Campaign finance

[woolfe9999]

Rather than being a post about a specific current event, this is a position statement of mine, and I am curious who agrees or disagrees with it.

I want to see all special interest money taken out of our political system. That means corporate money, big insurance, big pharma, big oil, and all other special interest money, whether it is AIPAC, NRA, unions, ACORN, etc. ALL of it.

I propose that there should be no entity contributions for political campaigns. Campaigns would receive a minimum baseline of public financing (extremely little), and candidates can raise additional money from individual donors (capped in the low hundreds per donor).

I anticipate that campaigns would be run on less money under this system. Principally, the campaigns would have to be run off of written position statements that are published in newspapers and on the internet, televised debates, and town hall meetings. Less common would be the spam of misleading and propagandistic television ads, which currently make up the bulk of campaign expenses.

As for lobbying activities, we cannot limit the access of lobbyists to elected officials as this access is guarenteed by the Constitution. However, we can take all the money out of campaigns, which in turn limits the ability of lobbyists to influence these officials, and we can strictly forbid any gifts, trips, junkets, wining and dining and all other promised favors. Elected official should be required to publically disclose the identity of all lobbyists who visit them, keeping a daily log of such visits.

Agree or disagree?

- wolf

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

We already have a system similar to what you describe. Where is the problem is that individuals will then donate to multiple PACs or some other organization that will then campaign on the candidate's behalf. Also see 527 Organization.

 

[woolfe9999]

We already have a system similar to what you describe. Where is the problem is that individuals will then donate to multiple PACs or some other organization that will then campaign on the candidate's behalf.

Taking a look at this website:

www.opensecrets.org

You can see that candidates are still getting substantial entity contributions. That is in addition to the PAC money, which is another problem.

- wolf

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Which is concerning, but I believe entity spending is still has a dollar limit per candidate, correct? Even if they removed direct spending by entities it would get diverted elsewhere.

 

[woolfe9999]

Which is concerning, but I believe entity spending is still has a dollar limit per candidate, correct? Even if they removed direct spending by entities it would get diverted elsewhere.

It does have a cap. I think they get around it by creating multiple entities which essentially serve the same interest or bloc of related interests. The other way they get around it is what you mentioned, diverting money to PAC's which will advertise for one candidate or the other. I am open to suggestions as to how to disrupt this avenue as well.

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

As Captain Goodnight said, these entities will campaign for their preferred candidates, even if they have to do so via policy adverts that do not specifically mention the candidate by name. There is simply no way to have a government that is so powerful and so intrusive and expect to keep money out of the election, especially when the tax code and regulatory structures are so often and easily used to favor or punish one industry or one company. Also, bundlers would simply repeat the Algore Buddhist temple fiasco, where numerous names are on sequential money orders. If you have motivated and ultra-wealthy donors (and both sides do, although the Democrats have more) and the stakes are so high, you cannot keep money out. I have no problem with cutting out PACs, but don't expect it will reduce the amount of money spent, which is a function of the stakes rather than of the money available. There's a reason that a councilman and a senator function under the same financial rules yet senators pull hundreds of times as much money; that reason is their relative power.

Plus assume for a moment that you could eliminate all special interest money and greatly reduce the overall spending in a campaign. You then greatly increase the power of rich individuals, or the two parties, or the media, or celebrities, or not-for-profits like ACORN and churches. Any of that really sound better? Great power creates a vacuum into which money and/or influence must flow.

 

[Patranus]

The Liberal's interpretation of "free speech" is doing wonders for this country isn't it?

 

[woolfe9999]

As Captain Goodnight said, these entities will campaign for their preferred candidates, even if they have to do so via policy adverts that do not specifically mention the candidate by name. There is simply no way to have a government that is so powerful and so intrusive and expect to keep money out of the election, especially when the tax code and regulatory structures are so often and easily used to favor or punish one industry or one company. Also, bundlers would simply repeat the Algore Buddhist temple fiasco, where numerous names are on sequential money orders. If you have motivated and ultra-wealthy donors (and both sides do, although the Democrats have more) and the stakes are so high, you cannot keep money out. I have no problem with cutting out PACs, but don't expect it will reduce the amount of money spent, which is a function of the stakes rather than of the money available. There's a reason that a councilman and a senator function under the same financial rules yet senators pull hundreds of times as much money; that reason is their relative power.

Plus assume for a moment that you could eliminate all special interest money and greatly reduce the overall spending in a campaign. You then greatly increase the power of rich individuals, or the two parties, or the media, or celebrities, or not-for-profits like ACORN and churches. Any of that really sound better? Great power creates a vacuum into which money and/or influence must flow.

I think you can level the field with respect to wealthy candidates by putting a cap on campaign spending. As for the rest, yes, I think it would be an improvement. Media, celebrities, grass roots community groups, and churches might have more sway, but not by giving money to candidate's campaigns. I just want to minimize the extent to which politicians in office are beholden to monied interests. This problem will not have a perfect solution. I am just brainstorming to see if the problem can be at least partially solved.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

The Liberal's interpretation of "free speech" is doing wonders for this country isn't it?

I'm not clear what you even mean here Patranus. Is campaign finance reform aimed at taking special interest money out of the system a "liberal" issue and not a conservative issue?

- wolf

 

[Zebo]

Sounds like a good plan to me Wolf - problem is guys voting on it benefit from it.

 

[ElFenix]

I'm not clear what you even mean here Patranus. Is campaign finance reform aimed at taking special interest money out of the system a "liberal" issue and not a conservative issue?

- wolf

i think he means that ever since the original campaign finance laws went into place, every update seems to have made the problem worse and less accountable.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Beneficium accipere libertatem est vendere

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

I think the focus on money strikes me as confusing the symptom for the disease. Politics just is a process whereby the politically well-connected steal from the rest of us. I don't think there once was, or someday can be, a pristine political process untainted by “money in politics.” But that represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what the political process is and how it works.

It’s simply never going to be possible to pass enough regulations to eliminate the influence of “bad” lobbyists on the political process. Certainly, “getting money out of politics” won’t do it. It’s far more effective to build institutions to ensure that the “good” side of any given issue gets a real hearing. The Internet is making that easier than ever before, by lowering the barriers to entry for political participation. The goal should not be to smash the old system, but to build new institutions that give more influence to ordinary voters and taxpayers.

 

[Patranus]

I'm not clear what you even mean here Patranus. Is campaign finance reform aimed at taking special interest money out of the system a "liberal" issue and not a conservative issue?

- wolf

Campaign donations are considered constitutionally protected forms of "speech".

 

[StageLeft]

The money HAS to be taken out as much as possible. Something needs to be done about lobbying, too. There is nothing in the constitution that says politicians have to be lobby whores.

I don't think there once was, or someday can be, a pristine political process untainted by “money in politics.” But that represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what the political process is and how it works.

A guy on NPR said that in ancient Greece each year 6k RANDOM citizens were chosen to lead the country each year. Then next year another 6000 random citizens. I have no interest in exploring whether this is better or worse but it does go to show that it is possible to remove, not just in theory but perhaps also practice, a huge degree of money whorism.

In fact, the US used to not be run by lobbyists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States

Interesting. I was just reading, some in Athenian Democracy were voted, notably those who handled money, that way if they embezzled it could be taken from their estate. Also, after a term there was a report card process and you could get in trouble if you seriously sucked.

 

[woolfe9999]

Campaign donations are considered constitutionally protected forms of "speech".

No, they are not. There is no constitutional right to give someone money for a political campaign. There is a right to lobby elected officials. That is not the same thing.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

I think the focus on money strikes me as confusing the symptom for the disease. Politics just is a process whereby the politically well-connected steal from the rest of us. I don't think there once was, or someday can be, a pristine political process untainted by “money in politics.” But that represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what the political process is and how it works.

It’s simply never going to be possible to pass enough regulations to eliminate the influence of “bad” lobbyists on the political process. Certainly, “getting money out of politics” won’t do it. It’s far more effective to build institutions to ensure that the “good” side of any given issue gets a real hearing. The Internet is making that easier than ever before, by lowering the barriers to entry for political participation. The goal should not be to smash the old system, but to build new institutions that give more influence to ordinary voters and taxpayers.

I think I mostly disagree here, with some caveats. You can certainly improve the system by restricting the role of monied interests. You certainly cannot take all the money out or make it even near perfect.

I partially agree with your second thought, that good ideas should be given a better hearing. The problem, however, with the internet, is that it is filled without informational junk food, and unfortunately too many do not think critically enough to separate the wheat from the chaff. For example, you'd think the internet would reduce partisanship by exposing people to opposing viewpoints. Yet we have only become more partisan during the information age. That is because people naturally gravitate toward self-confirmatory and like-minded sources of information, which for the most part reinforce the polarization of viewpoints. Where the internet has done some good is in the availability of factual information. However, in the realm of opinion, I'm afraid it has done more harm than good.

- Wolf

 

[Patranus]

No, they are not. There is no constitutional right to give someone money for a political campaign. There is a right to lobby elected officials. That is not the same thing.

- wolf

Incorrect.

 

[Craig234]

I agree this would be one of t ereforms that would improve things. Others are needed too.

I suggest you read Thom Hartmann's "Unequal Protection" for the history of this issue.

It's a very interesting story of how the nation, during its period of ULTRA pro-business Supreme Court,had business use the black rights' amendment to secure 'personhood' for corporations.

They had no idea, after having had many attempts fail, but now we have a long history of case law.

 

[ebaycj]

The Liberal's interpretation of "free speech" is doing wonders for this country isn't it?

How do you get "free speech" from "campaign finance"?

No one should be allowed to campaign on a campaign's behalf with anything but their own free time. PAC's/527's should not be allowed to take out campaign-related advertising directly. If they want to help a campaign, they should donate the organizational maximum to that campaign. Or, donate workers to the campaign.

Not to mention the OP's conjecture that "there should be no entity contributions for political campaigns", would completely eliminate this, as PAC's and 527's are "entities", not individual people.

 

[Pens1566]

End corporate personhood. Problem solved.

 

[bamacre]

Sounds like a good plan to me Wolf - problem is guys voting on it benefit from it.

Yes, this is the problem. It's too late. Our government has become a timeshare owned by several industries. And they have no plans to give up their ownership. We made a deal, and we lost. We gave up our economic freedom for economic security, and now we have neither.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yes, this is the problem. It's too late. Our government has become a timeshare owned by several industries. And they have no plans to give up their ownership. We made a deal, and we lost. We gave up our economic freedom for economic security, and now we have neither.

Actually, this is why I started this thread, out of curiously about the degree of popular consensus for real campaign finance reform. My theory was that unlike basically every other issue, this notion would have large, bipartisan consensus. It seems me that the only way to get this accomplished is with a grass roots, bipartisan effort to pressure elected officials to get it done. If this sort of thing has like 85-90% support in the general population, then elected officials need to know this, and they need to know that they will suffer consequences at the ballot box for opposing it. Still probably won't work, but this is the only concept that even might work. I know some candidates like Nader have made it a central issue, but they are largely viewed as fringe and basically ignored.

- wolf

 

[Moonbeam]

The supreme court says that money is speech. Nothing will ever be fixed until that ruling is overturned probably by amendment to the Constitution but the American people will never figure this out because money will make sure they don't.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Rather than being a post about a specific current event, this is a position statement of mine, and I am curious who agrees or disagrees with it.

I want to see all special interest money taken out of our political system. That means corporate money, big insurance, big pharma, big oil, and all other special interest money, whether it is AIPAC, NRA, unions, ACORN, etc. ALL of it.

I propose that there should be no entity contributions for political campaigns. Campaigns would receive a minimum baseline of public financing (extremely little), and candidates can raise additional money from individual donors (capped in the low hundreds per donor).

I anticipate that campaigns would be run on less money under this system. Principally, the campaigns would have to be run off of written position statements that are published in newspapers and on the internet, televised debates, and town hall meetings. Less common would be the spam of misleading and propagandistic television ads, which currently make up the bulk of campaign expenses.

As for lobbying activities, we cannot limit the access of lobbyists to elected officials as this access is guarenteed by the Constitution. However, we can take all the money out of campaigns, which in turn limits the ability of lobbyists to influence these officials, and we can strictly forbid any gifts, trips, junkets, wining and dining and all other promised favors. Elected official should be required to publically disclose the identity of all lobbyists who visit them, keeping a daily log of such visits.

Agree or disagree?

- wolf

We should look at Australia and adopt some of their good points.
- Election campaigning lasts less than 2 months.
- Elections are federally funded.
- Voting is compulsory for all citizens (although leaving a ballot blank is not!)

As far as lobbying and corporations free speech, here is what I posted in another thread:

I think Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad was one the worst decision of the SC. Which has lead to all the lobbying and special interest groups as well as buying elected representatives. And ironically it was the head note, written by a court reporter who happened to be a former president of a railroad, not the actual opinion itself which has been used to apply the legal principle.



.