Oh, I know political candidates receive campaign contributions from PACs. That what we need to put a stop to.
[shrug] I see the goal here as preventing the rich from exerting political influence out of proportion to their numbers. WRT details, we should study the practices of countries (such as France) that have managed to more or less achieve that while still remaining free countries with free speech.
My personal proposal:
Unlimited donations ONLY from registered voters.
All donations cease 2 weeks before balloting.
No “loans” to campaigns.
All donations electronically posted.
Campaign advertising ONLY funded by registered voters. PACs are fine, but again must post their complete donor list and cease fund raising 2 weeks prior to balloting.
I KNOW that politicians will always be bought. I just want to know who is doing the buying.
I don’t like public financing having lived through the California recall. We would have had dozens of campaigns paid for through my tax dollars that people did as a lark. That is a poor use of taxpayer money.
So during the California recall election the TV and Radio stations would have had to provide airtime to the other 134 candidates to match whatever Arnold bought?
So, if Bush passed the “Liberal Idea Tax” that put a 10,000% tax on organizations that seek to spread liberal or democratic ideas, you wouldn’t have a constitutional problem with that? After all, he’s not stopping them from speaking, he’s just making it very expensive for them to do so.
Or how about a new branch of the IRS that monitors TV and assesses a ‘liberal tax’ of 10 million dollars for anyone expressing a liberal viewpoint? You’re good with that?
Or to make it more palatable, let’s say he just introduces a 10,000% tax on all media organizations - and then offers targeted tax breaks to ‘favored’ institutions - such as Fox News. Remember, money != speech. So this is fair game in your book.
Congratulations on doubling the amount of political advertising in any given campaign.
Republican Candidate to Democrat Candidate - I’ll pay for NBC & CBS if you pick up Fox and ABC…
What about political speech by non-candidates? Who has the right to “equal time” there?
What exactly do you think prevents governments from passing restrictive laws? What magical non-constitutional shield did you assume was keeping them from banning television broadcasts, magazine articles, newspaper stories and wise-guy-laden websites from transmitting material critical of the government? Are you satisfied with reducing all information to town criers and private mimeograph machines (assuming the mimeograph manufacturers aren’t incorporated, of course)?
Every time I see this brain-dead meme about corporations, I ask these questions. I never get a satisfactory response.
There would not be more ads. If their were three candidates then a TV station could charge 3X the normal rate for an ad. So if a candidate had $1m to buy 900 minutes of ads they would now only get 300 minutes and an additional 600 would be split between the other two candidtaes. If anything, it would reduce the amount of ads because the advantage of advertising would diminish.
Asto the 130 candidates, I’m not sure what the best way to handle it is. You could have the law only apply to candidates who poll at least some minimum amount, have some number of signatures, or raise a certain amount of money.
I think it’s a win for everybody except thos who try and buy an election. There are no more of fewer ads, voters get more information, and the effects of lobbyists is diminished.
How can the station charge three times more for an ad space that is less effective?
So what do you do about ads by non-candidates? To whom are you giving the free opposing time there?
Kind of interesting that one of your ways of keeping smaller candidates out of the bounty of free time is to limit it to those who have raised a certain amount of money…
It’s up to the candidates to decideif it is worth it.If they don’t think it is then we have less ads, which you seem to like.
You are right, the hard part is deciding who gets free time. It is not a new problem, however. Right now you have similar issues with regard to federally financed elections and who gets invited to debates. If I am not mistaken, federal finance law uses the criteria of how much money is raised. That is not my favorite criteria, but it is one possibility.
And who gets to decide? Why, the people who are currently in power. You don’t think they’d jigger the rules to benefit themselves, do you? Nah. I mean, if they did that, the next thing you know they’ll start tearing up political districts and re-aligning them to make sure they get re-elected. And that’s crazy talk.
Can we just call your proposal “The incumbent protection act of 2007”?
As for limiting ad time… Yes, that’s just what we want - LESS knowledge of the candidates.
Man, some of you just want to micro-manage everything. Always wanting to tweak the system to make it ‘better’, usually by giving politicians more power.
See post #62.
To some extent constitutional provisions (where applicable), but mainly popular opposition (where effective). The UK has no written constitution like the U.S.'s – the “constitution” is whatever the current Parliament says it is – yet it remains (in most respects) a free and democratic country under the rule of law.
You say that as if it were a negative thing. 
What a strange argument. We can make to changes to election law, because laws are made by incumbents and any changes will favor them. Why even bother participating in the thread? Hell, why even bother partcipating in society?
And make up your mind: do you want more political advertising or less? Maybe we can all just dance around in the street with hoodies and bandanas.
I want more FREEDOM. That includes the freedom to spend your money on what you want, and say what you want. I’m not worried at all that the rich will somehow control elections - you’re assuming that money spent == more influence. George Soros found out it didn’t work that way in the last election, and Ross Perot found out the same thing a few election cycles ago. With the advent of the internet and the power its given to the grassroots, I think it’s even less of a concern.
A problem your country has long since solved, I believe.
And a problem America could solve, if it weren’t for certain vested [smashes furniture, drops to floor, foams at mouth, hurls feces].
Yes I am, and so are those who are donating money to politicians.
Brain, I’m not sure I see how the systems of either Canada or France would improve things in the US. If you have time, could you please elaborate? You pointed out the Elections Canada agency, but my concern is that a corresponding US agency would be manipulated by one or both major parties. How would we ensure equal opportunities for 3rd-parties or minor candidates? How would we have ensured that the recent Republican-controlled Congress would have nominated an impartial CEO of the agency? In my opinion, we have a slew of independent media organizations that are untrustworthy of reporting information in a non-partisan way. Why would a government agency automatically be better? Look at the ‘independent’ organization that now runs the presidental debates – is it serving the people?
It seems that the fundamental issue is that US Federal politicians wield an amazing amount of power and money. It is always going to be ‘worth it’ to big-money to invest in these politicians one way or another. Look at the RoI for any company that secures large, federal contracts. Even assuming everything is above-board and legal, how much does it cost to support candidates, build contacts, and increase your network in an effort to improve your corporation’s chances at securing contracts whose value dwarfs your investment?
With that in mind, what are the problems with the ideas outlined by Sam and Algher? Put in place a system that publishes all political contributions, in and out of campaign season, for all Federal politicians. Make the info available as a searchable online database. Require pertinent info, such as, employer to be included. Require that the info must be published on the database two weeks before the money can be used. Make it clear that money not disclosed on the database is illegal, forfeit, and subject to punishment in proportion to the size. Include all paid political speech including PACs and 529’s.
This seems like a reasonable goal and while I don’t doubt that some money will circumvent the process, the system would still be successful if each voter could easily identify 80% of the money sources and thus who the politician is beholden to. And even if you consider this an inferior system compared to France or Canada, why not consider it the next step on the path? The pragmatic in me says move a step at a time and ensure you are improving rather than holding out for the end-goal and getting nowhere.
Wait… how many threads have you started about Bush trashing the Constitution, and now you are suggesting that we should just lay aside the First Amendment under some gentleman’s agreement that we curtail protected speech so long as we remain a democracy?
Is ignoring the Constitution only bad when Bush does it? Or are you now implying that Bush’s constitutional excesses really aren’t a big deal, because we remain a democracy?
Talk about a double standard.