COMMENTS: 40
Public Financing of Elections Would Lead Us Out of the Partisan Swamp
January 8, 2008 |
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Advertisement
How wide is that breach? People living in one zip code on the Upper East Side of New York City, where Mayor Bloomberg resides, have contributed more than $10 million in large contributions (more than $200) toward 2008 races, double the $5.2 million donated by people in the entire state of Oklahoma, according to Opensecrets.org.
Big money is driving up the costs of campaigning and preventing candidates who are strong on brains, people skills, independence and vision -- but who don't have access to deep pockets--from running for and winning office. Endless fundraising steals the focus of our leaders, requiring that they spend less time leading the nation to solutions that work for all Americans, regardless of their ability to make a political donation.
Called together by David Boren, the University of Oklahoma president and former senator, the participants in the discussion certainly are no strangers to fundraising and politics. Former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman reportedly repeatedly locked horns with President Bush's campaign contributors when she lobbied for tougher environmental standards. And former Sen. Chuck Robb, D-Va., was outspent $20 million to $7 million in his narrow 2000 election loss to George Allen.
Full public financing of elections would get us out of this swamp. It already has cross-aisle appeal and bipartisan leadership. In March, Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., introduced the Senate version of the Fair Elections Now Act, a policy that has been implemented in seven states and two cities, often under the banner "Clean Elections."
These successful state models can show the way forward. In states as different as Arizona and Maine, candidates who collect a set amount of $5 donations can qualify for public money to run their campaigns. Participating candidates must forgo all private donations and agree to a campaign spending limit. If they face a privately financed opponent, "Fair Fight" funds are available to keep the race on a level playing field. Nine of 11 statewide officeholders in Arizona and eighty percent of state lawmakers in Maine used Clean Elections.
The support transcends party and ideological lines. Business leaders such as Costco CEO Jim Sinegal, and Arnold Hiatt, former CEO of Stride Rite, are joining with the country's largest labor unions to support this policy. Testifying at a Senate hearing last year was former Republican Sen. Warren Rudman of New Hampshire.
American democracy could use a shot in the arm right now. It's time to invite our citizens back into the process on terms that respect our nation's founding promise of political equality.
Nyhart is the president and CEO of Public Campaign, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to reform that aims to dramatically reduce the role of big special interest money in American politics.
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
COMMENTS ( 40 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR
REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
Comments are closed-
Public Financing for Elections a Great Idea ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Jan 8, 2008 1:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: mmckinl on Jan 8, 2008 1:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The biggest obstacle is the Main Stream Media. Every two and four years they collect a bonanza of ad revenue for political ads. They won't want to give that up.
Even though presidential races are largely contested in only a few states, the House and Senate races are big money makers.
Then there is the question of funding. The Public is way behind the curve on this. According to the polls I see they are against tax payer dollars being used for this.
My best funding idea would be to license TV, Radio and cable at a 1% recovery rate on all advertising for use of the public airwaves. TV and Radio gross about 70 billlion a year in advertising. This translates into 700 million a year. How this would be apportioned between states (markets) and races (House, Senate, President)could be worked out.
Just talking about a 1% tax on gross would catch the media's attention. LOL
Even though presidential races are largely contested in only a few states, the House and Senate races are big money makers.
Then there is the question of funding. The Public is way behind the curve on this. According to the polls I see they are against tax payer dollars being used for this.
My best funding idea would be to license TV, Radio and cable at a 1% recovery rate on all advertising for use of the public airwaves. TV and Radio gross about 70 billlion a year in advertising. This translates into 700 million a year. How this would be apportioned between states (markets) and races (House, Senate, President)could be worked out.
Just talking about a 1% tax on gross would catch the media's attention. LOL
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
the only human rights that a corporation is entitled to is the aggregate of the
Posted by: Suzon on Jan 8, 2008 3:47 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Suzon on Jan 8, 2008 3:47 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
rights of the individuals who make up the corporation. A corporation is merely a false front for a group of people who have gathered enough power to demand special rights and privileges, most if not all of which are unwarranted.
William the Conquerer granted the first royal charter of incorporation to the City of London in 1067. Since he invaded England from Normandy in September 1066 and was crowned king at Christmas, it's evident that he would very much need support from as many people as possible. The various trades in London were an obvious place to start.
Corporate donations to political candidates should be totally abolished as an unwarranted privilege which is more un-American than anything McCarthy ever uncovered. Only actual individuals should be able to make donations and those should be limited by law.
Corporate donations are discriminatory and unconstitutional, a violation of Article XIV which states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".
In other words, if a federal law allows corporate contributions, the states must defend the right of their citizens to not be put at a disadvantage.
It seems to be perfectly open to individual states to ban the expenditure of corporate donations inside its borders. Emergency legislation, anyone?
William the Conquerer granted the first royal charter of incorporation to the City of London in 1067. Since he invaded England from Normandy in September 1066 and was crowned king at Christmas, it's evident that he would very much need support from as many people as possible. The various trades in London were an obvious place to start.
Corporate donations to political candidates should be totally abolished as an unwarranted privilege which is more un-American than anything McCarthy ever uncovered. Only actual individuals should be able to make donations and those should be limited by law.
Corporate donations are discriminatory and unconstitutional, a violation of Article XIV which states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".
In other words, if a federal law allows corporate contributions, the states must defend the right of their citizens to not be put at a disadvantage.
It seems to be perfectly open to individual states to ban the expenditure of corporate donations inside its borders. Emergency legislation, anyone?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The Fourteenth Amendment
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: The Fourteenth Amendment
Posted by: EncinoM
» a state that wanted to serve its citizens could legislate against corporate donations
Posted by: Suzon
» Bravo!
Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H
» RE: Bravo!
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Bravo!
Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H
» RE: Bravo!
Posted by: Longdream
» Yes, well said, indeed!
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
Oklahoma gets no say in almost any primary to begin with.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 8, 2008 6:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 8, 2008 6:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even in 2004, it barely got a say when Wes Clark barely won that only state in the primaries only to drop out the next day. In any case, I wouldn't be surprised to see how misrepresented Oklahomans truly feel what with the MISrepresentation of their sellout repuke pols and the sole Blue Dog DUMBOFUCK named Dan Boren who makes Zell Miller look "nice".
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Oklahoma gets no say in almost any primary to begin with.
Posted by: davescott
» RE: Oklahoma gets no say in almost any primary to begin with.
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Big money will always win unless
Posted by: weslen1 on Jan 8, 2008 6:52 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: weslen1 on Jan 8, 2008 6:52 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ever since the Supreme Court, in it's Republican interest, declared that "MONEY" equals "FREE SPEECH", elections have been sold to the highest bidder. That's why we NEED the fairness doctrine brought back and written in such a way as to not be subject to repeal ever again. YES you will have truly outrageous kooks get their say. But as Kucinich, Paul, and all the others who've been kicked out, for all intents and purposes, have said, it's time we took back our airwaves. Media has no right to decide who our leaders should be, but they decide on the basis of how much money candidates have rather than the message they bring. It's time the public takes back the airwaves for the public good and that means the conglomerates give back some of that time to equal time for ALL candidates whether the Murdocks of the world like them or not, whether they've raised $1.00 or a BILLION dollars. Equal time, and no charges for advertisements. Every candidate gets the same number of ads. And one more thing. Every word spoken in a political ad should have to be PROVEN to be TRUE BEFORE it airs or the maker be subject to defamation or slander law suits, regardless whether the defamed or slandered person is a politician or a private citizen.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Big money will always win unless
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Big money will always win unless
Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H
» RE: Big money will always win unless
Posted by: JSquercia
Comments are closed-
Choice Voting Works, Public Financing Barely Works
Posted by: PaulK on Jan 8, 2008 7:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: PaulK on Jan 8, 2008 7:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "Choice" method of proportional representation takes most of the incentive out of buying votes. It turns out that most voters aren't stupid, so only an election rigged to always be 51% to 49% can be easily bought (or stolen) most of the time.
As long as we have 51% elections, parties will keep splitting off chunks of voters until they have a workable chance. Then the elections will always be under tremendous pressure to be bought, by hook or by crook.
Choice voting gets far away from the 51% model. When an infinite amount of money can only buy one seat out of, say, ten seats, there's no financial incentive to buy a minority of any government because there's never any huge government kickback, so the huge money stays away (unless the crooks are trying to overthrow the government, of course).
As long as we have 51% elections, parties will keep splitting off chunks of voters until they have a workable chance. Then the elections will always be under tremendous pressure to be bought, by hook or by crook.
Choice voting gets far away from the 51% model. When an infinite amount of money can only buy one seat out of, say, ten seats, there's no financial incentive to buy a minority of any government because there's never any huge government kickback, so the huge money stays away (unless the crooks are trying to overthrow the government, of course).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The best idea
Posted by: reevolve
» That solves half the problem
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
The best idea
Posted by: reevolve on Jan 8, 2008 7:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: reevolve on Jan 8, 2008 7:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[Sorry for the double-post. I didn't mean to respond to the earlier comment.]
that I've heard is to finance campaigns through "blind trusts" where candidates only see how much money they have, not who gave or how much. I think it may have been Joe Biden who suggested this, but I'm not sure. That way, everyone gets their say and there are no free speech issues, but officials are not beholden to big contributors.
that I've heard is to finance campaigns through "blind trusts" where candidates only see how much money they have, not who gave or how much. I think it may have been Joe Biden who suggested this, but I'm not sure. That way, everyone gets their say and there are no free speech issues, but officials are not beholden to big contributors.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» That solves half the problem
Posted by: PaulC
» RE: The best idea
Posted by: Livemike
Comments are closed-
Dead on arrival.
Posted by: davescott on Jan 8, 2008 8:03 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: davescott on Jan 8, 2008 8:03 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Public financing of elections has tepid voter support from people who see it as a waste of tax money. I don't think you can change that perception.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Dead on arrival.
Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Dead on arrival.
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Dead on arrival.
Posted by: EdinIowa
» I am guessing that President would be DOA
Posted by: PaulC
» RE: Dead on arrival.
Posted by: Longdream
Comments are closed-
One party system
Posted by: billwald on Jan 8, 2008 11:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: billwald on Jan 8, 2008 11:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Public financing would mean zero chance for a minority party and a one party system because the Rs and Ds are owned by the same people.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Public Financing of Elections
Posted by: EdinIowa on Jan 8, 2008 12:13 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: EdinIowa on Jan 8, 2008 12:13 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All of the following comes from John Edward's "The Plan to Build One America" http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/
He is aware of the issues and he goes further than any other front runner in addressing them. In fact he's the only front runner addressing them.
"Everyone knows that special interests – not the American people – have control over Washington. Money from big corporations and lobbyists is corrupting our democracy. We can not go on as two Americas with two political systems, one for the insiders who can buy unlimited access to our leaders, and another for the rest of us."
*Prohibit lobbyists from donating to campaigns or fundraising for them.
*Create a new Grassroots Presidential Financing System to match small donations under $100 by eight to one, making the voice of small donors count.
*Reduce the maximum contribution from $2,300 to $1,000 per person.
*Create a system of full public financing for congressional candidates.
*Require corporations to disclose their political activities and spending.
*Require that all voting machines, including electronic ones, use paper ballots that can be verified by voters, while maintaining language
and disability access.
*Require Election Day Registration in federal elections, fight voter suppression and intimidation.
He is aware of the issues and he goes further than any other front runner in addressing them. In fact he's the only front runner addressing them.
"Everyone knows that special interests – not the American people – have control over Washington. Money from big corporations and lobbyists is corrupting our democracy. We can not go on as two Americas with two political systems, one for the insiders who can buy unlimited access to our leaders, and another for the rest of us."
*Prohibit lobbyists from donating to campaigns or fundraising for them.
*Create a new Grassroots Presidential Financing System to match small donations under $100 by eight to one, making the voice of small donors count.
*Reduce the maximum contribution from $2,300 to $1,000 per person.
*Create a system of full public financing for congressional candidates.
*Require corporations to disclose their political activities and spending.
*Require that all voting machines, including electronic ones, use paper ballots that can be verified by voters, while maintaining language
and disability access.
*Require Election Day Registration in federal elections, fight voter suppression and intimidation.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Public Financing of Elections
Posted by: JSquercia
Comments are closed-
We can no longer afford not to...
Posted by: chuff8 on Jan 8, 2008 5:48 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: chuff8 on Jan 8, 2008 5:48 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would encourage Americans to put as much momentum behind this movement as possible. It may be our only hope of ever getting our country back.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Corporations may also be on the side of public financing
Posted by: alleybear on Jan 9, 2008 1:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: alleybear on Jan 9, 2008 1:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corporations would much rather give the money to their shareholders that they now spend on politics. The only reason they're so heavily into it is to either gain a regulatory/legislative edge on their competition, or to prevent their competition from getting that type of edge on them.
If you follow congressional legislation on a daily basis, you'd find they spend most of their actual working time in fashioning rules and regulations for various industries and technologies. Now for every instance of a rule or regulation being created, there is a group of corporations who will benefit on one side and another group of corporations who will benefit on the other side.
Not only must these corporations pay lobbyists in America, but also in Brussles (for the EU regulatory bodies) and in a couple of other global regulatory sites in the world. This adds up to a substantial sum.
If ALL corporations would be prevented from contributing to political campaigns here, I believe they would breath a collective sigh of relief. (as long as ALL were blocked)
If you follow congressional legislation on a daily basis, you'd find they spend most of their actual working time in fashioning rules and regulations for various industries and technologies. Now for every instance of a rule or regulation being created, there is a group of corporations who will benefit on one side and another group of corporations who will benefit on the other side.
Not only must these corporations pay lobbyists in America, but also in Brussles (for the EU regulatory bodies) and in a couple of other global regulatory sites in the world. This adds up to a substantial sum.
If ALL corporations would be prevented from contributing to political campaigns here, I believe they would breath a collective sigh of relief. (as long as ALL were blocked)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Corporations may also be on the side of public financing
Posted by: Longdream
» I don't believe it is that balanced
Posted by: PaulC
» RE: Corporations may also be on the side of public financing
Posted by: Livemike
Comments are closed-
Public funding not the solution.
Posted by: Livemike on Jan 10, 2008 8:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Livemike on Jan 10, 2008 8:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For a start what right do you have to take someone's money to support a political campaign? It's one thing to take money by force to defend the country, enforce the law, feed the poor or even pay the babysitter, but to spend on political propaganda?
What right have you to say what other people can do with their money, particularly what they can SAY with their money. Already lewrockwell.com has encountered seriously financial problems because they state their opinion of one candidate too much. Is that a good thing to have happen?
In any case the problem isn't donations, it's apathy. Whatever you think of Ron Paul he's putting important ideas out there (many people think they're really out there) and he's got 40% name recognition! That means 60% of you yanks can't even name the most anti-war candidate in a wartime election! Making funding dependent on recognition or initial donation would only make this worse.
As for the idea that money raising distracts politicans from finding solutions, who says they were trying in the first place? Anyone who was paying attention would know that many of the "problems" are irrelevent anyway and most of the rest are made worse not better by their intervention.
What right have you to say what other people can do with their money, particularly what they can SAY with their money. Already lewrockwell.com has encountered seriously financial problems because they state their opinion of one candidate too much. Is that a good thing to have happen?
In any case the problem isn't donations, it's apathy. Whatever you think of Ron Paul he's putting important ideas out there (many people think they're really out there) and he's got 40% name recognition! That means 60% of you yanks can't even name the most anti-war candidate in a wartime election! Making funding dependent on recognition or initial donation would only make this worse.
As for the idea that money raising distracts politicans from finding solutions, who says they were trying in the first place? Anyone who was paying attention would know that many of the "problems" are irrelevent anyway and most of the rest are made worse not better by their intervention.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The government has the right to collect taxes for
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
I'M ABSOLUTELY AMAZED THAT ANYBODY FROM OKLAHOMA
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Jan 12, 2008 9:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Jan 12, 2008 9:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
would propose public financing of elections. Oklahoma has been racing away from its populist origins for a 100 years now. The notion of a level playing field has been anathema to the daily Oklahoman from start to finish. The daily Oklahoman has been a rich man's paper. It's purpose has been to make Oklahoma safe for its wealthy.
We absolutely do need to put an end to the purchase of government by big business and the wealthy. The purchase of privilege has resulted in vast transfers of wealth into the hands of the already wealthy. For the tax payer to foot the bill and put a stop to the outright purchase of politicians would result in a vast saving to the ordinary taxpayer.
For those opposed to spending the taxpayer's dollar for campaign financing James Carville has an interesting idea. He suggests that it be illegal for an incumbent to raise any money. The challenger(or challengers) would have to raise all of the money. That money would then be placed in an escrow and split with the incumbent.
Interestly, the American people forget that the first item of business for the new president Clinton was to offer, as a democrat, an all inclusive campaign finance reform bill to a majority democratic congress. I never did hear a single republican complain when it was unceremoniously located in the round file. If you remember that when Bill ran for his second term there were vast complaints that he used under handed means to finance his campaign. He knew where every loop hole was that he had tried to plug. He promptly proceeded to rub their noses in it.
I do not hold much hope for democracy in the United States unless a comprehensive campaign finance bill is promoted to constitutional status. At least people like Patrick Buchanan admit publically that they don't want democracy. That is why they fight so for the staus quo. They already have what they want.
We absolutely do need to put an end to the purchase of government by big business and the wealthy. The purchase of privilege has resulted in vast transfers of wealth into the hands of the already wealthy. For the tax payer to foot the bill and put a stop to the outright purchase of politicians would result in a vast saving to the ordinary taxpayer.
For those opposed to spending the taxpayer's dollar for campaign financing James Carville has an interesting idea. He suggests that it be illegal for an incumbent to raise any money. The challenger(or challengers) would have to raise all of the money. That money would then be placed in an escrow and split with the incumbent.
Interestly, the American people forget that the first item of business for the new president Clinton was to offer, as a democrat, an all inclusive campaign finance reform bill to a majority democratic congress. I never did hear a single republican complain when it was unceremoniously located in the round file. If you remember that when Bill ran for his second term there were vast complaints that he used under handed means to finance his campaign. He knew where every loop hole was that he had tried to plug. He promptly proceeded to rub their noses in it.
I do not hold much hope for democracy in the United States unless a comprehensive campaign finance bill is promoted to constitutional status. At least people like Patrick Buchanan admit publically that they don't want democracy. That is why they fight so for the staus quo. They already have what they want.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Alternet Comments:
» The Fourteenth Amendment
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: The Fourteenth Amendment
Posted by: EncinoM
» a state that wanted to serve its citizens could legislate against corporate donations
Posted by: Suzon
» Bravo!
Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H
» RE: Bravo!
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Bravo!
Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H
» RE: Bravo!
Posted by: Longdream
» Yes, well said, indeed!
Posted by: PaulC
» RE: Oklahoma gets no say in almost any primary to begin with.
Posted by: davescott
» RE: Oklahoma gets no say in almost any primary to begin with.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Big money will always win unless
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Big money will always win unless
Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H
» RE: Big money will always win unless
Posted by: JSquercia
» The best idea
Posted by: reevolve
» That solves half the problem
Posted by: PaulC
» That solves half the problem
Posted by: PaulC
» RE: The best idea
Posted by: Livemike
» RE: Dead on arrival.
Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Dead on arrival.
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Dead on arrival.
Posted by: EdinIowa
» I am guessing that President would be DOA
Posted by: PaulC
» RE: Dead on arrival.
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Public Financing of Elections
Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Corporations may also be on the side of public financing
Posted by: Longdream
» I don't believe it is that balanced
Posted by: PaulC
» RE: Corporations may also be on the side of public financing
Posted by: Livemike
» The government has the right to collect taxes for
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
Public Financing for Elections a Great Idea ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Jan 8, 2008 1:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: mmckinl on Jan 8, 2008 1:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The biggest obstacle is the Main Stream Media. Every two and four years they collect a bonanza of ad revenue for political ads. They won't want to give that up.
Even though presidential races are largely contested in only a few states, the House and Senate races are big money makers.
Then there is the question of funding. The Public is way behind the curve on this. According to the polls I see they are against tax payer dollars being used for this.
My best funding idea would be to license TV, Radio and cable at a 1% recovery rate on all advertising for use of the public airwaves. TV and Radio gross about 70 billlion a year in advertising. This translates into 700 million a year. How this would be apportioned between states (markets) and races (House, Senate, President)could be worked out.
Just talking about a 1% tax on gross would catch the media's attention. LOL
Even though presidential races are largely contested in only a few states, the House and Senate races are big money makers.
Then there is the question of funding. The Public is way behind the curve on this. According to the polls I see they are against tax payer dollars being used for this.
My best funding idea would be to license TV, Radio and cable at a 1% recovery rate on all advertising for use of the public airwaves. TV and Radio gross about 70 billlion a year in advertising. This translates into 700 million a year. How this would be apportioned between states (markets) and races (House, Senate, President)could be worked out.
Just talking about a 1% tax on gross would catch the media's attention. LOL
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
the only human rights that a corporation is entitled to is the aggregate of the
Posted by: Suzon on Jan 8, 2008 3:47 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Suzon on Jan 8, 2008 3:47 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
rights of the individuals who make up the corporation. A corporation is merely a false front for a group of people who have gathered enough power to demand special rights and privileges, most if not all of which are unwarranted.
William the Conquerer granted the first royal charter of incorporation to the City of London in 1067. Since he invaded England from Normandy in September 1066 and was crowned king at Christmas, it's evident that he would very much need support from as many people as possible. The various trades in London were an obvious place to start.
Corporate donations to political candidates should be totally abolished as an unwarranted privilege which is more un-American than anything McCarthy ever uncovered. Only actual individuals should be able to make donations and those should be limited by law.
Corporate donations are discriminatory and unconstitutional, a violation of Article XIV which states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".
In other words, if a federal law allows corporate contributions, the states must defend the right of their citizens to not be put at a disadvantage.
It seems to be perfectly open to individual states to ban the expenditure of corporate donations inside its borders. Emergency legislation, anyone?
William the Conquerer granted the first royal charter of incorporation to the City of London in 1067. Since he invaded England from Normandy in September 1066 and was crowned king at Christmas, it's evident that he would very much need support from as many people as possible. The various trades in London were an obvious place to start.
Corporate donations to political candidates should be totally abolished as an unwarranted privilege which is more un-American than anything McCarthy ever uncovered. Only actual individuals should be able to make donations and those should be limited by law.
Corporate donations are discriminatory and unconstitutional, a violation of Article XIV which states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".
In other words, if a federal law allows corporate contributions, the states must defend the right of their citizens to not be put at a disadvantage.
It seems to be perfectly open to individual states to ban the expenditure of corporate donations inside its borders. Emergency legislation, anyone?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The Fourteenth Amendment
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: The Fourteenth Amendment
Posted by: EncinoM
» a state that wanted to serve its citizens could legislate against corporate donations
Posted by: Suzon
» Bravo!
Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H
» RE: Bravo!
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Bravo!
Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H
» RE: Bravo!
Posted by: Longdream
» Yes, well said, indeed!
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
Oklahoma gets no say in almost any primary to begin with.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 8, 2008 6:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 8, 2008 6:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even in 2004, it barely got a say when Wes Clark barely won that only state in the primaries only to drop out the next day. In any case, I wouldn't be surprised to see how misrepresented Oklahomans truly feel what with the MISrepresentation of their sellout repuke pols and the sole Blue Dog DUMBOFUCK named Dan Boren who makes Zell Miller look "nice".
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Oklahoma gets no say in almost any primary to begin with.
Posted by: davescott
» RE: Oklahoma gets no say in almost any primary to begin with.
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Big money will always win unless
Posted by: weslen1 on Jan 8, 2008 6:52 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: weslen1 on Jan 8, 2008 6:52 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ever since the Supreme Court, in it's Republican interest, declared that "MONEY" equals "FREE SPEECH", elections have been sold to the highest bidder. That's why we NEED the fairness doctrine brought back and written in such a way as to not be subject to repeal ever again. YES you will have truly outrageous kooks get their say. But as Kucinich, Paul, and all the others who've been kicked out, for all intents and purposes, have said, it's time we took back our airwaves. Media has no right to decide who our leaders should be, but they decide on the basis of how much money candidates have rather than the message they bring. It's time the public takes back the airwaves for the public good and that means the conglomerates give back some of that time to equal time for ALL candidates whether the Murdocks of the world like them or not, whether they've raised $1.00 or a BILLION dollars. Equal time, and no charges for advertisements. Every candidate gets the same number of ads. And one more thing. Every word spoken in a political ad should have to be PROVEN to be TRUE BEFORE it airs or the maker be subject to defamation or slander law suits, regardless whether the defamed or slandered person is a politician or a private citizen.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Big money will always win unless
Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Big money will always win unless
Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H
» RE: Big money will always win unless
Posted by: JSquercia
Comments are closed-
Choice Voting Works, Public Financing Barely Works
Posted by: PaulK on Jan 8, 2008 7:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: PaulK on Jan 8, 2008 7:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "Choice" method of proportional representation takes most of the incentive out of buying votes. It turns out that most voters aren't stupid, so only an election rigged to always be 51% to 49% can be easily bought (or stolen) most of the time.
As long as we have 51% elections, parties will keep splitting off chunks of voters until they have a workable chance. Then the elections will always be under tremendous pressure to be bought, by hook or by crook.
Choice voting gets far away from the 51% model. When an infinite amount of money can only buy one seat out of, say, ten seats, there's no financial incentive to buy a minority of any government because there's never any huge government kickback, so the huge money stays away (unless the crooks are trying to overthrow the government, of course).
As long as we have 51% elections, parties will keep splitting off chunks of voters until they have a workable chance. Then the elections will always be under tremendous pressure to be bought, by hook or by crook.
Choice voting gets far away from the 51% model. When an infinite amount of money can only buy one seat out of, say, ten seats, there's no financial incentive to buy a minority of any government because there's never any huge government kickback, so the huge money stays away (unless the crooks are trying to overthrow the government, of course).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The best idea
Posted by: reevolve
» That solves half the problem
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
The best idea
Posted by: reevolve on Jan 8, 2008 7:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: reevolve on Jan 8, 2008 7:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[Sorry for the double-post. I didn't mean to respond to the earlier comment.]
that I've heard is to finance campaigns through "blind trusts" where candidates only see how much money they have, not who gave or how much. I think it may have been Joe Biden who suggested this, but I'm not sure. That way, everyone gets their say and there are no free speech issues, but officials are not beholden to big contributors.
that I've heard is to finance campaigns through "blind trusts" where candidates only see how much money they have, not who gave or how much. I think it may have been Joe Biden who suggested this, but I'm not sure. That way, everyone gets their say and there are no free speech issues, but officials are not beholden to big contributors.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» That solves half the problem
Posted by: PaulC
» RE: The best idea
Posted by: Livemike
Comments are closed-
Dead on arrival.
Posted by: davescott on Jan 8, 2008 8:03 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: davescott on Jan 8, 2008 8:03 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Public financing of elections has tepid voter support from people who see it as a waste of tax money. I don't think you can change that perception.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Dead on arrival.
Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Dead on arrival.
Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Dead on arrival.
Posted by: EdinIowa
» I am guessing that President would be DOA
Posted by: PaulC
» RE: Dead on arrival.
Posted by: Longdream
Comments are closed-
One party system
Posted by: billwald on Jan 8, 2008 11:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: billwald on Jan 8, 2008 11:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Public financing would mean zero chance for a minority party and a one party system because the Rs and Ds are owned by the same people.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Public Financing of Elections
Posted by: EdinIowa on Jan 8, 2008 12:13 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: EdinIowa on Jan 8, 2008 12:13 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All of the following comes from John Edward's "The Plan to Build One America" http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/
He is aware of the issues and he goes further than any other front runner in addressing them. In fact he's the only front runner addressing them.
"Everyone knows that special interests – not the American people – have control over Washington. Money from big corporations and lobbyists is corrupting our democracy. We can not go on as two Americas with two political systems, one for the insiders who can buy unlimited access to our leaders, and another for the rest of us."
*Prohibit lobbyists from donating to campaigns or fundraising for them.
*Create a new Grassroots Presidential Financing System to match small donations under $100 by eight to one, making the voice of small donors count.
*Reduce the maximum contribution from $2,300 to $1,000 per person.
*Create a system of full public financing for congressional candidates.
*Require corporations to disclose their political activities and spending.
*Require that all voting machines, including electronic ones, use paper ballots that can be verified by voters, while maintaining language
and disability access.
*Require Election Day Registration in federal elections, fight voter suppression and intimidation.
He is aware of the issues and he goes further than any other front runner in addressing them. In fact he's the only front runner addressing them.
"Everyone knows that special interests – not the American people – have control over Washington. Money from big corporations and lobbyists is corrupting our democracy. We can not go on as two Americas with two political systems, one for the insiders who can buy unlimited access to our leaders, and another for the rest of us."
*Prohibit lobbyists from donating to campaigns or fundraising for them.
*Create a new Grassroots Presidential Financing System to match small donations under $100 by eight to one, making the voice of small donors count.
*Reduce the maximum contribution from $2,300 to $1,000 per person.
*Create a system of full public financing for congressional candidates.
*Require corporations to disclose their political activities and spending.
*Require that all voting machines, including electronic ones, use paper ballots that can be verified by voters, while maintaining language
and disability access.
*Require Election Day Registration in federal elections, fight voter suppression and intimidation.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Public Financing of Elections
Posted by: JSquercia
Comments are closed-
We can no longer afford not to...
Posted by: chuff8 on Jan 8, 2008 5:48 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: chuff8 on Jan 8, 2008 5:48 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would encourage Americans to put as much momentum behind this movement as possible. It may be our only hope of ever getting our country back.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Corporations may also be on the side of public financing
Posted by: alleybear on Jan 9, 2008 1:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: alleybear on Jan 9, 2008 1:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corporations would much rather give the money to their shareholders that they now spend on politics. The only reason they're so heavily into it is to either gain a regulatory/legislative edge on their competition, or to prevent their competition from getting that type of edge on them.
If you follow congressional legislation on a daily basis, you'd find they spend most of their actual working time in fashioning rules and regulations for various industries and technologies. Now for every instance of a rule or regulation being created, there is a group of corporations who will benefit on one side and another group of corporations who will benefit on the other side.
Not only must these corporations pay lobbyists in America, but also in Brussles (for the EU regulatory bodies) and in a couple of other global regulatory sites in the world. This adds up to a substantial sum.
If ALL corporations would be prevented from contributing to political campaigns here, I believe they would breath a collective sigh of relief. (as long as ALL were blocked)
If you follow congressional legislation on a daily basis, you'd find they spend most of their actual working time in fashioning rules and regulations for various industries and technologies. Now for every instance of a rule or regulation being created, there is a group of corporations who will benefit on one side and another group of corporations who will benefit on the other side.
Not only must these corporations pay lobbyists in America, but also in Brussles (for the EU regulatory bodies) and in a couple of other global regulatory sites in the world. This adds up to a substantial sum.
If ALL corporations would be prevented from contributing to political campaigns here, I believe they would breath a collective sigh of relief. (as long as ALL were blocked)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Corporations may also be on the side of public financing
Posted by: Longdream
» I don't believe it is that balanced
Posted by: PaulC
» RE: Corporations may also be on the side of public financing
Posted by: Livemike
Comments are closed-
Public funding not the solution.
Posted by: Livemike on Jan 10, 2008 8:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Livemike on Jan 10, 2008 8:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For a start what right do you have to take someone's money to support a political campaign? It's one thing to take money by force to defend the country, enforce the law, feed the poor or even pay the babysitter, but to spend on political propaganda?
What right have you to say what other people can do with their money, particularly what they can SAY with their money. Already lewrockwell.com has encountered seriously financial problems because they state their opinion of one candidate too much. Is that a good thing to have happen?
In any case the problem isn't donations, it's apathy. Whatever you think of Ron Paul he's putting important ideas out there (many people think they're really out there) and he's got 40% name recognition! That means 60% of you yanks can't even name the most anti-war candidate in a wartime election! Making funding dependent on recognition or initial donation would only make this worse.
As for the idea that money raising distracts politicans from finding solutions, who says they were trying in the first place? Anyone who was paying attention would know that many of the "problems" are irrelevent anyway and most of the rest are made worse not better by their intervention.
What right have you to say what other people can do with their money, particularly what they can SAY with their money. Already lewrockwell.com has encountered seriously financial problems because they state their opinion of one candidate too much. Is that a good thing to have happen?
In any case the problem isn't donations, it's apathy. Whatever you think of Ron Paul he's putting important ideas out there (many people think they're really out there) and he's got 40% name recognition! That means 60% of you yanks can't even name the most anti-war candidate in a wartime election! Making funding dependent on recognition or initial donation would only make this worse.
As for the idea that money raising distracts politicans from finding solutions, who says they were trying in the first place? Anyone who was paying attention would know that many of the "problems" are irrelevent anyway and most of the rest are made worse not better by their intervention.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The government has the right to collect taxes for
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
I'M ABSOLUTELY AMAZED THAT ANYBODY FROM OKLAHOMA
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Jan 12, 2008 9:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Jan 12, 2008 9:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
would propose public financing of elections. Oklahoma has been racing away from its populist origins for a 100 years now. The notion of a level playing field has been anathema to the daily Oklahoman from start to finish. The daily Oklahoman has been a rich man's paper. It's purpose has been to make Oklahoma safe for its wealthy.
We absolutely do need to put an end to the purchase of government by big business and the wealthy. The purchase of privilege has resulted in vast transfers of wealth into the hands of the already wealthy. For the tax payer to foot the bill and put a stop to the outright purchase of politicians would result in a vast saving to the ordinary taxpayer.
For those opposed to spending the taxpayer's dollar for campaign financing James Carville has an interesting idea. He suggests that it be illegal for an incumbent to raise any money. The challenger(or challengers) would have to raise all of the money. That money would then be placed in an escrow and split with the incumbent.
Interestly, the American people forget that the first item of business for the new president Clinton was to offer, as a democrat, an all inclusive campaign finance reform bill to a majority democratic congress. I never did hear a single republican complain when it was unceremoniously located in the round file. If you remember that when Bill ran for his second term there were vast complaints that he used under handed means to finance his campaign. He knew where every loop hole was that he had tried to plug. He promptly proceeded to rub their noses in it.
I do not hold much hope for democracy in the United States unless a comprehensive campaign finance bill is promoted to constitutional status. At least people like Patrick Buchanan admit publically that they don't want democracy. That is why they fight so for the staus quo. They already have what they want.
We absolutely do need to put an end to the purchase of government by big business and the wealthy. The purchase of privilege has resulted in vast transfers of wealth into the hands of the already wealthy. For the tax payer to foot the bill and put a stop to the outright purchase of politicians would result in a vast saving to the ordinary taxpayer.
For those opposed to spending the taxpayer's dollar for campaign financing James Carville has an interesting idea. He suggests that it be illegal for an incumbent to raise any money. The challenger(or challengers) would have to raise all of the money. That money would then be placed in an escrow and split with the incumbent.
Interestly, the American people forget that the first item of business for the new president Clinton was to offer, as a democrat, an all inclusive campaign finance reform bill to a majority democratic congress. I never did hear a single republican complain when it was unceremoniously located in the round file. If you remember that when Bill ran for his second term there were vast complaints that he used under handed means to finance his campaign. He knew where every loop hole was that he had tried to plug. He promptly proceeded to rub their noses in it.
I do not hold much hope for democracy in the United States unless a comprehensive campaign finance bill is promoted to constitutional status. At least people like Patrick Buchanan admit publically that they don't want democracy. That is why they fight so for the staus quo. They already have what they want.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
PROGRESSIVE WIRE
Stop the Execution of an Innocent Man!
DNA testing could free Hank Skinner before Feb. 24 execution date.
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped
