was more egalitarian as our founders hoped and strived for.
But there are serious problems with undue influence in our government from special interest groups and even individuals with deep pockets.
There needs to be progress made reclaiming our government from this takeover. Public campaign finance is taking place in many states. We should be watchful of the results to see if they achieve their goals of curbing influence. The first amendment will survive, even if free speech isn't hoarded by the highest bidder.
http://www.washingtonspectator.com/articles/20060401cleanmoney_1.cfm
______
Look back at the bulk of legislation passed by Congress in the past decade: an energy bill that gives oil companies huge tax breaks at the same time that ExxonMobil has just posted $36.13 billion in profits and our gasoline and home heating bills are at an all-time high; a bankruptcy "reform" bill written by credit card companies to make it harder for poor debtors to escape the burdens of divorce or medical catastrophe; the deregulation of the banking, securities and insurance sectors, which brought on rampant corporate malfeasance and greed and the destruction of the retirement plans of millions of small investors; the deregulation of the telecommunications sector, which led to cable industry price-gouging and an undermining of news coverage; protection for rampant overpricing of pharmaceutical drugs; and the blocking of even the mildest attempt to prevent American corporations from dodging an estimated $50 billion in annual taxes by opening a P.O. box in an off-shore tax haven like the Cayman Islands.
In every case the results were produced by rivers of cash flowing to favored politicians from interests whose return on their investment put Wall Street equities to shame. This happens because our public representatives need huge sums to finance their campaigns, especially to pay for television advertising. The masters of the money game have taken advantage of that weakness in our democracy to turn our elections into auctions....
... The "K Street Project" - the most successful shakedown operation since the first Gilded Age - was the brainchild of Representative Tom DeLay and Grover Norquist, the right-wing strategist who famously said that his goal is to shrink government so that it can be "drowned in a bathtub" (when, finally, it will be too impotent to protect democracy from plunder and powerless citizens from the rapacity of corporate power). For his part, Tom DeLay ran a pest exterminating business in Sugar Land, Texas, where he hated government regulators who dared to tell him that some of the pesticides he used were dangerous. He got himself elected to the Texas legislature at a time when the Republicans were becoming the majority in the once-solid Democratic South, and early in his new career "Hot Tub Tom," as he was known in Austin, became a born-again Christian.
In addition to finding Jesus, Tom DeLay discovered the power of money to drive his career. By raising more than $2 million from lobbyists and business groups and distributing it to dozens of Republican candidates in 1994, the year of the Republican breakthrough in the House, DeLay bought the loyalty of many freshmen legislators who helped elect him Majority Whip, the House's number three man.
He wasted no time in inviting lobbyists to write the Republican agenda. Their first priority was "Project Relief" - "relief" from labor standards that protected workers from the physical injuries of repetitive work, "relief" from tougher rules on meat inspection, "relief" from effective monitoring of hazardous air pollutants. Scores of companies were soon adding one juicy and expensive tidbit after another. On the eve of the debate, according to Michael Weisskopf and David Maraniss of the Washington Post, 20 major corporate groups advised lawmakers that "this was a key vote, one that would be considered in future campaign contributions."
The Machine was off and running. As then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich famously told the lobbyists: "If you are going to play in our revolution, you have to live by our rules." The rules were simple enough. Contribute to Republicans only. Hire only Republicans as lobbyists (priority preference: DeLay's own staff). Centralize the power to write legislation in the hands of the party bosses (assisted by hovering lobbyists). Allow no amendments. Produce bills in secret. Permit members no time to read them. Pass important bills late at night. Avoid compromise by banning Democrats from conference committees. Give lobbyists and campaign contributors what they want.
While examples abound of how the rules stacked the deck, consider one: the Medicare prescription coverage bill. Enacted after midnight, its hundreds and hundreds of pages unintelligible to anyone but lobbyists, the legislation enriched the pharmaceutical and insurance companies while giving senior citizens and taxpayers the shaft...
We'll never escape a very simple fact: in this country you cannot buy votes unless the public decides to sell them. Therein lies the only solution to this problem.
We'll never escape a very simple fact: in this country you cannot buy votes unless the public decides to sell them. Therein lies the only solution to this problem.
That's a steep problem that won't be solved without years of better education and awareness....and I don't see the guys in power now helping us get the message out through education, so what do we do?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
This problem is easily solved by insisting a petition of a certain number of signatures or some similar prerequisite.
This is in place. California had over 130 candidates for Governor in 2003. We would have to equally fund each of those people if a federal race got that big.
The last time I checked, the lesson of not selling your vote was not taught in public education institutions. So no, investment in public education will not likely help.
That's a steep problem that won't be solved without years of better education and awareness....and I don't see the guys in power now helping us get the message out through education, so what do we do?
The first thing we have to do is to stop voting for the candidates that play by the rules we're lampooning. This means if you're planning on going out in 3 weeks and voting for a major party candidate, you're probably already on the wrong track.
The second thing we have to do is to educate others on these issues and encourage them to reject the politics of pull. The efforts of many people to help expose the funding sources are a great start and we can all use this information to demostrate which candidates are already owned by corporations, unions and other special interest groups.
But until people on a mass scale stop putting their votes up for sale, no amount of legislation or rule changing will accomplish anything.
The first thing we have to do is to stop voting for the candidates that play by the rules we're lampooning. This means if you're planning on going out in 3 weeks and voting for a major party candidate, you're probably already on the wrong track.
The second thing we have to do is to educate others on these issues and encourage them to reject the politics of pull. The efforts of many people to help expose the funding sources are a great start and we can all use this information to demostrate which candidates are already owned by corporations, unions and other special interest groups.
But until people on a mass scale stop putting their votes up for sale, no amount of legislation or rule changing will accomplish anything.
I'm just not so sure that no amount of rule changing, big or small, wouldn't help out. I totally agree with the rest of your post.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
This is in place. California had over 130 candidates for Governor in 2003. We would have to equally fund each of those people if a federal race got that big.
More choices would seem to be a benefit, better than Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. Regardless, this seems a smaller problem to tackle than our current legislation auction.
The supreme court ruling in 1976 gave the opinion similar to yours regarding free speech concerns. In that ruling the supreme court also said it would be constitutional to limit private contributions to prevent corruption (or the appearance of corruption) In light of the largest congressional corruption scandal in history, and the changed landscape of wealth distribution, wouldn't it be wise to explore public campaign financing?
The last time I checked, the lesson of not selling your vote was not taught in public education institutions. So no, investment in public education will not likely help.
An astute student should be able to get this out of history class, if we invest in quality teaching. Developing our students analytical skills will help them to make more intelligent choices.
More choices would seem to be a benefit, better than Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. Regardless, this seems a smaller problem to tackle than our current legislation auction.
The supreme court ruling in 1976 gave the opinion similar to yours regarding free speech concerns. In that ruling the supreme court also said it would be constitutional to limit private contributions to prevent corruption (or the appearance of corruption) In light of the largest congressional corruption scandal in history, and the changed landscape of wealth distribution, wouldn't it be wise to explore public campaign financing?
Public funding would do nothing but hand the election process over to a few wealthy individuals who could finance their own campaign.
Any examination of the lasting effects of the Buckley v. Valeo decision shows that, after that ruling as well as after this recent act, competition in elections has become almost non-existent. Limiting the rights of citizens to express their opinions does nothing but limit the chances of a real competitive election.
An astute student should be able to get this out of history class, if we invest in quality teaching. Developing our students analytical skills will help them to make more intelligent choices.
Developing your students' analytical skills would mean leaving the analysis up to them and then holding them to account for the value of their analysis. This would be quite easy, but the public educational system seems much more interested in providing pre-fab analysis and encouraging children to avoid the valuation of any self-reached analysis.
When you teach children to sell their minds to an institution, it's no surprise that they grow up to be adults who sell their choices to corporations, "public interest" groups and the like.
Comments
Then they need to come up with a better plan. As of now, money=speech.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Who's "they"?
The First Amendment though was supposed to be absolute. By restricting people from spending their own money on radio, television and other advertising time, you are deciding that the non-wealthy have more of a right to free speech than those who can afford a product. This is just as tyrannical as what is being complained against.
Somethings are harmful to spend money on like addictive drugs, child porn etc. It has proved harmful to our nation to have our elections brought to you by the highest bidders to only further their agenda. What about what the rest of us who can't compete with that? We just don't get representation?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
we...apologies
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
If you cut out political donations then you are leaving the rich people that you fear in sole power. There would be no competition. It would be just like a monarchy.
Fair enough.
We'll never escape a very simple fact: in this country you cannot buy votes unless the public decides to sell them. Therein lies the only solution to this problem.
The typical contributor to political campaigns has an income in the top 1%.
This problem is easily solved by insisting a petition of a certain number of signatures or some similar prerequisite.
Money is intertwined with free speech. Allright, well perhaps if there were not the wealth inequality we have seen develop over the last thirty years as the New Deal has been dismantled this may be more acceptable; perhaps if our society was more egalitarian as our founders hoped and strived for.
But there are serious problems with undue influence in our government from special interest groups and even individuals with deep pockets.
There needs to be progress made reclaiming our government from this takeover. Public campaign finance is taking place in many states. We should be watchful of the results to see if they achieve their goals of curbing influence. The first amendment will survive, even if free speech isn't hoarded by the highest bidder.
http://www.washingtonspectator.com/articles/20060401cleanmoney_1.cfm
______
Look back at the bulk of legislation passed by Congress in the past decade: an energy bill that gives oil companies huge tax breaks at the same time that ExxonMobil has just posted $36.13 billion in profits and our gasoline and home heating bills are at an all-time high; a bankruptcy "reform" bill written by credit card companies to make it harder for poor debtors to escape the burdens of divorce or medical catastrophe; the deregulation of the banking, securities and insurance sectors, which brought on rampant corporate malfeasance and greed and the destruction of the retirement plans of millions of small investors; the deregulation of the telecommunications sector, which led to cable industry price-gouging and an undermining of news coverage; protection for rampant overpricing of pharmaceutical drugs; and the blocking of even the mildest attempt to prevent American corporations from dodging an estimated $50 billion in annual taxes by opening a P.O. box in an off-shore tax haven like the Cayman Islands.
In every case the results were produced by rivers of cash flowing to favored politicians from interests whose return on their investment put Wall Street equities to shame. This happens because our public representatives need huge sums to finance their campaigns, especially to pay for television advertising. The masters of the money game have taken advantage of that weakness in our democracy to turn our elections into auctions....
... The "K Street Project" - the most successful shakedown operation since the first Gilded Age - was the brainchild of Representative Tom DeLay and Grover Norquist, the right-wing strategist who famously said that his goal is to shrink government so that it can be "drowned in a bathtub" (when, finally, it will be too impotent to protect democracy from plunder and powerless citizens from the rapacity of corporate power). For his part, Tom DeLay ran a pest exterminating business in Sugar Land, Texas, where he hated government regulators who dared to tell him that some of the pesticides he used were dangerous. He got himself elected to the Texas legislature at a time when the Republicans were becoming the majority in the once-solid Democratic South, and early in his new career "Hot Tub Tom," as he was known in Austin, became a born-again Christian.
In addition to finding Jesus, Tom DeLay discovered the power of money to drive his career. By raising more than $2 million from lobbyists and business groups and distributing it to dozens of Republican candidates in 1994, the year of the Republican breakthrough in the House, DeLay bought the loyalty of many freshmen legislators who helped elect him Majority Whip, the House's number three man.
He wasted no time in inviting lobbyists to write the Republican agenda. Their first priority was "Project Relief" - "relief" from labor standards that protected workers from the physical injuries of repetitive work, "relief" from tougher rules on meat inspection, "relief" from effective monitoring of hazardous air pollutants. Scores of companies were soon adding one juicy and expensive tidbit after another. On the eve of the debate, according to Michael Weisskopf and David Maraniss of the Washington Post, 20 major corporate groups advised lawmakers that "this was a key vote, one that would be considered in future campaign contributions."
The Machine was off and running. As then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich famously told the lobbyists: "If you are going to play in our revolution, you have to live by our rules." The rules were simple enough. Contribute to Republicans only. Hire only Republicans as lobbyists (priority preference: DeLay's own staff). Centralize the power to write legislation in the hands of the party bosses (assisted by hovering lobbyists). Allow no amendments. Produce bills in secret. Permit members no time to read them. Pass important bills late at night. Avoid compromise by banning Democrats from conference committees. Give lobbyists and campaign contributors what they want.
While examples abound of how the rules stacked the deck, consider one: the Medicare prescription coverage bill. Enacted after midnight, its hundreds and hundreds of pages unintelligible to anyone but lobbyists, the legislation enriched the pharmaceutical and insurance companies while giving senior citizens and taxpayers the shaft...
Investment in public education?
That's a steep problem that won't be solved without years of better education and awareness....and I don't see the guys in power now helping us get the message out through education, so what do we do?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
This is in place. California had over 130 candidates for Governor in 2003. We would have to equally fund each of those people if a federal race got that big.
The last time I checked, the lesson of not selling your vote was not taught in public education institutions. So no, investment in public education will not likely help.
The first thing we have to do is to stop voting for the candidates that play by the rules we're lampooning. This means if you're planning on going out in 3 weeks and voting for a major party candidate, you're probably already on the wrong track.
The second thing we have to do is to educate others on these issues and encourage them to reject the politics of pull. The efforts of many people to help expose the funding sources are a great start and we can all use this information to demostrate which candidates are already owned by corporations, unions and other special interest groups.
But until people on a mass scale stop putting their votes up for sale, no amount of legislation or rule changing will accomplish anything.
How is that communisim?
I'm just not so sure that no amount of rule changing, big or small, wouldn't help out. I totally agree with the rest of your post.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
More choices would seem to be a benefit, better than Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. Regardless, this seems a smaller problem to tackle than our current legislation auction.
The supreme court ruling in 1976 gave the opinion similar to yours regarding free speech concerns. In that ruling the supreme court also said it would be constitutional to limit private contributions to prevent corruption (or the appearance of corruption) In light of the largest congressional corruption scandal in history, and the changed landscape of wealth distribution, wouldn't it be wise to explore public campaign financing?
An astute student should be able to get this out of history class, if we invest in quality teaching. Developing our students analytical skills will help them to make more intelligent choices.
Public funding would do nothing but hand the election process over to a few wealthy individuals who could finance their own campaign.
Any examination of the lasting effects of the Buckley v. Valeo decision shows that, after that ruling as well as after this recent act, competition in elections has become almost non-existent. Limiting the rights of citizens to express their opinions does nothing but limit the chances of a real competitive election.
Developing your students' analytical skills would mean leaving the analysis up to them and then holding them to account for the value of their analysis. This would be quite easy, but the public educational system seems much more interested in providing pre-fab analysis and encouraging children to avoid the valuation of any self-reached analysis.
When you teach children to sell their minds to an institution, it's no surprise that they grow up to be adults who sell their choices to corporations, "public interest" groups and the like.