# Real campaign-finance reform: Ban all paid political advertising in the U.S. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 27, 2012, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271 "2012-05-27T19:43:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/1 "2012-05-27T19:43:28Z")
We were discussing this in [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=633063) elections thread on the Wisconsin gubernatorial recall (where Governor Scott Walker has gotten much more funding from corporate, foundation, and out-of-state sources than has his challenger, Tom Barrett). I think the scope of the subject, though elections-related, is broad and systemic enough to warrant GD treatment. What we need to do is make it not merely difficult but impossible for anybody (including the candidates themselves) to affect the outcome of any election by spending money on it. Our only alternatives are that and a _de facto_ plutocracy, which is what we’ve got now. The 1% have more than enough **economic** power, without allowing them to wield **political** power out of proportion to their numbers on top of that. And I say we do not need to scrap or even amend the First Amendment to do it (though I might well support a constitutional amendment to effect this, if strictly necessary, and depending on the wording). We need only get a SCOTUS in place that will accept the plain fact that money is **not** speech and will overturn such contrary decisions as [_Buckley v. Valeo._](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo) From [_The Next American Nation,_](http://www.amazon.com/NEXT-AMERICAN-NATION-Nationalism-Revolution/dp/0684825031/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214163307&sr=8-1) 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.” 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 defendant 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. N.B.: This relates only to **advertising,** not editorializing. Media outlets would remain free to editorialize, Fox News and MSNBC would be free to continue politicizing the news each in its own way, etc. The [Equal-Time Rule](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_time) and the [Fairness Doctrine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine) are topics for a different debate; in any case, their scope is limited to airwave-broadcast media, not print, cable, or Internet media. Bear in mind that there are other democracies, such as France, where every candidate in an election gets an equal ration of free air time and no other political advertising is allowed, and we over here still tend to think of those countries as “free countries.” However, as **Terr** [points out,](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15105579&postcount=292) France has a lot of speech-related laws that would be considered unacceptable here. Be that as it may, I think CFR is a topic distinguishable from criticizing public policy/officials. “Wall of separation between check and state” is, at least, something you can get on a bumper-sticker. FWIW, some [Wikiquotes on campaign-finance reform:](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Politics#Campaign_finance_reform) Today’s political campaigns function as collection agencies for broadcasters. You simply transfer money from contributors to television stations. Senator Bill Bradley, 2000. We’ve got a real irony here. We have politicians selling access to something we all own -our government. And then we have broadcasters selling access to something we all own — our airwaves. It’s a terrible system. Newton Minow, former Federal Communications Commission chairman (2000). You’re more likely to see Elvis again than to see this bill pass the Senate. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (1999) on the McCain-Feingold Bill on Campaign Reform Unless we fundamentally change this system, ultimately campaign finance will consume our democracy. Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) (1996). [Buckley v. Valeo is] one of the most weakly reasoned, poorly written, initially contradictory court opinions I’ve ever read. Senator (and former federal district court judge) George J. Mitchell (D-ME) (1990). We don’t buy votes. What we do is we buy a candidate’s stance on an issue. Allen Pross, executive director, California Medical Association’s PAC (1989). Political action committees and moneyed interests are setting the nation’s political agenda. Are we saying that only the rich have brains in this country? Or only people who have influential friends who have money can be in the Senate? Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) (1988). The day may come when we’ll reject the money of the rich as tainted, but it hadn’t come when I left Tammany Hall at 11:25 today. George Washington Plunkett (1905). Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor, not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and propitious fortune. James Madison, Federalist 57 (1788). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/2 "2012-05-27T20:38:31Z")
You do realize, don’t you, that such a set of laws would convey a large advantage to incumbents and to the two currently established political parties? Incumbents can more easily get their names and faces in the news than their challengers, often in the course of carrying out their jobs. Their challengers would be severely limited in their ability to do so. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/3 "2012-05-27T20:40:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You do realize, don’t you, that such a set of laws would convey a large advantage to incumbents and to the two currently established political parties? > > Incumbents can more easily get their names and faces in the news than their challengers, often in the course of carrying out their jobs. Their challengers would be severely limited in their ability to do so. > > Regards, > Shodan It would eliminate the enormous **funding** advantage incumbents enjoy now; that makes a much bigger difference. Incumbents will always have a face-in-the-news advantage anyway, just because they are incumbents, therefore of compelling media interest. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/4 "2012-05-27T21:38:33Z")
As I pointed out in the other thread, banning “paid political advertising” requires repealing the First Amendment. You can twist into a pretzel and claim that donating money to a political candidate is not “speech” but you can’t do the same with me, with my own money, buying an ad in the paper promoting my favorite candidate or political idea, or me, with my own money, putting up a billboard on the land I own doing the same. Denying that that is “speech” is transparently dishonest. And once you repeal the First Amendment, good bye United States. At least for me. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/5 "2012-05-27T22:54:20Z")
Forbidding people from advocating in favor of or against political candidates would certainly violates the First Amendment and it’s moronic to argue that it doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/6 "2012-05-27T23:18:30Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Forbidding people from advocating in favor of or against political candidates would certainly violates the First Amendment and it’s moronic to argue that it doesn’t. But the point being made is that it takes money to advocate for a candidate. If you ban spending money for political advertising, you are stifling political speech. Unless you believe that free speech only extends to how loud you can yell, then even distributing a handbill requires money to print, and the OP’s proposal would ban that. The counterargument is that rich people have an unfair advantage and get “too much” speech. Well, of course. Rich people also have more free time to spend at their place of worship, can buy better guns under the 2nd amendment, buy larger pieces of property exempt from search and seizure under the 4th,hire better lawyers under the 6th, etc. The idea that rich people have it better than poor people is not a new idea. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/7 "2012-05-28T00:37:55Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > But the point being made is that it takes money to advocate for a candidate. If you ban spending money for political advertising, you are stifling political speech. Exactly and the very essence of the First Amendment was to protect political speech. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/8 "2012-05-28T00:42:27Z")
The idea is too stupid to merit serious consideration. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/9 "2012-05-28T01:10:57Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > The idea that rich people have it better than poor people is not a new idea. There is no good reason why that should be allowed to translate into their having more political power than others. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/10 "2012-05-28T02:09:20Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > As I pointed out in the other thread, banning “paid political advertising” requires repealing the First Amendment. You failed to demonstrate how banning paid political advertising requires repealing the first amendment any more than banning smoking advertisements. Then you followed up with an absurd argument: > [@Terr](#): > > Because this is a typical “big daddy” liberal argument. “I, of course, am not affected by political advertising, but those unwashed masses, they are so stupid and easily swayed, they have to be protected from their own stupid decisions”. The relationship between advertising and behaviour is well established. Health promotion campaigns have been analysed for effectiveness, such as Cowpe (1989), Hletko (1987), Roberts (1986). Advertising has a significant impact on [cigarette consumption](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_advertising#Effectiveness). 40% of respondents in exit polls claimed to be influenced by advertising in the [Florida and New Hampshire](http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/ads-and-debates-swayed-florida-voters-exit-polls-find/) polls. In 2010, 85% of seats won were by candidates outspending their competitors. If donations are a result of popularity and advertising doesn’t influence decisions, banning paid political advertising will have no effect. > [@John Dewey](#): > > As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/11 "2012-05-28T02:20:15Z")
Look, if spending a lot of money on political advertising doesn’t **work,** why does anybody **do** it?! We’re talking about something that has been going on since the 1950s at least, done by businesscritters who are generally very careful about where and how they spend/invest their money. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/12 "2012-05-28T02:20:45Z")
It’s not as if there is some completely inflexible and overriding right to free speech in America. You aren’t free to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. When one right conflicts with another accommodation must be reached. If you believe, as **BrainGlutton** clearly does, that our right to free speech is conflicting with our right to free and fair elections then seeking an accommodation is to be expected. The solution presented here may be a bit extreme but it’s way off base to assert that it could not be enacted without repealing the 1st Amendment. Courts are perfectly comfortable balancing rights. They do it all the time. For myself, I’m not sure how far we need to go in the direction of campaign finance reform but I am sure that there is absolutely no chance that we will go too far. So any proposal with any chance of success should be supported. Preach it, **BrainGlutton**! ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/13 "2012-05-28T02:49:16Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > It’s not as if there is some completely inflexible and overriding right to free speech in America. You aren’t free to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. When one right conflicts with another accommodation must be reached. If you believe, as **BrainGlutton** clearly does, that our right to free speech is conflicting with our right to free and fair elections then seeking an accommodation is to be expected. How is that any different than saying that one type of speech was more effective and therefore must be banned? IOW, I say that all fags must die, and you give a coherent argument in favor of gay marriage. You win the campaign to defeat Amendment Y on gay marriage. I demand that your speech be stifled because there was no “free and fair” election because you have a gift for rhetoric when I don’t. Your argument presupposes that the advertising created an environment that made the elections a farce. Obviously people responded to the message. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/14 "2012-05-28T02:51:45Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > The relationship between advertising and behaviour is well established. Does political advertising influence for whom you personally are going to vote? > [@](#): > > In 2010, 85% of seats won were by candidates outspending their competitors. Correlation does not equal causation. How about in 85% of cases most of those who donate decided to do so for the candidate that was more likely to win? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/15 "2012-05-28T04:05:20Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > IOW, I say that all fags must die, and you give a coherent argument in favor of gay marriage. You win the campaign to defeat Amendment Y on gay marriage. I demand that your speech be stifled because there was no “free and fair” election because you have a gift for rhetoric when I don’t. Actually, in practice you can get pretty far with just “fags must die” and making coherent arguments can make you sound like some faggoty elitist east-coast college type. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/16 "2012-05-28T04:13:47Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Actually, in practice you can get pretty far with just “fags must die” and making coherent arguments can make you sound like some faggoty elitist east-coast college type. How does campaign financing work in Canada? Serious question. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/17 "2012-05-28T04:30:44Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > How is that any different than saying that one type of speech was more effective and therefore must be banned? It’s completely different because it doesn’t promote anything being banned. That’s not an argument in favor of campaign finance reform. It’s merely an observation that those opposing **BrainGlutton** ’s proposal by claiming it would nullify the 1st Amendment didn’t have a leg to stand on. > [@](#): > > IOW, I say that all fags must die, and you give a coherent argument in favor of gay marriage. You win the campaign to defeat Amendment Y on gay marriage. I demand that your speech be stifled because there was no “free and fair” election because you have a gift for rhetoric when I don’t. The main difference would seem to be scale. Eloquence influenced this single election. Money influences all elections. If there came to be a class of people with such powers of persuasion that they could prejudice electoral outcomes across the board then society would have to adjust to deal with that. That might entail curtailing their advocacy for candidates or it might simply mean limiting the amount of money candidates could spend hiring these people. Notice the money cropping up there again? Because there is also a huge difference in scale between personal skills as a whole and our basic economic unit. You buy politicians because it’s a good investment. Politicians are cheap compared to the rewards to be reaped from gaining a tax break or preventing effective regulation of your industry. That same feedback loop doesn’t exist with personal skills or anything else that I’m aware of. “It’s all about the money” is a common phrase in America. Do we say that about anything else? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/18 "2012-05-28T05:04:42Z")
Money influence in politics is certainly a big problem, but I don’t know what the solution is. Undoing recent regulations allowing PAC’s might be a good step. Also, instead of outlawing private campaign finance, we could try to drown its effects with public money. > [@2sense](#): > > For myself, I’m not sure how far we need to go in the direction of campaign finance reform but I am sure that there is absolutely no chance that we will go too far. So any proposal with any chance of success should be supported. Preach it, **BrainGlutton**! I’ve underlined part of **2sense** ’s comment to emphasize the key point he makes. When you’re speeding too fast in the wrong direction and think of putting on the brakes, worry of speeding too fast in the _other_ direction should not be a concern. This same point applies to many political debates here. Proposed reforms are sometimes decried as Marxist. Ummmm … whatever flawed tendencies the U.S. system has now, Marxism is _not_ the danger. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > They don’t come much more libertarian than Goldwater, and even he was appalled at this state of affairs. Yet some libertarians have shown up in the thread, appalled by your proposal. American political extremists of 50 years ago might be considered moderates today. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/19 "2012-05-28T05:22:02Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Money influence in politics is certainly a big problem, but I don’t know what the solution is. Undoing recent regulations allowing PAC’s might be a good step. Also, instead of outlawing private campaign finance, we could try to drown its effects with public money. “The need for collecting large campaign funds would vanish if Congress provided an appropriation for the proper and legitimate expenses of each of the great national parties, an appropriation ample enough to meet the necessity for thorough organization and machinery, which requires a large expenditure of money. Then the stipulation should be made that no party receiving campaign funds from the Treasury should accept more than a fixed amount from any individual subscriber or donor; and the necessary publicity for receipts and expenditures could without difficulty be provided.” – [Theodore Roosevelt](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Campaign_finance) ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271/20 "2012-05-28T06:10:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > “The need for collecting large campaign funds would vanish if Congress provided an appropriation for the proper and legitimate expenses of each of the great national parties, an appropriation ample enough to meet the necessity for thorough organization and machinery, which requires a large expenditure of money. Then the stipulation should be made that no party receiving campaign funds from the Treasury should accept more than a fixed amount from any individual subscriber or donor; and the necessary publicity for receipts and expenditures could without difficulty be provided.” > > – [Theodore Roosevelt](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Campaign_finance) Poof - it’s done. SuperPACs still collect enormous sums and spend them on political advertising. SuperPACs are not “parties”. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/real-campaign-finance-reform-ban-all-paid-political-advertising-in-the-u-s/623271.md?page=2)