Public Campaign Financing

13»

Comments

  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    SundaySilence wrote:
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,701
    SundaySilence wrote:
    Investment in public education?

    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,701
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    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.
  • qwerty1
    qwerty1 Posts: 142
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Communism is cool.


    How is that communisim?
    This sidewalk is for regular walking, not for fancy walking!
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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
  • SundaySilence
    SundaySilence Posts: 537
    zstillings wrote:
    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?
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    SundaySilence wrote:
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,701
    SundaySilence wrote:
    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.

Categories