# Campaign Reform **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 13, 2006, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-reform/339847 "2006-01-13T18:23:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-reform/339847/1 "2006-01-13T18:23:40Z")
Since we are reforming both the Democrats and Republicans, why not reform the electoral campaigning process? What would you do to change the media circus it has become? I’ve got a suggestion. Remove certain parts of the ability of a corporation to be treated as a person. Like their right to political speech. Take away their ability to lobby, and to pay for advertisments. Anyone else got one? ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-reform/339847/2 "2006-01-13T18:32:13Z")
Candidates can only accept campaign contributions from individuals who live within their state/district. Candidates to be allowed free tv time, and their opponents are allowed sufficient free time for rebuttal. The media to analyze each candidate’s ads and rebuttals for veracity with the same energy their currently use analyzing Tom & Katie’s romance, Oscar nominated movies and or the Super Bowl contenders. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-reform/339847/3 "2006-01-13T19:23:26Z")
Why not just ban campaign contributions **entirely?** Campaign contributions are our modern, legal form of bribery. And elections are won by money – because in the U.S., no matter how persuasive your ideas might be, you can’t hope to win, or even be taken seriously as a potential candidate, unless you have the funding to buy very expensive TV advertising. That’s called the “wealth primary.” (In France, paid campaign ads are not allowed, and every broadcaster is required to allot every candidate in the election an equal amount of air time.) From _The Next American Nation,_ by Michael Lind (The Free Press, 1995), pp. 256-259 (from before the McCain-Feingold Bill, but I don’t think the picture has changed all that much since it passed): > [@](#): > > Campaign financing is by far the most important mechanism for overclass influence in government. The real two-party system in the United States consists of the party of voters and the tiny but influential party of donors. The donor party in the United States is made up of an extraordinarily small number of citizens. In 1988, according to one study, only 10.2 percent of the American public made a contribution to a candidate, party, or partisan group. . . . The group of large political donors is a still more exclusive club. According to a study by Citizen Action, in the 1989-90 election cycle only 179,677 individual donors gave contributions greater than $200 to a federal candidate, political action committee (PAC), or party: “Thirty-four percent of the money spent by federal candidates was directly contributed by no more than one-tenth of one percent of the voting age population.” One may reasonably doubt that this one tenth of one percent is representative of the electorate or the population at large. > > \ > > Special interests buy favors from congressmen and presidents through political action committees (PACs), devices by which groups like corporations, professional associations, trade unions, investment banking groups – can pool their money and give $10,000 per election to each House and Senate candidate. Today there are more than 4,000 Political Action Committees (PACs) of various kinds registered with the Federal Election Commission; in 1974, when they were sanctioned by law, there were only 500. PAC money is driving campaign costs to new heights. In 1992, the average Senate incumbent spent more than $3.6 million for re-election; that is the equivalent of raising $12,000 a week in a single six-year term. Members of Congress, by comparison, spend only an average of $557,403 to be re-elected – a “mere” $5,000 a week for a two-year term. The average cost of a House campaign has risen to this level from $140,000 in 1980 – and $52,000 in 1974. > > The chief beneficiaries of rising campaign costs and PAC contributions have been incumbents. In 1972, 52 cents of the average PAC dollar went to incumbents, compared to 25 cents to challengers (the rest went to candidates for open seats); in the 1988 House elections, incumbents received 84.4 cents of each PAC dollar and challengers only 8.6 cents. It makes more sense for lobbies to buy access to established members of Congress and senators – particularly those with important leadership positions – than to fund challengers, who, if elected, would have no seniority and little influence. . . . **Former Senator Barry Goldwater has lamented, "The Founding Fathers would frown in their graves if they saw us rationing candidacies sheerly on the basis of money: who has – or can raise – the millions necessary to run for office."** > > Democrats, when they were members of the majority party, received more PAC money than Republicans, though both parties are saturated with it. Contrary to conservative claims that liberal lobby groups dominate Congress, PAC funds come overwhelmingly from business: in 1990, 65 percent of PAC contributions came from business PACs, compared to 24 percent from labor and only 11 percent from ideological groups (including conservative as well as liberal pressure groups). “At one point,” John Judis has pointed out, “the American Petroleum Institute employed more lobbyists in Washington than the entire labor movement.” > > One of the effects of the postpartisan PAC system is to weaken the link between members of Congress and senators and the districts and states they are supposed to represent. Out-of-state money from special interests often flowes into House and Senate elections. This means that many senators are, in effect, at-large representatives of free-spending national business constituencies. > > Some argue that special-interest expenditures have no significant influence on public policy. **If all of this money is not buying special favors from congressmen and senators, a great many groups and individuals who are otherwise careful with their resources are acting in a highly irrational manner, year after year.** They don’t come much more libertarian than Goldwater, and even he was appalled at this state of affairs. From the same book, pp. 311-313: > [@](#): > > Today’s U.S. government is democratic in form but plutocratic in substance. . . . In a misguided 1976 decision, _Buckley v. Valeo,_ the Supreme Court held that Congress could not limit spending by rich Americans promoting their own candidacies. This decision was to the equalization of voting power what Dred Scott was to abolitionism. In The Yale Law Review, Jamin Raskin and John Boniface have argued that political candidates in the United States must win a “wealth primary.” Candidates without enormous amounts of money, either from their own fortunes or from rich individuals and special interest groups, cannot hope to win the party primaries – much less general elections. Indeed, the Buckley decision is one reason why more than half the members of the Senate today are millionaires. . . . > > It is time to build a wall of separation between check and state. Curing the disease of plutocratic politics requires a correct diagnosis of its cause: the costs of political advertising. **The basic problem is that special interests buy access and favors by donating the money needed for expensive political advertising in the media. Elaborate schemes governing the flow of money do nothing to address the central problem: paid political advertising. Instead of devising unworkable limits on campaign financing that leave the basic system intact, we should cut the Gordian knot of campaign corruption by simply outlawing paid political advertising on behalf of any candidate for public office. The replacement of political advertising by free informational public service notices in the electronic and print media would level the playing field of politics and kill off an entire parasitic industry of media consultants and spin doctors.** > > An outright ban on paid political advertising and the imposition of free time requirements on the media are radical measures, but nothing less is necessary if we are to prevent our government from continuing to be sold to the highest bidders. **The argument against strict public regulation of money in politics is based on a false analogy between free spending and free speech protected under the First Amendment. The analogy is false, because limits on campaign finance do not address the content of speech – only its volume, as it were.** It is not an infringement on free speech to say that, in a large public auditorium, Douglas will not be allowed to use a microphone unless Lincoln can as well.\* > > \*A much more compelling analogy would be between the electoral process and the judicial system, with the electorate playing the role of the jury. In our system of trial by jury, there are elaborate rules governing the presentation of evidence to the jury by plaintiff and defendant (the “candidates”). If our judicial system were organized the way our judicial system is, then rich candidates would be allowed to buy time before the jury. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, in one Senate election, outspent his opponent by 300 to 1; the equivalent, in the judicial system, would be allowing a rich plaintiff to buy, say, six months to present his side of the case, while the poor plaintiff might be able to purchase only twenty minutes for his side. **Most** of the world’s democracies have election systems in which private campaign contributions are not allowed to play any significant role in politics, and it seems to work out well enough for them. No voice is stifled, and no voice is artificially amplified by wealthy backers. See these threads: > **[How does campaign financing work in countries other than the U.S.?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=223440)** > > In all the arguments over campaign finance reform in the United States, nobody ever seems to mention how other countries do it. How do they do it? For instance: If I want to run for the United States Congress, I have to, in effect, win a “wealth... > **[How well do campaign-financing systems work in non-U.S. countries?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275891)** > > Last year I posted this GQ thread – “How does campaign financing work in countries other than the U.S.?” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=223440. Some Dopers provided valuable information on how campaigns are financed in... ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-reform/339847/4 "2006-01-13T21:14:17Z")
My current problem with most campaign finance reform, including that awful McCain Bill, is that it reduces free speech by attempting to kill off individual’s right to be heard. I also believe people ought to be able to do what they want with their own money, including giving it to those they like. Don’t forget that many organizations dedicated to raising money from everyday people and donating to political causes, or lobbying themselves, are corporations. Restricting them does kill off one of the biggest ways for ordinary people to be heard. However, since worry over this is endemic, may I suggest a modest proposal? Create a Congressional Bribery Board. Anyone can donate any amount to the board - with a clear trigger. Anyone who trips the trigger gets the money. Most likely, triggers will include proposing in a specific bill motion. Everyone knows about who gets the which money. No hiding it. I personally dislike ideas like free TV time. That quickly gets obnoxious, and the regulations become both burdensome and intrusive into private business. Moreover, it often winds up only driving politics off the air, destroying legitimate political expression. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-reform/339847/5 "2006-01-13T21:29:37Z")
That’s entirely true, smilingbandit, and pretty much the reason of my original proposal. I know that many lobbying groups, like the NRA, are corporations. The NRA is a decent example of a ‘good’ lobbying group. No matter if you agree with them or not, they have a clear motivation, and they go about it fairly straightforwardly. The thing is, they don’t need to spend money on people’s campaigns to get them elected. They just have to get their members to vote in the proper way, by education. I think that might offset the lack of lobbying. Or not. Hm. Still, any refinements on the proposal? Pretty much _any_ restriction on political spending is a restriction on free speech. However, corporations are only persons by legislation, and altering their right to free speech strikes me as something that can be done more freely than by stifling the general right, as McCain-Feingold does. M-F is necessary, but possibly unconstitutional. So, how would you alter things, in a constitutional way, with minimal legislation and minimal side effects? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2006, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-reform/339847/6 "2006-01-13T21:55:37Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > My current problem with most campaign finance reform, including that awful McCain Bill, is that it reduces free speech by attempting to kill off individual’s right to be heard. :rolleyes: Please do not confuse **speech** with **money.** (See above.) ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-reform/339847/7 "2006-01-14T01:36:19Z")
Sorry, buddy, but you put your money where your mouth is. Freedom to spend what you want, where you want, and how you want, is as much speech as anything. Look. Money is exchanged for labor, generally. Of one kind or another. Now, you can spend that money to hire someone to clean your house for you, or you can clean your house yourself. You can give the money to a political campaign to pay for speeches, or you can give the speeches yourself. Either way, it’s about making your voice heard, even if in a tiny amount, on the issues you favor. While I understand Mr. Lind differs, I fail to be convinced by his argument. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-reform/339847/8 "2006-01-14T01:58:24Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Look. Money is exchanged for labor, generally. Of one kind or another. Now, you can spend that money to hire someone to clean your house for you, or you can clean your house yourself. > > You can give the money to a political campaign to pay for speeches, or you can give the speeches yourself. **Horseshit.** It’s not labor political contributions go to pay for, it’s **access.** It’s use of a limited resource – airtime, or ad space in the newspapers. Which can be had for nothing else **but** money. And without which no would-be candidate can hope to be taken seriously. Which means we have a “wealth primary.” Which makes this a plutocracy, not a democracy. What we need more than anything else is to make it, not merely difficult, but **impossible** for anyone, including the candidates themselves, to influence the outcome of an election by spending money on it. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-reform/339847/9 "2006-01-14T14:09:15Z")
Access can be centralized or it can be distributed. You can take an hour and walk the streets handing out Kerry leaflets, or you can pay Kerry an hour’s wages and help him buy a radio ad. It’s the same thing when you get down to it, except for added efficency when consolidated. Hm. Buckley v. Valeo, hm? I reject that the decision was ill-considered from a single say-so. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in\_depth/americas/2000/us\_elections/glossary/a-b/649942.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/americas/2000/us_elections/glossary/a-b/649942.stm) > [@(Court via) BBC](#): > > This is because limits on spending “necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.” > **[Campaignfinancesite.org - Beste Lån & Forbrukslån uten sikkerhet](https://www.campaignfinancesite.org)** > [@](#): > > This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money. > **[Buckley v. Valeo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo)** > > Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on campaign finance. A majority of justices held that limits on election spending in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 § 608 are unconstitutional. In a per curiam (by the Court) opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression. It limited dis... So, it was in reaction to a campaign finance law, specifically. Mm-hm. Able to drown out… Nah. It can’t drown messages out. That’s what samizdat is for. And if you don’t think samizdat can shake an election, you’re wrong. It worked in the 70s, if not well, and with the Net, it’s kicking ass all over the place. The thing is, all you need to do is get your message to one man who is read widely. It may not mean you’ll win, but it does mean you’ll get heard. ---
**Author:** ![Snag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Snag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snag)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-reform/339847/10 "2006-01-14T18:10:50Z")
The first order of election reform is allowing the Clean Money option of [public funding.](http://www.publiccampaign.org/congress/howitworks.htm) We use tax dollars to run elections anyway; in the long run equal funding will bring down the cost of the campaigning process. It has worked in Arizona and Maine, where candidates have the option of accepting public funding and use no other money in their campaigns. Vermont, Massachusetts, New Mexico and North Carolina have also just adopted the process. Instead of spending time raising funding they simply go out and meet the people, many more people than they do when beholden to lobbyists. They are also seen as more accountable to the people since it’s on their dime. If a candidate with private funding tries to out-spend them, they are given matching funds up to 5 or 6 times the original amount. While their opposition needs to spend more time to raise more funds (unless they are using their own money), the clean money candidates continue to meet with only voters, not funders. And often, the first question they ask voters when up against a privately funded candidate is, “Why does my opponent have to hide behind large money interests?” or “Why does my opponent feel they need to buy this election?”, a message people seem to be responding strongly to. The results thus far are that more people are coming out to vote, and the clean money candidates are winning the lion’s share of offices. Some reasons given are that the candidates are not beholden to a few special interests, that campaigns are less caustic, and that there is a larger field to choose from. Unchallenged seats are becoming rare in Arizona and Maine as public funding allows for more competition. It also provides a level playing field, candidates get the same amount of money; one can get an idea of how well they manage the same funding as their competitors should one get better coverage of their campaign. It would provide fewer opportunities to out-smear an opponent and promote greater need to focus on the issues at hand instead. People may also be more likely to vote someone out of office who came in on tax payer money should they not do their job adequately; it gives a greater assurance of accountability as those running for office are not first ‘blessed’ by major money donors. Clean Money campaigns also makes it possible for qualified people to participate who do not have deep pockets, or who cannot afford mortgage their house to fund a run for office instead of only those whose fundraising prowess is at the top of their resume. Go to this [.pdfdocument](http://www.publiccampaign.org/publications/studies/Revitalizing_Democracy_Executive_Summary.pdf) and find the word “results” for a quick summary of how it has worked so far. We also need a federal mandate for independent, non-partisan election committees that run the entire election process rather than putting powerful political figures in charge of the election process in any given state. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-reform/339847/11 "2006-01-14T21:40:03Z")
Hm. Now, THAT’s interesting, Snag. Anyone have any information on this movement? ---
**Author:** ![Snag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Snag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snag)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-reform/339847/12 "2006-01-14T23:44:11Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Hm. Now, THAT’s interesting, Snag. Anyone have any information on this movement? Didn’t my links work for you? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2006, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-reform/339847/13 "2006-01-14T23:58:47Z")
Rather, does anyone have any information on how this has worked in other states, on public discourse on this, do we have any other advocates for or against this, etc? The links worked, I just want other perspectives. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2006, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-reform/339847/14 "2006-01-15T17:39:17Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :rolleyes: Please do not confuse **speech** with **money.** (See above.) :rolleyes: Rolleyes right back atcha. Don’t insult me. McCain-Feingold [deals in a lot more than just money](http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006458). Or at least, a lot more than money directly. IIRC (no cite), one court even demanded some relatively unknwn radio personalities to count their promotion of one canidate as financial contributions. In America, you now have to pay to say your piece on your own terms, and possibly websites. But in any case, so what if people give their money out? Ultimately, on any side of any equation, you’re going to get a lot of rich and poor folks. I notice that Democrats often insist that the Republicans are the “party of big money,” despite facts. Financial evidence suggests that Democrats tend to get a fair number of very small donations and a good number of extremely large ones - because they have the direct backing of some majorly rich people. Republicans get a lot more of their funding directly from middle-class voters, or from conservative-friendly interest groups, themselves supported primarily by the middle class. So, to be honest, I find it really insulting to hear liberals talk about how “money influences politics.” It would be a lot less so if this weren’t from the same group in which multimillionaires pledge their support publicly. I should probably state that in my opinion, McCain and Feingold violated the dignity of their position, and Bush his oath of office, as did everyone who voted it for it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2006, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-reform/339847/15 "2006-01-15T20:56:38Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > McCain-Feingold [deals in a lot more than just money](http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006458). Not a good cite. Nothing in it in any way demonstrates how application of McCain-Feingold to the Internet “reduces free speech by attempting to kill off individual’s right to be heard.” And, in case you haven’t figured it out yet, I am **not** defending McCain-Feingold, which is a half-assed solution. I want a system like they have in France, where paid political advertising is illegal, period. Why do people like the author of this WSJ piece keep insisting it is “naive” to think you can ban money from politics, when other countries have demonstrated it can be done quite effectively? > [@smiling bandit](#): > > But in any case, so what if people give their money out? Ultimately, on any side of any equation, you’re going to get a lot of rich and poor folks. :dubious: Because it produces a situation where the rich, as a group, wield political power far out of proportion to their numbers. I hope you will not dispute that that is, in and of itself, a Bad Thing. > [@smiling bandit](#): > > I notice that Democrats often insist that the Republicans are the “party of big money,” despite facts. Financial evidence suggests that Democrats tend to get a fair number of very small donations and a good number of extremely large ones - because they have the direct backing of some majorly rich people. Republicans get a lot more of their funding directly from middle-class voters, or from conservative-friendly interest groups, themselves supported primarily by the middle class. Cite? In my judgment, both parties are guilty here, but not equally. The Democrats are the party of big money and the Pubs are the party of even bigger money. (See Lind’s discussion above.) > [@smiling bandit](#): > > So, to be honest, I find it really insulting to hear liberals talk about how “money influences politics.” It would be a lot less so if this weren’t from the same group in which multimillionaires pledge their support publicly. So? Ya gotta play the system we’ve got now, as it is, if you want to change it. There would be absolutely nothing hypocritical about George Soros donating a million dollars to a campaign fund and, in the next breath, demanding legislation to ban the practice. > [@smiling bandit](#): > > I should probably state that in my opinion, McCain and Feingold violated the dignity of their position, and Bush his oath of office, as did everyone who voted it for it. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-reform/339847/16 "2006-01-18T15:00:03Z")
BTW, **smiling bandit,** you still haven’t answered: If other countries can keep money out of electoral politics, and make it work, and remain functioning democracies, and not, by any reasonable definition, limit anyone’s “freedom of speech” – and many democracies have accomplished all of that – then why can’t such a system work here? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-reform/339847/17 "2006-01-18T16:34:27Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I want a system like they have in France, where paid political advertising is illegal, period. Why do people like the author of this WSJ piece keep insisting it is “naive” to think you can ban money from politics, when other countries have demonstrated it can be done quite effectively? The Elf-Aquitaine scandal has shown that, even with its campaign financing rules, France hasn’t succeeded in getting corporate money out of politics. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-reform/339847/18 "2006-01-18T19:27:53Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > The Elf-Aquitaine scandal has shown that, even with its campaign financing rules, France hasn’t succeeded in getting corporate money out of politics. Cite?