Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

A Call for Publicly Financed Elections

By Jennifer James, Yale Daily News. Posted December 26, 2006.


Voters are fed up with Abramoff-style politics. Using public money to fund elections could help clean up corruption.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
"Women Are Being Killed All Over the World": One Reporter's Fight Against So-Called "Honor Killings"
Robert S. Eshelman

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Egyptian Marine: Soldiers Often 'Racialize' the Enemy to Cope With Stress
Aaron Glantz

More stories by Jennifer James

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Exit polls conducted by six major television networks and news services on Election Day this year showed that over 40 percent of people described corruption as an "extremely important" issue in determining who they voted for. It beat out things like terrorism, the economy and the war in Iraq. This shocked many people across the country, myself included. In a country with too many guns and not enough health care, quality education or jobs, when we have Americans dying overseas in a war with no end in sight and more of our children entering into poverty every day, why was an issue like corruption so important in this election?

Of those people who listed corruption as their most important issue, they voted for Democrats over Republicans 60 percent of the time. Seven incumbent Republicans who were closely tied to corruption scandals, such as those with ties to Jack Abramoff, lost their races.

The American people have made it clear that corruption is not something that will be tolerated on their watch. We as a country are ready for a change. And the change that we need is full public financing of federal elections. Members of Congress are proposing many different ethics reforms. While these are absolutely a step in the right direction, they will not do enough to solve the factor that has led to so many of the corruption scandals we have seen in the past few years: money in politics.

The role of money in our political system is unbelievably strong. It affects issues from the environment and prescription drugs to what we eat and what we watch on television. While it often seems not to be a particularly sexy issue, the exit polls clearly show that this perception is changing. Americans want their representatives to be responsible to them, not to special interests and big business. They want their tax dollars supporting education and health care, not tax breaks for oil companies. They want their representatives in the Capitol voting, not off on lobbyist-sponsored trips around the world.

The system we have in place forces even the most "ethical" of our representatives to be in a position where they have to take money from big business and special interests in order to be elected. They are essentially forced to be "corrupt" even if they don't want to. This system is unfair to Congress and to the American people.

Public financing of elections would allow our representatives to represent us fairly. They can cast the votes that are in the best interest of their constituents, as well as have more time to spend with them, instead of just lobbyists. If we truly want progress in our country, this is a necessary step.

In our newly elected Congress, there are 108 members who are on record as being in favor of full public financing of elections. This is over double what we've seen in the past. Over half of the challengers who defeated incumbents openly supported public financing. Public financing of elections on the federal level has been a dream of many activists for years, but this is the first time that there has really been an opportunity to make it a reality. The new Democratic Congress has the chance to change the American political landscape in a dramatic way. By passing proposed legislation that would put in place full public financing of all federal elections, they can open up the political process in a way that this country has never seen. Not only would it be the answer that these "anti-corruption voters" are looking for, but also it would mean that more women, minorities and non-rich Americans can run for and win high political offices. This change is a necessary step in making a true democracy.

The American people elected Democrats in this election because they wanted real change. They were tired of the way this country is moving, and want it go in a direction that supports their best interests. I hope the Democrats will take this opportunity and use it to improve America.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: elections, corruption

Jennifer James is a junior in Morse College and the president of Yale Students for Clean Elections.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Corporations can do w/o lobbies, cheaper!
Posted by: justAnEgg on Dec 26, 2006 2:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, publicly financed elections is a must in this country, and banning electronic voting machines on top of it. But I would add one more thing: corporations are persons, right? Then I'd allow them to run for offices and that way represent their interrests, not through lobbies. We would know at least when Enron is the President of the US of A.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that`d be democracy at its best but...
Posted by: starvinmarvy on Dec 26, 2006 2:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes ...we`ll soon have a democratic majority in the House and Senate. Unfortunatly...the changes will be slight.As much as we`d all like to see the changes in law that this artical mentions...I`m sure all of us who understand the true nature
of those in power...will realize it will be basically "status quo"
for the next two years. Stand at the podium....demand a new direction....get the majority`s approval...and get no results.
Unfortunatly...the ultimate masters of the USA and the world itself are :the concentrations of private capital....which.......
invest`s in control of the state.....and THAT funds the elections
that design the framework of what we know to be so called democracy!
What needs done to make the nesessary changes in our so called democracy at this point and time...is to deal with the institutional structure and "culture" !!! The culture has to be cured!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And having said all THAT.......do you really thing that changes will come about with this newly elected government
that will change the direction this country is heading?
We`re in a tail spin....and it only getting worse everyday.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Save the Internet 2007 Posted by: Melvin
corrupt politicians to self-fund themselves?
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Dec 26, 2006 4:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is the craziest idea I've ever heard of. Public financing would be a disaster. Just look at how effective public financing of everything else is. That is the whole REASON for the corruption! The government gives away too much money. Eliminate the power to spend and you'll ferret out the corrupt fat-cat politicans. A limited government will be more ethical than one that can tax and spend so freely. Where there is the ability to spend vast amounts of money there will be corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just $6 dollars
Posted by: BriMan on Dec 26, 2006 7:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is the name of the organization pushing for public funding of all federal election campaigns. The name of the organization comes from the estimated cost per capita to completely fund America's federal campaigns. The actual link is http://www.just6dollars.org/

According to their website, we spend over $200 per capita on pork barrel projects per year. If this is true and I believe it probably is, wondering where the money to fund elections will come from is not a valid reason to withhold support of the cause.

Look at it this way, any corporation that donates money for campaigns is actually donating money you spent on their price-inflated products and services. Not only does your money get filtered thru the corporate funnel, you have abdicated all of your ability to decide how your money will be used. After we get public financing, we can start hammering on our corporations to reduce the price of their goods and services since they wont be allowed to give money away to screw us any longer.

There is an additional benefit not mentioned here yet - 40% of a politician's time is spent dialing for dollars. That is 2 out of every 5 days they could be working for us instead of themselves. This cause is a no-brainer really.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just $6 dollars Posted by: justAnEgg
» RE: Just $6 dollars Posted by: BriMan
» RE: Just $6 dollars Posted by: justAnEgg
» RE: Just $6 dollars Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Just $6 dollars Posted by: BriMan
» RE: Just $6 dollars Posted by: Krain61
» RE: Just $6 dollars Posted by: BriMan
» GOP trolls hate campaign reform Posted by: Stop bush now
Limit Duration of Campaigns, Require Public Service Airtime
Posted by: lessbread on Dec 27, 2006 2:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Political campaigns should be limited to two months duration. The campaign for President is now approaching two years in length which is massive overkill.

In order to fulfill the public service requirements of their licenses, television stations should be made to provide free airtime to candidates. The campaign bribery corruption of the system flows from the tremendous sums of money candidates must raise in order to put their commercials on television.

Public funding of campaigns is a good idea as well. Serving in Congress shouldn't be restricted to millionaires and billionaires.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Public Financing of elections
Posted by: robchapman on Dec 27, 2006 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before advocatign reform it is always a good thing to check the reformer's assumptions.

The following quote was taken from the article above, "They are essentially forced to be "corrupt" even if they don't want to."

From the paragraph surrounding this quote, the author seems to think that merely by accepting contributions, a candidate corrupts himself.

There appears to be an implicit assumption that anyone contributing to a campaign is inherently manipulative and motivated by self interest incompatible with the public good.

Current finance law originally imposes strict dollar limits that assured individual and corporate campaign contributions would remain insignificant amounts within the whole campaign budget.

A candidate could finance an entire campaign by contributions, but since each one was limited to $ 1,000 the candidate was required to garner tens of thousands of contributions to campaign effectively.

This reform had the perverse effect of requiring candidates to take time to pay attention to fund raising. In expensive races candidates may be required to garner millions in small increments.

A danger in this is that the candidate spends all of his time with potential and past contributors. Although the amounts that an ethical candidate will collect from each donor are not enough to function as a quid pro quo, the candidate has no contact with people who are not contribuotrs.

This is usually not the case during the active campaign season when candidates' visibility is important to their electibility, but in the periods between campaigns candidates may see no other constituents but their contributors.

Obviously being immersed in the world of labor organizers, business execs, lobbyists and public interest types would rather skew a candidate's perception of reality.

Now a moment on DeLay. DeLay is a crook. His claim that his prosecution was politically motivated is false. DeLay is not representative of the entire Congress, he is a crook.

DeLay, through his system of bundling individual contributions devised a way to deliver vast amounts of money to legislators and corrupted the system. His method was called bundling.

Through bundling, a lobbyist could take dozens, scores or hundreds of individual $ 1,000 contributions wrap them together as a bundle and deliver it to some schmoe congressman.

A contribution of this size is motivation toward quid pro quo.

Abramoff was DeLay's agent in these schemes and DeLay himself laid the money on his fellow GOP caucus members to buy their loyalty.

Since Congress makes the rules, it is possible that DeLay's corrupt and sleazy schemes were not unlawful. I make this last point because many of my GOP friends say that is DeLay was such a crook, he would be in jail. Not so when dealing with people with the power TO MAKE THE LAWS GOVERNING THEIR OWN BEHAVIOR.

This brings me to my final point, Mrs. Pelosi, the Speaker to be, has advocated an Independent Ethics Committee with the power to legislate and enforce a code of ethics for the House of Representatives.

This panel would be great step forward and undoubtedly will have a lot to say on the issue of campaign finance reform. The public should make itself heard.

The current campaign finance system is broken and fixing it should be public, transparent and guided by the highest principles and standards of ethicality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dear Drones
Posted by: paschn on Dec 27, 2006 6:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look, from BEFORE the formation of this country, corporate swine have used and abused we common folk by "buying" the whores in power.
Solution?
You NATIONALIZE the TWO things that allow them to do this over and over and over.
You NATIONALIZE COMMUNICATIONS and ENERGY. Problem solved. The maggots tell us that in this "democracy" the natural resources and air waves belong to the sheeple, right?
So why do we not CONTROL it?
Then we would be SURE of getting the FACTS, our parents wouldn't worry about heating their homes, or access to medical services, ( because the money available to CARE for those who fight and die for this nation would come from profits available from OUR natural resources. and there would be access to funds and technology to find non-poluting fuel sources.
We could also make sure there was EQUAL access to OUR airwaves for candidates to speak their platform as to running OUR government.
Look, we BLEED and DIE for those who care nothing for us outside a market for their goods. YOU CANNOT trust them to operate objectively. Free enterprise? Sure,...but you MUST keep laws in place to ensure they DON"T ABUSE their freedom to do business.
With nationalized media, OUR press would be assured of having access to OUR president to ask questions about what OUR government is or is NOT doing
Corporations DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS!! PEOPLE have rights! These two things are TOO IMPORTANT to be left to privately owned corporations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dear Drones Posted by: starvinmarvy
» RE: Dear Drones Posted by: peter1469
The people must take back control of the government
Posted by: disenfranchised on Dec 27, 2006 7:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We live in a situation that has developed over time in which the human citizens have slowly given over control of the US government to non-human artificial legal business entities with enormous resources. The result is government of the shareholders, by the CEOs, and for the corporations. As a nation, we must realize that we give the corporations special rights as non-human legal enitities. Therefore it is both our right and responsibility to regulate their behavior, including use of earnings. We have the right to demand that they support the common good adequately, in repaiment for those special rights that we, human citizens, give to the corporations. Limiting stockholder's liability for corporate business failures to the amount they have invested distinguishes them from sole propriotors and simple partnerships where owners are liable to the limits of their personal holdings for their misdeeds and business failures. Only legal regulation by a responsible government that really represents the human citizens can serve the common good.

We must make the differentiation between non-human entities and human citizens and the election process cleansed of the extreme corporate access that currently exists. We must convert our nation from one driven by corporate greed to one with a well-regulated corporate environment that nurtures the common good and retains the significant capability of the corporate model to provide a powerful economic engine. For this, the representatives who write the laws that regulate the corporations must be financed, elected, and employed by the human citizenry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who chooses Who runs
Posted by: ddgoerz on Dec 27, 2006 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Leveling the playing field by using public funds is an interesting idea, but it requires safeguards in the candidate selection process. Otherwise, the monied concerns will simply focus their full attention on deciding who will run in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who chooses Who runs Posted by: Lincoln fan
...and amend the Constitution
Posted by: jmooney on Dec 27, 2006 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I totally agree with public funding for election campaigns. Sadly, so many people have a knee jerk reaction about that; they immediately say they don't want to pay for these people to run for office. But if they (we, the people) don't pay in an overall, across-the-board fashion, special interests pay. Together, as taxpayers of the U. S., we are sort of a special interest, a special interest that wants good government for the American people. But when we don't cover election costs in an overall, across-the-board way via our taxes, we allow relatively small, special interests to have way too much input, and they want special governmental favors, not good government for all. Yeah, some special interests advocate for good things such as for the environment, workers rights, etc., but most of those (and us as individuals) don't have the bucks that the well-healed, corporatist interests have.

So, yes, we need to finance campaigns with broadbased citizen funding through taxes.

The problem is that unless we amend the Constitiution to allow states and Congress to cap campaign spending, we're never going to be able to directly get where we need to go. An example is the presidential fund. Guys like Bush and Kerry can raise so much money through their rich cronies that they can opt out of the thing, particularly during primaries. All we can do under our current Constitutional structure, as defined by the Supremes, is have a voluntary buy in to public financing. We need clear Constitutional language to allow Congress and states to restrict spending on campaigns. Then states and Congress could also publically fund the campaigns and not have to lure candidates into the system, but require them to be part of the system.

I know it is said that by limiting campaign spending we limit speech. I understand that. There's some logic there. However, the difficulty is that if one person or business or organization is very well to do that makes him, her or it have a louder voice. They have a bullhorn compared to the can with a string that most of us have. We aren't being heard because they big money is drowning us out.

Congress regularly yacks about flag burning amendments and anti gay marriage amendments, etc., and those and most amendments don't go far, and that's generally a good thing. We don't want to amend our Constitution haphazardly. But when the very core of our government is becoming rotten because of special interest money permeating our electoral system, we are in an emergency situation, one that calls for drastic measures. In such circumstances, a Constitutional amendment is permissable.

We all know something is bad wrong with our governments nationally and at the state and local levels. The money is flowing, the influence is being peddled, and regular, working class people aren't being heard. We have a government that's open to the highest bidder.

So, let's amend the Constitution to allow limits to be placed on campaign spending. Let's make it that to be a viable candidate one needn't be a fundraising mogul. I've read that some suggest that the fact someone is a good fundraiser is a good way to discern their ability to govern. It is funny how we can delude ourselves. The ability to beg for money doesn't demonstrate governmental competence, it just demonstrates naked ambition. We need campaigns based on ideas not on who is the best political whore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We're not the only country in the world that has elections. What's happening elsewhere?
Posted by: Sojourner on Dec 27, 2006 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know the Brits deliberately limit their campaigning season to a few weeks. But partly that's because, in addition to set limited terms when elections must happen, they can have calls for a new government. But how do they finance elections?

And where else? Are we the only ones who have the problem of the corps and lobbyists turning elections into a major industry with their contributions?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clean Elections = People Party Dems & End to Money Party
Posted by: 1Eco. on Dec 27, 2006 9:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clean elections are already slowly building steam on a state by state level. see the current federal action....

http://www.publicampaign.org/federalaction

Note the bill introduced and the house cosponsors

Control is still very much with the Money Party, See...

People Party Vs. Money Party: Sirota

Will the Money Party resist this effort to limit their control?

Does the straight party ticket matter to Voters?

This country needs more campus leaders like the Author.
Those future Local, State, & National leaders will need to connect with the People.
One way to connect is supporting local, state, and fed. clean elections while learning
the real motives behind the Money Party on every level. This nation needs their leadership on every level. If those future leaders then stand with the People, then run for office at each level, this nation may once again stand for the Common Good.

If they Run, early and often, as an advocate of clean elections, while understanding the Money Party Motives, my guess is they come from College, or High School, or Vo Tech, or back from this Contrived Major Conflict, as winners, first on the local level.

It is possible to see voters learning more both online and at the voters box. They may learn even more from these very same future leaders. It is very important to write down your views and experiences. The People will want to hear both.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Campaign Finance Reform
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Dec 27, 2006 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think a good system would be:
(1) The campaign season be limited to 20 weeks.
(2) Congress appropriate an equal campaign fund amount into a campaign account for each each registered voter.
(3) Each voter could then electronically distribute the funds during the campaign to the campaign accounts of each of the candidates he chose to support.
(4) All campaign expenses would be paid from each candidate's campaign account. Payments could only be made from the accounts by checks or a credit card.
(5) Candidate's accounts would be audited one week before the election and if outgo exceeded income the candidate would be disqualified.

I know that there are some loose ends in this proposal but I didn't want to plant a forest that would obscure the trees.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Campaign Finance Reform Posted by: peter1469
» RE: Campaign Finance Reform Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Campaign Finance Reform Posted by: peter1469
PUBLIC FINANCE OF STRUCTURED PUBLIC DEBATES
Posted by: poppop_schell on Dec 27, 2006 10:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I ran for NC Governor in 2000, I proposed campaign reform in NC. It centered around public financing BUT the funds would only be used to sponsor debates where all "viable" candidates are invited. IF a candidate refuses to debate or keep the rules of the debate (i.e.stay on topic, begin calling names, etc), the money would NOT be available to that candidate. News media would be paid to make the debate available to the public in real time, streaming video, reprints, etc. The objective was to get away from sound bites and to serious discussion of issues that random polls indicated were of most interest to the public.

There were a number of important other issues but this gives you some idea. Your response to this?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Worse Idea I Have Ever Heard
Posted by: faultroy on Dec 27, 2006 7:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I really admire the passion of this young writer, she really does not understand human nature.
The fact is that publically funding elections is the worst idea I have ever heard.
We cannot even get our elected officials to stop the overwelming squandering of our money. Remember the row about closing military bases a few years ago. Even when the Pentagon was desperately trying to close military bases, the local citizenry wanted--and fought viciously--to keep them open because they didn't want to loose jobs and tax revenues.
Those politicians fighting to bring home the bacon--or shouild I say Pork--were considered heroes. Every political whore worth his or her salt was fighting to keep the pork at home and using every underhanded and dirty means possible.
The ONLY way to stop this incredible dishonesty and waste is to hold our leaders to the same standards that we hold gang bangers, drug dealers and other various punks in our society--send them to jail for any malfeasance whatsoever.
Recall the case of Washington DC mayor Marion Barry. That low life was on video selling his office, taking bribes and doing cocaine--all felonies. Where is he now? Last I heard he was back in public office.
How about Rush Limbaugh? He's a bigger celebrity today than he was before he was busted for dope. He's still on the air and still making a lot of money.
Let's face it, the electorate gets what it really wants and deserves. When we decide to have the Moral Integrity to Walk the Walk and not just Talk the Talk, our Politicians will follow like little chicks falling behind the Mother Hen.
I'm not willing to pour more money down the rathole of politics hoping that those in charge will do the right thing.
Lets wait until we can take all the questions and confusion out of the ballot box before tackling the thorny question as to who gets all those hundreds of millions in taxpayer financed money.
Experience has taught me the best sounding ideas are the most dangerous--after all what could possibly go wrong???
The obvious answer is Everything. Once this becomes law, it will be impossible to
change. We will spend decades in the courts with an Army of legal Beagles arguing the pros and cons of what Congress did or did not mean.
A very bad idea.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Worse Idea I Have Ever Heard Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Worse Idea I Have Ever Heard Posted by: kackermann
Old veteran
Posted by: jbwestwood on Dec 27, 2006 11:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Author Jenifer James' naivete represents the only force that can bring change to a colossal national sickness. Jaded naysayers or angry impassioned bloggers contribute little of value. Politicians will change only when they fear that electorate disgust is more dangerous than the security of corporate Johns. They need to fear that K Street lobbying firms will not absorb a glut of out-of-work pols. Any public anger that fuels their fear is good. But sadly these are just like previous comments--WORDS, WORDS, WORDS when what is needed is a plan of action--but what action?

My conviction is that only a third party will be able to harness and focus the growing electoral unrest sensed by the author. But 'standing up a viable third party' against the tyranny of the two party system may be even more difficult than standing up a nationally loyal Iraqi army. LaFollett, Perot, and Nader have failed to repeat Teddy Roosevelt's success because entreched power fights to keep things unchanged.

Perhaps the most important change needed to defang our political serpents is the permanent reversal of the fatally flawed and improperly reported 1886 Supreme Court decision that supposedly gave "personhood" to corporations. Such a step coupled with action to produce "clean" elections would go a long way toward restoration of democratic populism. But the fight will be so fierce as to merit Saddam's word as 'the mother of all battles'. Just watch how California goes (fails) in its fight to produce clean elections. You don't topple powerful forces easily--just ask the French Revolutionaries.

The promise is in the altruistic energy of the young!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

but what of our cult-ure?
Posted by: DaBear on Dec 28, 2006 12:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jennifer James has it right. However, publicly financing campaigns merely exposes our cult-ure and our real addiction. Money and the love of it subverts all altruism, self-interest, community interest, democracy and self-community-rule. Our cult-ure in America is no less than a violent obsessed cult of money and the love and lust thereof. Until we kick that habit and recognize our need for deprogramming from that cult, not only will publicly financed campaigns never happen, they would only lose their effectiveness. Of course we could ban all Boomers from participation in government and let the GenX, Y and me'ers run things. XBox 360 and a plasma screen for all!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Take the Money out of Politics and Kick Big Business out of Government!
Posted by: williameon on Dec 28, 2006 8:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why should billionaires be able to buy Politicians?
Why should millionaires and billionaires be able to use their money
To buy position and power?
It is wrong.
We should have a political system that represents all of the diversity of the people.
We need an inclusive system!
What we have now is a divisive one.
The two party system excludes too many differing view points.
All we are left with is two puppets controlled by Corpirate Dirty Money.
We should have a new 2nd house of representatives that truly represents all the different segments of the population:
Such as teachers, police, fireman, homeless, unemployed etc!
Any group of 100,000 should have a representative.
Cooperation and diversity will bring people together for the common good.
When Billionaire CEOs influence our government, media, and way of life with their unbridled power.
We are all in trouble.
Capitalism is a failure.
It fails us all.
Anything that is based on a negative human trait such as
GREED
Must fail.
Is it one for all or
All wealth for one.
We have a two hundred year old system that lays in ruin,
Prostituted to power.
We must take the good, weed out the bad and start over
Build a better more truly compassionate cooperative system.
Health care for all!
A livable wage!
Clean air and pure water!
Solar power!
A more inclusive, sensitive, cooperative, user friendly, system must be our goal.
While the power hungry greedy want to steal all of the recourses and wealth from the population.
Either we do it together (Change for the better) or we will to be used as lubricant for the:
BU$H/CHAINEY
Halliburton/Carlyle
WAR MACHINE!!!
The BU__! SH__! Will never stop till you make it!
Ride the Neo-Cons out on a rail.
Tar and feathers are too good for them.
Who owns this country?
WE DO!!
The people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

are you crazy
Posted by: bobdotj on Dec 31, 2006 2:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
government financed elections so the rethugs can`t steal an election,have you gone out of your mind?instead of representative democracy your going to introduce democracy.the next thing your going to tell me is that we need to disband the electoral college and have a direct election of presidents.please tell me that your not a radical of any persuasion.anyway the financing sounds like progress,but do you think the ethugs will agree to that when they own the country,that is with big business,religion, and the military,gee that sounds like fascism.this really doesn`t amount to a hill of beans,but you are clear,crystal clear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement