The thread on Secession is turning into a tread on money in campaigns, so I thought I would start another thread. One dedicated to the topic of money in today's campaigns.
I will start with this, then see where this might go.
QuoteMy stance on political contributions is as follows:
1. Only American citizens eligible to vote ought be allowed to make political contributions. So that would eliminate, unions, corporations, foreign nationals, special interest groups* and dead people (that's for Cook county).
2. No limits. If a person wants to give their entire fortune to a political candidate, of what business is it of others?
3. No cash and no loans.
4. Full and immediate disclosure. That means within 12 hours of giving the money, the amount, who gave it, to whom it was given and the source of that money should be in the public domain for any and all to see. That also means that even if it just one dollar it must be reported and reported in full. Any contributions that a candidate receives that does not meet these qualifications must be immediately returned and if the money can't be returned it must be turned over to the local, state or federal government, depending on what office the candidate is running for.
That's my idea of campaign finance reform.
*Special Interest groups would include the NRA. They should not be able to give money to any candidate or political party because the NRA has no vote. If the NRA, under my plan, wanted to take a position on an issue, then they would have every right to make their own political ads and air them as they see fit. Just so long as there was no coordination with any party organization or candidate.
The same would hold true for unions. Or churches. Or any organization.
Good idea to start a new thread!
I'll add my post from the other thread.
QuoteEverybody bitches and moans about "Big Business" pouring "Big Money" in the elections, but nobody ever stops to ask, why! Why do business, corporations UNIONS, "environment" groups etc, etc, shovel tons of money into politics?
The answer is simple - Power! The Government has the power to decide which business, corporations and organizations succeed and which business, corporations and organizations fail.
People are naive in the extreme if they believe that the Politicians who exercise the power, will ever allow laws to pass which will make it impossible for them to extort money from Corporations, Business and Organizations over which they have legal authority.
It is, quite simply, a protection racket. The proof of this is that most corporations donate to both political parties in nearly equal amounts. If Democrats are in power, they'll skew their donations towards Democrats. If Republicans are in power, the GOP is likely to get the larger portion of any corporations donations.
IF you think any politician - Democrat or Republican is going to do anything to change this and upset the proverbial apple cart, you are living in a fantasyland!
And I'll just add that giving a government which is already abusing its power, more power so it can solve the problem of the government abusing power is probably not a good idea.
Just sayin'...
Quote from: Darth Fife on November 15, 2012, 01:56:29 PM
...that giving a government which is already abusing its power, more power so it can solve the problem of the government abusing power is probably not a good idea.
Quote of the week.
We should be having publicly funded elections,
This stops the politician campaigning 24/7 for money, and give them time to WORK on fixing the country.
Allowing personal contributions will still let Adelson or Soros put in a hundred million if he want's to.
Publicly funded, gives all candidates the exact same money, same debates, same news coverage.
A level playing field for ALL candidates.
Then it needs to be a shorter election period, start to finish.
Canada does it in 8 weeks, start to finish.
We also need to clean up "truth in advertising".
The fact that you can produce commercials that are complete lies, and air them endlessly, has to be stopped!
We have too many low information voters.
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 15, 2012, 03:01:13 PM
We should be having publicly funded elections,
This stops the politician campaigning 24/7 for money, and give them time to WORK on fixing the country.
Allowing personal contributions will still let Adelson or Soros put in a hundred million if he want's to.
Publicly funded, gives all candidates the exact same money, same debates, same news coverage.
A level playing field for ALL candidates.
Then it needs to be a shorter election period, start to finish.
Canada does it in 8 weeks, start to finish.
We also need to clean up "truth in advertising".
The fact that you can produce commercials that are complete lies, and air them endlessly, has to be stopped!
We have too many low information voters.
So, you want to give the Government bureaucracy, which is run by incumbent politicians to power (via Publicly Funded Elections) to decide who gets to run for office?!
As it stands now, the reelection rate for the House of Represenatatives is north of 80%! For the Senate it is nearly as high, well above 75%!
http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php
(http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php)
You want to make it 100%. :rolleyes:
(Do you honestly think incumbent politicians are going to pass any laws which will adversely affect their ability to stay in office?)
Quote from: Darth Fife on November 16, 2012, 10:26:26 AM
So, you want to give the Government bureaucracy, which is run by incumbent politicians to power (via Publicly Funded Elections) to decide who gets to run for office?!
Well that's an ignorant perspective.
You don't seem to know that people get ON A BALLOT by collecting signatures.
they are not put on the ballot , BY INCUMBENTS.
You don't seem to trust the GOP controlled house, to act in the best interest of the people.
Quote
As it stands now, the reelection rate for the House of Representatives is north of 80%! For the Senate it is nearly as high, well above 75%!
AND why is this?
Because the people in power SUCK up money from lobbyist for the campaign! NEW people don't have the money base to run.
Publicly funded elections would let everyone compete evenly as long as they collect the required signatures.
Quote
You want to make it 100%. :rolleyes:
YOU want to make it FAIR or stay with the "rich get what they want" politics.
Quote(Do you honestly think incumbent politicians are going to pass any laws which will adversely affect their ability to stay in office?)
WE expect them to do what WE the people want.
this thread is assuming from WORD ONE that the politicians are going to DO SOMETHING about the election process.
Assuming they won't is another thread.
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 16, 2012, 11:23:42 AM
Well that's an ignorant perspective.
You don't seem to know that people get ON A BALLOT by collecting signatures.
they are not put on the ballot , BY INCUMBENTS.
Well, that's a particularly naive response.
The incumbent politicians will write the laws for publicly funded elections. If you think they will write those laws in such a way as to decrease their ability to get themselves reelected, you are beyond naive!
QuoteYou don't seem to trust the GOP controlled house, to act in the best interest of the people.
AND why is this?
Whether or not I trust the GOP controlled house (Just for the record, I don't!) is irrelevant. You are probably a product of our glorious public education system and don't realize that for a bill to become law, it has to pass both the House and the Senate and then be signed by the President.
With a razor thin majority in the Senate, it is highly unlikely that Whorehouse Harry Reid would let any bill which might put any more incumbent Democrat seats at risk see the light of day! Even if he did, Obama would never sign such legislation.
QuoteBecause the people in power SUCK up money from lobbyist for the campaign! NEW people don't have the money base to run.
Lobbyists need experience and connections to get the results they want. An incumbent politician has them, newbies don't. Publicly funded elections won't change that!
QuotePublicly funded elections would let everyone compete evenly as long as they collect the required signatures.
YOU want to make it FAIR or stay with the "rich get what they want" politics.
WE expect them to do what WE the people want.
Expecting Public Funding of Elections to cure the ills of the electoral system is kind of like expecting a football team that is winning at half time to get together with the game officials during the half time break and rewrite the rules to give the loosing team a better chance to win.
Nice idea, but, here in the real world, it ain't gonna happen!
I don't want public money for elections, but I do want the money factor out of elections. I think we need to establish a salary cap for elections like they have in sports leagues like the NFL. We set the election donation cap at X million dollars, and that is all the candidates can spend, the same thing can be done with Super PACs. It's nearly impossible to get elected to federal office in this country unless you are already rich or have a bunch of rich friends to support you.
Quote from: valjean on November 16, 2012, 09:49:59 PM
I don't want public money for elections, but I do want the money factor out of elections. I think we need to establish a salary cap for elections like they have in sports leagues like the NFL. We set the election donation cap at X million dollars, and that is all the candidates can spend, the same thing can be done with Super PACs. It's nearly impossible to get elected to federal office in this country unless you are already rich or have a bunch of rich friends to support you.
I believe this is a good Idea yet the NFL system is a "bit" socialist:) JMO
Quote from: RevStan on November 16, 2012, 09:53:21 PM
I believe this is a good Idea yet the NFL system is a "bit" socialist:) JMO
It is very socialist within the league competitively! But I think it's very capitalist in terms of the NFL as a whole; the salary cap creates parity among teams, teams can go from horrible to the Superbowl in one year's time, this is very good for the league. In my view, it ensures lively fan bases which means more ticket sales, more jersey sales, more TV deals, more money to be made all around by all of the owners.
I just think that elections have become monopolized by those who happen to have money. I'm not anti rich people, most of our founders were wealthy, but the difference is that they were in public service for a good reason, to actually spread good ideas. Today, the wealthy get into politics to stroke their own egos and pad their resumés, I doubt any of them actually believe in core principles, they just want to be liked, held in high esteem, love being on a power trip.
Quote from: valjean on November 16, 2012, 10:02:41 PM
It is very socialist within the league competitively! But I think it's very capitalist in terms of the NFL as a whole; the salary cap creates parity among teams, teams can go from horrible to the Superbowl in one year's time, this is very good for the league. In my view, it ensures lively fan bases which means more ticket sales, more jersey sales, more TV deals, more money to be made all around by all of the owners.
I just think that elections have become monopolized by those who happen to have money. I'm not anti rich people, most of our founders were wealthy, but the difference is that they were in public service for a good reason, to actually spread good ideas. Today, the wealthy get into politics to stroke their own egos and pad their resumés, I doubt any of them actually believe in core principles, they just want to be liked, held in high esteem, love being on a power trip.
Are you saying Socialism and capitolism can live hand in hand?
Quote from: valjean on November 16, 2012, 09:49:59 PM
I don't want public money for elections, but I do want the money factor out of elections. I think we need to establish a salary cap for elections like they have in sports leagues like the NFL. We set the election donation cap at X million dollars, and that is all the candidates can spend, the same thing can be done with Super PACs. It's nearly impossible to get elected to federal office in this country unless you are already rich or have a bunch of rich friends to support you.
Don't be afraid to say
"publicly funded elections"
No rational person will call you a socialist.
It's The same as your salary cap idea.
Everyone gets the same money. Everyone gets the same access to the public air waves.
Elections should be about the ISSUES and NOT the Hype and LIES.
Publicly funded elections is the only way ANYONE can run for office, not just the ones with billionaire backers.
That is how we get the people in office who CARE and are not going to congress to become millionaires.
To pretend that the massive amount of money was not influential in the last elections, means you guys have your heads way deeper in the sand than previously thought!
The "election machine" had you guys thinking you had it in the back, right up till midnight.
It was all about the money, the advertising, endless punditry for ratings and revenue.
It's got to stop.
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 16, 2012, 10:39:12 PM
Don't be afraid to say
"publicly funded elections"
No rational person will call you a socialist.
It's The same as your salary cap idea.
Everyone gets the same money. Everyone gets the same access to the public air waves.
Elections should be about the ISSUES and NOT the Hype and LIES.
Publicly funded elections is the only way ANYONE can run for office, not just the ones with billionaire backers.
That is how we get the people in office who CARE and are not going to congress to become millionaires.
To pretend that the massive amount of money was not influential in the last elections, means you guys have your heads way deeper in the sand than previously thought!
The "election machine" had you guys thinking you had it in the back, right up till midnight.
It was all about the money, the advertising, endless punditry for ratings and revenue.
It's got to stop.
Hard to disagree with your logic, run for senate:0
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 16, 2012, 10:39:12 PM
Don't be afraid to say
"publicly funded elections"
No rational person will call you a socialist.
It's The same as your salary cap idea.
Everyone gets the same money. Everyone gets the same access to the public air waves.
Elections should be about the ISSUES and NOT the Hype and LIES.
Publicly funded elections is the only way ANYONE can run for office, not just the ones with billionaire backers.
That is how we get the people in office who CARE and are not going to congress to become millionaires.
To pretend that the massive amount of money was not influential in the last elections, means you guys have your heads way deeper in the sand than previously thought!
The "election machine" had you guys thinking you had it in the back, right up till midnight.
It was all about the money, the advertising, endless punditry for ratings and revenue.
It's got to stop.
Well I don't want to force the people to pay for the campaigns of politicians they may disagree with through their taxes, I prefer simply putting a limit on what they can take in on their own efforts. Otherwise, candidates who have no chance of winning would be getting access to public money, what is there to stop stunt candidates from coming out en masse to receive public money for a campaign that will go nowhere?
Quote from: valjean on November 16, 2012, 09:49:59 PM
I don't want public money for elections, but I do want the money factor out of elections. I think we need to establish a salary cap for elections like they have in sports leagues like the NFL. We set the election donation cap at X million dollars, and that is all the candidates can spend, the same thing can be done with Super PACs. It's nearly impossible to get elected to federal office in this country unless you are already rich or have a bunch of rich friends to support you.
And we would be bombarded by ads from people whom support them.
Lets say we cap it across the board, limit them equally in spending, limit how much they can take in.
Keep in mind we have a 1st Amendment, what is to stop these same backers from running ads, putting up bill boards, mailers, radio time etc?
Point is, there is no way to stop it unless we force disclosure, every ad they run should contain the top 20 donors like the warning label on a pack of cigarettes.
Make certain the people know who is pulling the strings.
Quote from: valjean on November 16, 2012, 11:15:56 PM
Well I don't want to force the people to pay for the campaigns of politicians they may disagree with through their taxes, I prefer simply putting a limit on what they can take in on their own efforts. Otherwise, candidates who have no chance of winning would be getting access to public money, what is there to stop stunt candidates from coming out en masse to receive public money for a campaign that will go nowhere?
Remember the Grey Davis recall election in California? Every idiot and his brother got on the ballot - including the idiot that won.
Here is something to consider too...
We've all seen how Democrats and Unions have no problem with bribing people to vote for them - giving them a few bucks, putting them on a bus and driving them across state lines to vote, as long as they vote Democrat.
With the only requirement for "Public Campaign Funding" being getting enough signatures to get onto the ballot, what's to keep a political party from spreading a little "walking around money" out to the masses to get them to sign the petition?
Or worse, what is to keep, let's say the Democrats for example, from financially supporting (under the table, of course) candidates with similar views to their primary rivals - say the Republicans. Now, these losers are on the ballot and get equal funding from to that of the Republicans.
Democrats win!
Of course, it could work the other way too, but the Republicans are too stupid to think of something like that!
As it stands now there are only minor differences between the Democrats and the Republicans - the Democrats want to drive us off the Fiscal Cliff going 100 mph, the Republicans want to do it doing only 75 mph!
Publicly funded elections will ensure that whatever difference remain between the two major parties evaporates.
Quote from: Darth Fife on November 17, 2012, 01:23:45 PM
We've all seen how Democrats and Unions have no problem with bribing people to vote for them - giving them a few bucks, putting them on a bus and driving them across state lines to vote, as long as they vote Democrat.
NO WE HAVEN'T.
So, you have FIRST hand Knowledge of this?
AND didn't call the election officials? and got them arrested!
NO, huh?
You do know there is a Dem and a GOP representative at EVERY,polling station, right?
So this is hearsay at best. A right wingnut fairy tale, more than likely!
QuoteWe've all seen how Democrats and Unions have no problem with bribing people to vote for them - giving them a few bucks, putting them on a bus and driving them across state lines to vote, as long as they vote Democrat.
I thought we were having a discussion based in reality.
You cons need to stop clinging to this fantasy that the elections were stolen because YOU lost.
You didn't even get close.
Bus loads of union members going between states, "for a few bucks" to commit felonies (possible 10 years), in a voting territory that they would have to be registered in,
AND be able to fake the signature on file, with the knowledge that everyone is "On Alert" for voter fraud?
You guys drink THAT much koolaide, to believe this crap?
why are there never any stories about this in the MSM.
Just Rush and Beck and other wingnuts tell these tales yet strangely never an arrest or investigation.
Not so much as one story about BUS LOADS of people voting in different states.
listen to this lunacy. time to get a grip guys
Quotebut the Republicans are too stupid to think
Based on the rest of your post, I think you have this part right.
Quote from: valjean on November 16, 2012, 11:15:56 PM
Well I don't want to force the people to pay for the campaigns of politicians they may disagree with through their taxes, I prefer simply putting a limit on what they can take in on their own efforts. Otherwise, candidates who have no chance of winning would be getting access to public money, what is there to stop stunt candidates from coming out en masse to receive public money for a campaign that will go nowhere?
Everyone putting 2 dollars in the kitty would provide hundreds of millions to pay for the PUBLICLY Funded elections.
No one would be "funding" a politician they disagreed with or supported.
You guys keep dnacing around the "election funding" issue, afraid to get labeled "socialist" by the conservative hardliners, but in reality the obvious answer IS publicly Funded, with a level playing field for everyone.
NOT just anyone will run, as some has said, if you need 20,000 signatures, to run for mayor,
that would take a serious commitment, especially if you couldn't just throw money at the signature process.
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 17, 2012, 08:57:32 PM
NO WE HAVEN'T.
So, you have FIRST hand Knowledge of this?
AND didn't call the election officials? and got them arrested!
NO, huh?
You do know there is a Dem and a GOP representative at EVERY,polling station, right?
So this is hearsay at best. A right wingnut fairy tale, more than likely!
I thought we were having a discussion based in reality.
You cons need to stop clinging to this fantasy that the elections were stolen because YOU lost.
You didn't even get close.
Bus loads of union members going between states, "for a few bucks" to commit felonies (possible 10 years), in a voting territory that they would have to be registered in,
AND be able to fake the signature on file, with the knowledge that everyone is "On Alert" for voter fraud?
You guys drink THAT much koolaide, to believe this crap?
why are there never any stories about this in the MSM.
Just Rush and Beck and other wingnuts tell these tales yet strangely never an arrest or investigation.
Not so much as one story about BUS LOADS of people voting in different states.
listen to this lunacy. time to get a grip guys
Based on the rest of your post, I think you have this part right.
You are going under the assumption that Democrats respect the Rule of Law, they don't!
As for your "felonies" Here is a Class C felony in broad daylight which the so-called Justice Department REFUSED TO PROSECUTE!
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa57.foxnews.com%2Fglobal.fncstatic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmanaged%2Fimg%2FPolitics%2F660%2F371%2Fbp_philly.jpg&hash=526623911ebf0feccb6be0572177408ade87573f)
Don't tell me Democrats don't practice voter fraud! It is their bread and butter.
Or do you think it is just a coincidence that
there hasn't been a Republican Mayor in Chicago in over 80 FUCKING YEARS!No voter fraud my ass!
Quote from: Darth Fife on November 17, 2012, 10:52:10 PM
You are going under the assumption that Democrats respect the Rule of Law, they don't!
As for your "felonies" Here is a Class C felony in broad daylight which the so-called Justice Department REFUSED TO PROSECUTE!
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa57.foxnews.com%2Fglobal.fncstatic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmanaged%2Fimg%2FPolitics%2F660%2F371%2Fbp_philly.jpg&hash=526623911ebf0feccb6be0572177408ade87573f)
Don't tell me Democrats don't practice voter fraud! It is their bread and butter.
Or do you think it is just a coincidence that there hasn't been a Republican Mayor in Chicago in over 80 FUCKING YEARS!
No voter fraud my ass!
No voter fraud? What exactly was the basis of all those big city political machines that the Democrats used to run?
I haven't seen a link to any REAL news story about any arrest or prosecution for voter fraud,
yet you guys go ON and ON about how MUCH of it there was.
Is this like believing in GOD?
You have to have faith.
Faith that voter fraud happens even though you have no proof of it.
Just like faith in Romney winning in a Landslide!
That was misplaced faith, huh?
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 19, 2012, 07:27:11 PM
I haven't seen a link to any REAL news story about any arrest or prosecution for voter fraud,
yet you guys go ON and ON about how MUCH of it there was.
And you know what, after 1933 and until 1945, in the German press you wouldn't have seen one "Real" news story about any arrest or prosecution for Jews being harassed, beaten or killed.
So, I guess
that didn't happen either... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Darth Fife on November 23, 2012, 11:57:14 PM
And you know what, after 1933 and until 1945, in the German press you wouldn't have seen one "Real" news story about any arrest or prosecution for Jews being harassed, beaten or killed.
So, I guess that didn't happen either... :rolleyes:
OUCH!!!
Painfully excellent comparison.