Campaign Finance Reform

[a777pilot]

As we get deeper into the Silly Season, i.e., the campaign season, I thought it is a good time to bring up my ideas on Campaign finance Reform.

Here tis:

My stance on political contributions is as follows:

1. Only American citizens eligible to vote ought be allowed to make political contributions. So that would eliminate, unions, corporations, foreign nationals, special interest groups* and dead people (that's for Cook county).

2. No limits. If a person wants to give their entire fortune to a political candidate, of what business is it of others?

3. No cash and no loans.

4. Full and immediate disclosure. That means within 12 hours of giving the money, the amount, who gave it, to whom it was given and the source of that money should be in the public domain for any and all to see. That also means that even if it just one dollar it must be reported and reported in full. Any contributions that a candidate receives that does not meet these qualifications must be immediately returned and if the money can't be returned it must be turned over to the local, state or federal government, depending on what office the candidate is running for.

That's my idea of campaign finance reform.


*Special Interest groups would include the NRA. They should not be able to give money to any candidate or political party because the NRA has no vote. If the NRA, under my plan, wanted to take a position on an issue, then they would have every right to make their own political ads and air them as they see fit. Just so long as there was no coordination with any party organization or candidate.

The same would hold true for unions. Or churches. Or any organization.

After a few years of advocating these reforms I've decided that I need a "5", so......

5. All candidate's campaign moneys remaining after the elections is to immediately be turned over to the political entity for which that candidate was running, be it a city, county, state or federal government.

 

[Doppel]

I think there must be a limit per contribution. Without it you still have the problem of people effectively buying votes. A key problem with all of this is that money buys disproportionate influence with legislators and a rich person has more power.

 

[IronWing]

I would add: get government out of the business of running party primaries. There is no state interest in how political parties select their candidates. If a party wants to organize an open primary on its own dime, fine. If a party wants to sell candidate slots to the highest bidder, fine. It isn't a public issue. There is no reason that the state should be collecting information about party affiliation from voters. It is not a state interest to know this information.

The criteria for getting on the general election ballot should be the same for all candidates regardless of the past election results for any party. Collect x signatures and you or your party are on the ballot. Note that current practice in some locales is to grant automatic ballot access to parties who did well in the election prior. This only serves to provide an unfair benefit the major parties.

 

[boomerang]

I don't want to go off topic but I can't resist getting on my soap box. The election cycle should be shortened severely to just six months. (Edit: The Presidential election.) I've elaborated on this in prior posts so this time I'll leave it short and sweet.

I've sometimes thought about putting a cap on how much can be raised.

The problem with campaign reform in any respect is that the people that benefit from the system as it exists make the laws.

 

[Thump553]

The key to your plan (#1) has already been declared unconstitutional by the present makeup of the Supreme Court.

In addition your plan presents a lot of practical problems. How are you going to efficiently confirm citizenship for small contributions (say under $500), especially those that are made over the internet or by mail (which is a huge chunk). Finally as the treasurer (legally responsbile person for such reporting) let me say that the current reporting schedule is plenty onerous and a 12 hour one would be a nightmare, especially to those of us who do this work voluntarily (which is the vast, vast majority of campaign treasurers until you get to the major party national Presidential level).

How about loans from the candiate to the campaign-that's done all the time.

 

[a777pilot]

The key to your plan (#1) has already been declared unconstitutional by the present makeup of the Supreme Court.

In addition your plan presents a lot of practical problems. How are you going to efficiently confirm citizenship for small contributions (say under $500), especially those that are made over the internet or by mail (which is a huge chunk). Finally as the treasurer (legally responsbile person for such reporting) let me say that the current reporting schedule is plenty onerous and a 12 hour one would be a nightmare, especially to those of us who do this work voluntarily (which is the vast, vast majority of campaign treasurers until you get to the major party national Presidential level).

How about loans from the candiate to the campaign-that's done all the time.

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.

So, if there is no procedure to ensure the citizenship of the donor than the campaign could not accept the donation and if it could not be immediately returned, it goes to the the political entity for which that candidate is running.....local, county, state or federal.

2. No loans means just that, no loans.

 

[Carmen813]

I disagree with pretty much all of these ideas.

1. Violates 1st amendment. Your proposal would also significantly weaken those who already have little political power.
2. It's very much my business because elected officials make laws that impact everyone. Hell, I think we need to do as much as possible to remove money from the equation.
3. No. See #1.
4. No. Such strict requirements will cost tremendous amounts of money. It will also restrict our candidate pool even further. I'd like it to be easier to run for election, not more difficult.
5. No, see #4.

I agree something must be done for campaign finance, but I don't think these suggestions are the right approach. I would prefer publicly financed campaigns are overturning Citizens United as a starting place.

 

[a777pilot]

I disagree with pretty much all of these ideas.

1. Violates 1st amendment. Your proposal would also significantly weaken those who already have little political power.
2. It's very much my business because elected officials make laws that impact everyone. Hell, I think we need to do as much as possible to remove money from the equation.
3. No. See #1.
4. No. Such strict requirements will cost tremendous amounts of money. It will also restrict our candidate pool even further. I'd like it to be easier to run for election, not more difficult.
5. No, see #4.

I agree something must be done for campaign finance, but I don't think these suggestions are the right approach. I would prefer publicly financed campaigns are overturning Citizens United as a starting place.

So, let me get this right. You want bigger and more intrusive government and I want more individual freedom and responsibility.

Got it. You voted for Bobo, the Post Turtle, didn't you?

Next.

 

[MovingTarget]

Your proposal has merit, even if it is a bit draconian. The problem is that it won't go anywhere because of the whole 'corporations are people' and 'money is speech' precedents. Eliminate those and then you can get to real campaign finance reform.

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.

 

[MovingTarget]

So, let me get this right. You want bigger and more intrusive government and I want more individual freedom and responsibility.

Got it. You voted for Bobo, the Post Turtle, didn't you?

Next.

Thats a riot. If I had wanted bigger, more intrusive government, I'd have voted for McCain/Palin. I wanted a bigger, less intrusive government, where individual responsibility isn't only just for the little guy (looking at you, Wall Street).

 

[EagleKeeper]

Might as well include goods/services in the list.

And church/religion that espouses a political position/candidate would loose their tax exemption privileges for one election cycle for which they participated

 

[a777pilot]

Thats a riot. If I had wanted bigger, more intrusive government, I'd have voted for McCain/Palin. I wanted a bigger, less intrusive government, where individual responsibility isn't only just for the little guy (looking at you, Wall Street).

I'm interested. Explain to me how one can get a bigger and at the same time less intrusive government?

Or did you make a typing error?

 

[MovingTarget]

I'm interested. Explain to me how one can get a bigger and at the same time less intrusive government?

Or did you make a typing error?

I did not make a typing error there. You just have to ask yourself what makes a government 'less intrusive'. Having the government provide services for the public good (defense, infrastructure, education, research, healthcare, etc.) do cost money via taxes, but that does not mean that those activities are intrusive. Intrusive government activities are ones that directly control or monitor the populace. These include domestic spying, wiretapping, the war on drugs, limitation of reproductive rights, restrictions on free speech/press, gun control, etc.

The whole big government/small government dichotomy is false when you are considering how intrusive it is. You can have big government providing lots of services, but that isn't intrusive. You can have a smaller sized government that provides very little in the way of services, but expends its resources intruding on the population. It depends on the context. Too small of a government will limit its intrusiveness, but also its effectiveness and hence its purpose for governing. Freedom can be greatly limited moreso with a small government as those with great wealth/resources fill the power vaccuum to persue their own interests, undermining democracy in the process.

 

[a777pilot]

I did not make a typing error there. You just have to ask yourself what makes a government 'less intrusive'. Having the government provide services for the public good (defense, infrastructure, education, research, healthcare, etc.) do cost money via taxes, but that does not mean that those activities are intrusive. Intrusive government activities are ones that directly control or monitor the populace. These include domestic spying, wiretapping, the war on drugs, limitation of reproductive rights, restrictions on free speech/press, gun control, etc.

The whole big government/small government dichotomy is false when you are considering how intrusive it is. You can have big government providing lots of services, but that isn't intrusive. You can have a smaller sized government that provides very little in the way of services, but expends its resources intruding on the population. It depends on the context. Too small of a government will limit its intrusiveness, but also its effectiveness and hence its purpose for governing. Freedom can be greatly limited moreso with a small government as those with great wealth/resources fill the power vaccuum to persue their own interests, undermining democracy in the process.

All those items you list as intrusive, well, I agree with you.

As to those items you actually listed that government (I'm assuming federal government) ought to provide, well, I strongly disagree. Defense, infrastructure and some research...yes. Health care and education, no way.

 

[a777pilot]

....but this is a thread on campaign finance reform.

 

[Fenixgoon]

my solution:

each candidate, if they acquire enough votes in the previous campaign season, receives an identical sum to spend on campaigning for the entire campaign season, and that is all they can spend.

 

[Thump553]

Let me ask you this about your plan-are you going to prohibit corporations/unions/foreignors, etc. from spending their money to indirectly support a campaign-like the Swift boaters made so popular and like what clogs our TV almost every night (between the penis pill ads).

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I actually agree with your number one, but unfortunately the SCOTUS doesn't and just recently increased corporations and unions ability to fund and control campaign contributions.

I also find it interesting that you hold a position on campaign finance reform that is the polar opposite of the party that you so champion on these boards. I guess you truly are a tea party kinda guy, because moderate republicans would cringe at such an anti corporatist position.
Your closer to Bernie Sanders on this issue than the majority of republicans.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

my solution:

each candidate, if they acquire enough votes in the previous campaign season, receives an identical sum to spend on campaigning for the entire campaign season, and that is all they can spend.

This is the most elegant and fair solution in a eutopian world, but good luck getting that passed in the current political climate. That would be like getting two waring countries to agree on equal amounts of military spending

 

[BeauJangles]

my solution:

each candidate, if they acquire enough votes in the previous campaign season, receives an identical sum to spend on campaigning for the entire campaign season, and that is all they can spend.

Well, that would also be unconstitutional, so it would never fly in this country.

 

[her209]

Doesn't stop special interests from running ads in favor or against a candidate. Oops.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Well, that would also be unconstitutional, so it would never fly in this country.

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

 

[Craig234]

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

I think what he means is, unconstitutional as the constitution is recently interpreted by the four right-wing radicals plus Kennedy.

People look at the right-wing tea party freshmen in Congress who say they won't vote to raise the debt ceiling (under Obama) no matter what, and say they're crazy.

But the four radical right-wingers come from the same stock, under the Federalist Society ideology, and were appointed precisely to radically change our court rulings.

 

[Craig234]

I don't really see much way to fix this without a constitutional amendment to put corporations back where they belong under the rule of citizens, undoing the radical 4.

As Her209 alluded to, it's a complicated issue - what if someone just wants to 'express an opinion' on an issue that just happens to be the issue a candidate is running on?

What if they want to pay $10 million in ads to smother the public on the issue?

There's really one main reason for our massive campaign spending. It's because in our society which tries to say 'everyone gets one vote, from poor to rich', the rich say 'screw that', and realize the way for them to get a whole lot more than one vote is for money to dominate the elections - something only they can provide, giving them power.

The antidote of course is to say the richest one percent don't get to have almost total control over who has any chance to win, by limiting the use of that money.

Our democracy is quite under threat of not working for the people over this issue - as almost everyone can agree, it already doesn't in a number of cases.

The radical 4 on the Supreme Court have paved the way for a 'privatization of election', with corporate-serving groups like Rove's ready to pass up the parties in funding.

It's a simple formula - the politicians need to convince the people to vote for them - while being subservient to them who pays for their campaign.

The OP is actually on to something with returning elections to citizens, not corporations, once we get a constitutional amendment.

The ironic thing is, people like him support the very people who will block that reform.

The only major political faction who would support this reform is the progressive caucus.

Everyone else basically supports the status quo - that got them elected. So this needs a whole lot of organizing 'by the people', without media coverage, overcoming politicians.

 

[MovingTarget]

All those items you list as intrusive, well, I agree with you.

As to those items you actually listed that government (I'm assuming federal government) ought to provide, well, I strongly disagree. Defense, infrastructure and some research...yes. Health care and education, no way.

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.