Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
money as free speech? That's gotta be the weirdest interpretation I have ever heard.
are bribes covered under the first amendment too?
Yes, but we call them "campaign contributions". It is so much more PC than "bribes".
Seriously, if freedom of speech interferes with campaign finance reform, then we need to amend the constitution to support both. Seriously.
American politics, especially at the national level, have become so perverted by big money that there is little pretense today of our "representatives" actually representing us. By any normal standard, big money interests openly bribe elected officials, yet we all look the other way and call them contributions. Total nonsense, and the result is the same as it's always been -- votes for sale to the highest builder.
This is clearly not what our founding fathers envisioned. It clearly does NOT deliver a government of the people, by the people, and
for the people.
I think the solution is some sort of national structure to campaigns, with strict controls set on the form, content, and source of advertising, the money that can be spent, fundraising, and the use of the incumbent's position and resources to campaign for reelection. I seriously question whether the current two-party system serves the public interests. I lean towards a multi-party system with weighted voting, i.e., voters rank candidates and the winner is the candidate who gets the strongest positive response.
(For example, if Candidate A is ranked #1 by 40% of the voters but #3 or #4 by most of the rest, Candidate B might win if he got only 30% of the #1 votes but 60% of the #2 votes. Even though Candidate #2 isn't most people's first choice, he has the highest overall positive response. Perhaps someone can provide links that better explain the pros and cons of various voting strategies.)
In any case, the drawback to finance and advertising restrictions is that the party or parties in power can effectively suppress the rise of new parties. This is why we are where we are today, with two parties that don't really represent typical Americans. Any reforms need to include mechanisms to ensure that viable third parties are able to compete with the established parties on equal terms. I don't know how we write this legislation, but it is critical to maintaining a representative democracy.
(Note to the anal-retentive: yes, we're really a Republic. We are also a democracy. Get over it.)