Campaign Finance Reform

[Craig234]

Health care and education....well....they can be set up in a non-intrusive way. However, I'll just agree to disagree on those two points as I don't want them to become a thread-jack. It is still a worthy topic for discussion elsewhere though.

You need to understand that to people like a777pilot, being taxed a dollar is as intrusive as rape. So you might be optimistic about agreeing on the issue much.

 

[MovingTarget]

You need to understand that to people like a777pilot, being taxed a dollar is as intrusive as rape. So you might be optimistic about agreeing on the issue much.

I know that there are a lot of neocons and ultra-liberterians that feel that way. Don't be so quick to judge people. a777pilot did not object to that part of my earlier post. I will give him the benefit of the doubt unless there is reason not to do so on a particular issue. Even he sees them as a necessary evil....although he does disagree as to how they are set up.

 

[Arkaign]

All campaigns, even national ones, should be capped at $10k. Corporations or individuals are allowed a maximum of $1 donated in totality for each annual year, similar to one single vote. PACs should be abolished, and politicians who are caught taking ANY money from anyone for any reason outside of their salary should be summarily caned and sent to federal prison for a minimum sentence of 25 years.

Political ads should be abolished as well, there's nothing that a 30-second spot can tell you about a candidate, and further, if you're listening to the candidate or their party sell you a bill of goods, you should know you're being lied to right off the bat. Politicians are almost to a core corrupt ghouls who are only in it for their own $ and power. I say we're fucked either way, may as well chop their legs off and lower their immediate profits from buttfucking our country right to hell.

 

[Craig234]

I know that there are a lot of neocons and ultra-liberterians that feel that way. Don't be so quick to judge people. a777pilot did not object to that part of my earlier post. I will give him the benefit of the doubt unless there is reason not to do so on a particular issue. Even he sees them as a necessary evil....although he does disagree as to how they are set up.

Judge him quick, eh? It's nice you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but his words:

I say, don't tax income, no matter the source, at all.

In my Transfer tax system there would be no exemptions. Everyone keeps every cent of their income.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

All campaigns, even national ones, should be capped at $10k. Corporations or individuals are allowed a maximum of $1 donated in totality for each annual year, similar to one single vote. PACs should be abolished, and politicians who are caught taking ANY money from anyone for any reason outside of their salary should be summarily caned and sent to federal prison for a minimum sentence of 25 years.

Political ads should be abolished as well, there's nothing that a 30-second spot can tell you about a candidate, and further, if you're listening to the candidate or their party sell you a bill of goods, you should know you're being lied to right off the bat. Politicians are almost to a core corrupt ghouls who are only in it for their own $ and power. I say we're fucked either way, may as well chop their legs off and lower their immediate profits from buttfucking our country right to hell.

The problem with that is you end up with an electorate that has no idea who its voting for. It would be even more in the dark than it is now. The ability for a candidate or party to hide in that 'darkness' is pretty scary to me. I think you'd end up with an even more deeply entrenched ruling class than we have now.

Like it or not, money is a necessary component to modern politics. The candidates have to be able to get their platforms out. The problem now is where it comes from.

Donations to campaigns should be limited to living, breathing human beings capable of thought. This would exclude corporations, PAC's, people in a coma, dementia cases, etc...

I say an individual should be able to make limitless donations to any national candidate and any candidate in their voting district of residence. (Only one district of residence per person) That person's name and the amount they donated should be a part of the campaign's public disclosure and the source of that money must be easily accounted for. (Some dude working for Taco Bell would have to explain where that $100k came from and stiff penalties should apply if it is determined that he allowed himself to be used as a conduit)

All congressional campaign donations must originate from individuals within the contested district. Any ad produced by a PAC must declare that they are a PAC (This ad sponsored by the "People for the elimination of puppy kicking", A political action committee located at *physical address - not po box - not UPS store* *website* *phone number* Joe Smith, Chair). Any PAC advertising in a congressional race must be based in that district and chaired by a resident of that district. Local PAC's can not receive donations or other compensation from national PAC's.

You get the idea.

 

[Arkaign]

We already have an electorate that has no idea. The more disinformation and propoganda that comes through directly from the RNC and DNC the worse we all are for it.

Limitless donations just exaggerates the problems that we already have, and what good does it do to have considerable amounts of money disappear into a contest over who can shout more political bullshit? PACs as they are should cease to exist, and certainly no $ should ever go from an organization into a politicians pocket.

Think about it, for every contentious issue there are two sides, both funneling $$ and effort into controlling issues by controlling the polticians. The whole concept of debating the issues on their merits go out the window, and the issues are only viewed through partisan mirrors and searches for justifications for taking $$ from those powerful enough to want to influence the results.

It reduces our system to what it is, high-dollar whores being pimped out by their parties to get paid by the elites on various sides.

I say eliminate $ from modern politics, and let the ideas speak for themselves. That presents another problem when you consider the media will have a lot of power in determining whose voice gets heard, but we already have that problem.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The more disinformation and propoganda that comes through directly from the RNC and DNC the worse we all are for it.

Yep. If I had an opportunity to revamp the system I'd take a portion of monies and put it aside for third parties to use once they collected some number to be decided of signatures. At some point there would be point of diminishing returns to any party and that would be given to the others. More people get a voice.

 

[Arkaign]

Yep. If I had an opportunity to revamp the system I'd take a portion of monies and put it aside for third parties to use once they collected some number to be decided of signatures. At some point there would be point of diminishing returns to any party and that would be given to the others. More people get a voice.

That sounds like a damned huge improvement to me.

 

[Dulanic]

I can't believe I am going to say this. I agree with you as long as there is a trail where the money is coming from.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That sounds like a damned huge improvement to me.

Which is precisely why it won't happen. The Big Two have a vested interest in keeping themselves in power. In fact the whole power structure of Congress is based on party. Partisan hacks would never allow this either. Oh they'll complain because <insert political ideology here> is "the thing", but scream if something came along which allowed them to have a chance. Perverse but true.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

FYI... under my plan above, there would be no parties... Only PAC's. The Republican National Political Action Committee would have to obey the same rules as any other PAC meaning they could not interfere or insert money into any local or state election.

 

[a777pilot]

I know that there are a lot of neocons and ultra-liberterians that feel that way. Don't be so quick to judge people. a777pilot did not object to that part of my earlier post. I will give him the benefit of the doubt unless there is reason not to do so on a particular issue. Even he sees them as a necessary evil....although he does disagree as to how they are set up.

Yes, that's true and thank you for the understanding if not total agreement.

 

[ProfJohn]

1. Bad

2. Bad

3. huh?

4. Good

5. Stupid.

Why:
1. I can't compete against Bill Gates, but me and all my friends can get together and form a special interest group and complete against him. Limiting corps and unions from direct campaign contributions might be a good plan though.

2. Limits can be good if they keep the super rich from buying elections. Again I can't compete against Gates. If Bill Gates cousin ran for governor Bill could bankroll him and outspend everyone else in the state. Not a good thing. But if Bill is limited to say $10,000 then a larger group of citizens could get together and out spend him.

3. Why no cash? Loans might make sense, but hard to enforce.

4. 48 hours and on the internet.

 

[ProfJohn]

1. I understand that this slight of hand for the over the internet small contributions is exactly how Obama raised so much money from the so called small donors in 2008. It was mostly fake.

Require internet donations to use the same identity protection scheme that Amazon uses.

Sad that amazon does a better job of making sure you are who you claim you are than a guy running for President.

 

[ProfJohn]

Another poster here also said we should get rid of state support of primary elections. After thinking about this for a while, I agree wholeheartedly. A state has no interest in how a party selects their candidate. Let the parties decide amongst themselves (and pay for it). It only serves to perpetuate the two-party system by effectively subsidizing it.

Eliminating primaries would give MORE power to the parties since it would eliminate the outsider candidate.

Bye bye tea party, green party etc etc.

A bunch of party hacks in a back room would pick the candidate most likely to win and ignore the wants and desires of the people.

 

[ProfJohn]

God I love how everybody these days claims anything they don;t like is unconstitutional 😕 Go ahead, try and interpret any part of the constitution as speaking to campaign fianace rules! I dare ya

Its such a vague and brief outline of government written in a much simpler time when most of the concepts which government faces today hadn't even been dreamed of. You can make the argument that almost anything is unconstitutional or not. Judging current government policy against this ancient piece of paper is like trying to build a modern jet liner from Orville and Wilburs crude blueprints

Typical lefty view of the constitution.

If it isn't in there then it should be. But if it is in there then it means something other than what we think.

Want an abortion... that should be legal so we'll just create a new 'right' and make it so.

Want a gun... well the second amendment was meant only for state militias and therefore you can only have a gun if you are a member of one.

 

[IronWing]

Eliminating primaries would give MORE power to the parties since it would eliminate the outsider candidate.

Bye bye tea party, green party etc etc.

A bunch of party hacks in a back room would pick the candidate most likely to win and ignore the wants and desires of the people.

Yes exactly, and no. The party hacks would pick their candidates. This is exactly what should happen. Candidates should reflect the values of their party. Then the voters can choose. If the voters want a back room machine politician, okay. The caucus system, for example, yields candidates that much better reflect the party members' values than a primary system where anyone can declare party affiliation.

Eliminating state sponsored primaries empowers smaller parties by breaking down the false party affiliations created by the current system of public declarations of party preference required to vote in state sponsored primaries and removes the built in bias in favor of the two major parties.

Side note: the tea party is not an independent political party, it is a simple rebranding of the same old Republican Party. To say the tea partiers are not Republicans is like saying a Mercury isn't a Ford.

 

[ProfJohn]

^ give it up.

There is NOTHING that will change the two party system. It works to well for it to end.

All eliminating primaries will do is make it impossible for populist type candidates to win or even get noticed.

Every election will be generic Republicans vs generic Democrat.

There will no longer be blue dogs or RINOs or independent Democrats etc etc.

 

[IronWing]

^ give it up.

There is NOTHING that will change the two party system. It works to well for it to end.

As long as there are party hacks like yourself striving day in and day out to preserve the two party hegemony that might be true. However, what I wrote stands. Iowa caucus voters picked Pat Robertson, the candidate who best reflected the values of Republicans in Iowa. This was an excellent outcome as those folks could proudly support their party's candidate. The fact that Robertson had no chance of winning nationally was also excellent. The state sponsored primary system does not open the door for unknown candidates as much as it provides unwarranted subsidized voter outreach for the two major parties while also insuring that the selected candidates are fairly uninteresting and don't stray from the status quo.

 

[ProfJohn]

I am all for a multi-party system since it would mean the death of liberalism.

The more parties the better since it would further splinter the left.

If we had a parliament style system the liberals would never get close to the presidency again.

If it was a three party system it would be 40&#37; conservative, 36% moderate, 20% liberal. Someone like Obama would never even get close to the White House. An Evan Bayh or Bill Clinton would be as left wing as you'd ever get.

Imagine a 5 party system:
Greens, labor/liberal, Blue Dog Democrats, Fiscal conservatives, religious conservatives.

In that system the Blue dogs and conservatives would dominate since they are the largest and most closely aligned groups.

 

[IronWing]

I am all for a multi-party system since it would mean the death of liberalism.

The more parties the better since it would further splinter the left.

If we had a parliament style system the liberals would never get close to the presidency again.

If it was a three party system it would be 40% conservative, 36% moderate, 20% liberal. Someone like Obama would never even get close to the White House. An Evan Bayh or Bill Clinton would be as left wing as you'd ever get.

Imagine a 5 party system:
Greens, labor/liberal, Blue Dog Democrats, Fiscal conservatives, religious conservatives.

In that system the Blue dogs and conservatives would dominate since they are the largest and most closely aligned groups.

I more or less agree with you on how the parties would split. I'm okay with it because liberals would have a voice again. As things stand, center right candidates keep running in what was once a liberal party and the liberals are all but shut out. Obama ran as a centrist. Obama, as President, is governing as a mainstream conservative, even to the right of Clinton who ran and governed center-right. Over time, I think the liberals would gain in such a system as folks wake up to where their interests really lay.

 

[fskimospy]

I am all for a multi-party system since it would mean the death of liberalism.

The more parties the better since it would further splinter the left.

If we had a parliament style system the liberals would never get close to the presidency again.

If it was a three party system it would be 40% conservative, 36% moderate, 20% liberal. Someone like Obama would never even get close to the White House. An Evan Bayh or Bill Clinton would be as left wing as you'd ever get.

Imagine a 5 party system:
Greens, labor/liberal, Blue Dog Democrats, Fiscal conservatives, religious conservatives.

In that system the Blue dogs and conservatives would dominate since they are the largest and most closely aligned groups.

What are you smoking? I feel like I keep saying this to you, stop trying to talk about electoral politics like you understand anything about them.

First, in a parliamentary system there is no such thing as a president, at least not in how we have one. In fact, voters have even less moderating influence on who the parties place in power in parliamentary systems, not more, as the leadership is selected by the party without any external input.

Second, when you actually break down which party people identify with more, the Democrats have consistently held the party ID advantage, even when you count in left or right leaning independents.

Thirdly, Obama has governed to the right of Bill Clinton. It's funny how you can't see past the common right wing propaganda that states whatever Democrat holds a position of power currently is the most liberal most evil most communist Democrat there ever was, as opposed to you know... actually looking at what they do.

 

[fskimospy]

^ give it up.

There is NOTHING that will change the two party system. It works to well for it to end.

All eliminating primaries will do is make it impossible for populist type candidates to win or even get noticed.

Every election will be generic Republicans vs generic Democrat.

There will no longer be blue dogs or RINOs or independent Democrats etc etc.

The two party system does not persist because it works the best, it persists because those in power would have to vote to put themselves out of power.

Instant runoff voting is a perfectly viable solution to our poorly designed voting system, and it requires no constitutional amendment while allowing multiple parties to gain representation.

 

[ProfJohn]

Obama ran as a centrist. Obama, as President, is governing as a mainstream conservative, even to the right of Clinton who ran and governed center-right.

If you really believe that Obama is governing as a mainstream conservative then you have NO idea what a mainstream conservative really is.

Even Bush governed to the left of mainstream conservatism.

Obama governs as a liberal and probably the most liberal we have ever had. Every solution to every problem involves government.

Economy is bad, need more government spending. Healthcare is a problem, need more government. Need green energy, here is the government plan to create it. Not enough jobs, we'll form a government commission to create some. Too much government spending, oh wait... no such thing as that.

The war on terrorism is about the only place where he isn't a hard leftist and that is only because reality has forced him to move to the right. He wanted to close Gitmo, he wanted to leave Iraq, he thought we could talk to Iran and they would like us. He thought an open hand would accomplish more than a closed fist etc etc.

 

[ProfJohn]

Second, when you actually break down which party people identify with more, the Democrats have consistently held the party ID advantage, even when you count in left or right leaning independents.

That is false. The numbers go back and forth depending on the mood of the country.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

And in a multi-party system it would go beyond R v D and instead become more about liberal v conservative v moderate v labor etc etc.

In that situation conservatives have a huge majority over liberals.