Public Campaign Financing

floyd1975

Okay, so let's say that free speech is taken away from all of us. Now who gets public financing? Would it be all hundred people who qualify to run for any public office? Would it be only the two major parties?

If the system is to be fixed, it should be done with more full and complete disclosure rather than taking away the rights of the citizens to support a candidate as we choose. The general election for President is mostly public financing and that doesn't seem to have eased anyone's mind about their perception of corruption. Look at the history of campaign finance reform in this country. Every time a new law has been passed taking away the free speech of the average citizen, elections have become less and less competitive.

Abookamongstthemany

zstillings wrote:

Okay, so let's say that free speech is taken away from all of us. Now who gets public financing? Would it be all hundred people who qualify to run for any public office? Would it be only the two major parties?

If the system is to be fixed, it should be done with more full and complete disclosure rather than taking away the rights of the citizens to support a candidate as we choose. The general election for President is mostly public financing and that doesn't seem to have eased anyone's mind about their perception of corruption. Look at the history of campaign finance reform in this country. Every time a new law has been passed taking away the free speech of the average citizen, elections have become less and less competitive.

Then support your candidate by word of mouth and other communication. We don't need to know which person can raise the most money, we need to know which person is better fit to be our leader.

Pacomc79

Ok, so what exactly does public financing mean the way it's described in this thread?

floyd1975

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Then support your candidate by word of mouth and other communication. We don't need to know which person can raise the most money, we need to know which person is better fit to be our leader.

How does a candidate get the word out to a mass of voters with no money? Mail is expensive as are phones, TV, radio, gasoline, airfare, etc...

Abookamongstthemany

zstillings wrote:

How does a candidate get the word out to a mass of voters with no money? Mail is expensive as are phones, TV, radio, gasoline, airfare, etc...

get off your ass, email, myspace, have alotted time on tv for debates...we already alot time for SOTUAs and similar things.

floyd1975

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

get off your ass, email, myspace, have alotted time on tv for debates...we already alot time for SOTUAs and similar things.

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?

qwerty1

Pacomc79 wrote:

Ok, so what exactly does public financing mean the way it's described in this thread?

It would mean that the Democrat candidate and the Republican would receive the exact same amunt of money to buy adds, send out flyers, rent offices, etc.... The exact amount would varry depending on the district. A district in LA or Dallas would obviously be funded more than the district in Montana or Alaska due to the cost of advertising. If there is a strong 3rd party candidate, there should be some sort of threshold for funding to apply to him/her.

Each candidate would be able to spend the money on whatever they wanted to, but the idea would be that there would be an even playing field.

When the public funds its candidates, whoever it may be, the candidate might actually start governing for the people, ans not a big oil company or trade union.

farfromglorified

qwerty wrote:

It would mean that the Democrat candidate and the Republican would receive the exact same amunt of money to buy adds, send out flyers, rent offices, etc.... The exact amount would varry depending on the district. A district in LA or Dallas would obviously be funded more than the district in Montana or Alaska due to the cost of advertising. If there is a strong 3rd party candidate, there should be some sort of threshold for funding to apply to him/her.

Each candidate would be able to spend the money on whatever they wanted to, but the idea would be that there would be an even playing field.

When the public funds its candidates, whoever it may be, the candidate might actually start governing for the people, ans not a big oil company or trade union.

Communism is cool.

Abookamongstthemany

zstillings wrote:

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?

There would most definitely be tweeks to work out but it's a better direction than the current one.

floyd1975

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

There would most definitely be tweeks to work out but it's a better direction than the current one.

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.

Abookamongstthemany

zstillings wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Then they need to come up with a better plan. As of now, money=speech.

Who's "they"?

floyd1975

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

Abookamongstthemany

zstillings wrote:

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?

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

Who's "they"?

we...apologies

floyd1975

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

we...apologies

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.

SundaySilence

zstillings wrote:

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%.

zstillings wrote:

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...

SundaySilence

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

Investment in public education?

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

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?