Political reform: Take the money and special interests out of the equation

[GaryJohnson]

Nothing is going to fix the problem as long as the average voter doesn't go beyond cable news, talk radio, and campaign advertisements in deciding their vote.

The average voter doesn't vote at all.

 

[dali71]

Pretty much this. If someone wants to spend money on something let them. After all, it is theirs.

Patranus' point is spot on - McCain wanted to constrain spending and Obama said he did, until he figured out that he would have more money to spend if he didn't.

When Obama went back on his commitment we knew we had a politician that was just another unprincipled hack in contention.

Source?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/06/obama_reneges_on_public_financ.html

 

[BoberFett]

Isn't that the whole of what government does? If you removed their scope to do that, wouldn't that remove the need for any government at all?

It's what they do, but it's not what they should be doing.

 

[Fenixgoon]

what about just allotting X amount of resources, assuming you gather a certain number of votes in the previous election year (much like how presidential campaign funding works)? but that would be it - no outside funding, just what the state/feds give you.

 

[dawp]

They could start by having the broadcast stations playing qualified candidates ads for free (after all they are the public's airwaves). Each one get's X amount of air time. Anyone who can get on the ballot should have access to the the voters. That would greatly reduce the money needed to run.

 

[hal2kilo]

Nothing is going to fix the problem as long as the average voter doesn't go beyond cable news, talk radio, and campaign advertisements in deciding their vote.

What? Interrupt Dancing with the Stars!

 

[GaryJohnson]

It's what they do, but it's not what they should be doing.

What should they be doing - without picking winners and losers? Any decision made and any money spent would result in someone benefiting and someone else not.

 

[BoberFett]

What should they be doing - without picking winners and losers? Any decision made and any money spent would result in someone benefiting and someone else not.

For example?

 

[Craig234]

What should they be doing - without picking winners and losers? Any decision made and any money spent would result in someone benefiting and someone else not.

Of course, and that's not a bad thing.

It's not about who benefits, it's about the democratic process benefiting.

That rests on people making decisions based as much as possible based on 'the issues', 'the candidates', etc. - and not having those things smothered by expensive marketing.

Yes, reducing propaganda and expensive marketing helps candidates whose agendas are more pro-public without the big money, and hurts the corporatist-sponsored ones.

Hurts in the sense not of an 'unfair treatment of the corporatists', but of reducing the unfair advantage they want and evening the playing field a bit.

 

[GaryJohnson]

For example?

Everything that the government does, has done, or could do.

 

[werepossum]

What should they be doing - without picking winners and losers? Any decision made and any money spent would result in someone benefiting and someone else not.

Big difference between people and corporations inevitably but indirectly benefiting from any government decision, and government voting subsidies for this industry and giving a tax break to that company.

 

[Anarchist420]

Establishing caps on campaign funds won't make a damn bit of difference. Going back to the Articles of Confederation would solve the problem. The Constitution is inherently corporatist.

 

[Anarchist420]

It's not about who benefits, it's about the democratic process benefiting.

Fuck the Democratic process.

Democracies have a natural tendency to become plutocracies.

 

[piasabird]

Anyone can pass any law they want and no one will be able to enforce campaign finance reform. You could pass a law right now making it illegal for money to change hands in any government building that lawmakers work at.

I think the effect could be limited if we limit both the house and the senate to 4 year terms and make all their elections occur at the same time. That way there will be less money to chase after for each campaign. It will also make it easier for a clean sweep if one party takes over and we dont like them. Then instead of mid-term elections (Or once every year) we can have a vote of confidence. If anyone is voted out we can hold an election for that vacancy or appoint a replacement. This way if they dont vote the way their constituents want we can kick them out.